Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Here will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף ל"ד. We will start eight lines from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא says, "רבי עקיבא איקלע לגינזק," Rabbi Akiva happened to be in Ginzak. Or, as רש"י has the גירסא in גמרא תענית that it wasn't רבי עקיבא, but it was מר עוקבא. And there are two reasons given why we should change the גירסא from רבי עקיבא to מר עוקבא. Because as we'll see in the גמרא, that he didn't know the answer to three questions they asked him. So, it couldn't be רבי עקיבא because חס ושלום that רבי עקיבא shouldn't know the answer to these questions. And also, if it was רבי עקיבא who was a תנא, then the גמרא should have brought it in a form of a ברייתא. The גמרא should have started, "תניא" or "תנו רבנן" or something like that, but not just start by telling a story. Usually, that is done when the story is concerning an אמורא. But תוספות says the second ראיה is not really a ראיה because it happens sometimes in the גמרא that we find a story concerning רבי עקיבא and it doesn't start with a ברייתא לשון, for instance, תניא or תנו רבנן. So, here too, it could be רבי עקיבא for that reason. But nevertheless, there is the גירסא that this was מר עוקבא, not רבי עקיבא. That he happened to be in Ginzak, "בעו מיניה," they asked from him, "מתענין לשעות או אין מתענין לשעות?"

Can a person have a fast for hours, or can you not fast for hours? Which means as רש"י says that if a person accepted upon himself to fast part of the day, for instance, he accepted upon himself to fast משש שעות ולמעלה, from six hours and on. From the middle of the day and on, he will fast. And in the beginning of the day, he happened not to eat, but that wasn't part of his fast because he didn't accept upon himself to fast those hours, but he happened not to eat in the beginning of the day either, and then he continued from six hours and on to fast, is this considered a fast or not? And the main שאלה would be concerning the תפילה. Can he say the תפילה of עננו in מנחה or not? We know that when a person fasts, he says עננו in מנחה. So, the question is, is this considered a fast that he should be able to say עננו in מנחה or not? And תוספות adds that we must say that we're talking here in a case that he accepted it upon himself to fast these hours the day before, because if he would not have accepted upon himself the day before, then the גמרא says in תענית that, "כל תענית שלא קיבל עליו מבעוד יום, לא שמיה תענית." Any fast that he didn't accept upon himself to fast in the day before, then the fast is not considered a fast. So, here that the גמרא has a question whether this is considered a fast or not, obviously we must say that he accepted upon himself the day before that he will fast the next day these hours. And the question is, is that still considered a fast that he should be able to say עננו or not? And תוספות says that we cannot say that when the גמרא says that if a person doesn't accept upon himself the day before that he will fast, it's not considered a fast, that is only concerning עננו. But concerning the ענין of a fast itself, maybe even if he didn't accept upon himself the day before, it's still considered a fast. So, תוספות says you can't say that because we see in our גמרא here that the two go together. That saying עננו goes together with whether it is a fast or not. If it is considered a fast, you could say עננו, and if you cannot say עננו, then it's not considered a fast either. So, therefore, we must say here that he did accept upon himself the day before that he will fast the next day these hours, and the question of the גמרא is, is it considered a fast or not? That is one פשט תוספות said. Another פשט תוספות says we could say, maybe, that could be, טאקע, he did not accept upon himself the day before that he will fast. But still, it is considered a fast. I,

when שמואל says that if you don't accept upon yourself לכתחילה it is not a fast, that is only לכתחילה, but בדיעבד, if you do fast without accepting the day before, it is still considered a fast. I, שמואל said in מסכת תענית that if you do fast without accepting the day before, it is nothing, he doesn't mean it's nothing, he means you don't get the שכר תענית, you don't get the reward of a fasting. Plus, he is called a חוטא. He's called a person who sinned because he was מצער himself for no reason. Nevertheless, it is still a נדר. Because he now accepted upon himself to fast, so he has to fulfill his נדר and has to fast. So, could be when the גמרא has a שאלה here whether it is considered a תענית if he fasts hours, could be, טאקע, that he didn't accept upon himself, and nevertheless, the גמרא has a שאלה whether it is considered a תענית or not. But then תוספות says that in ירושלמי of נדרים פרק כהנים, we find that the פשט in מתענין לשעות is different. Not like רש"י said here, that the גמרא means that he didn't eat the beginning of the day, but not לשם תענית. It wasn't for the sake of a fast. While the other half a day, that's when he intended to fast, and that is the גמרא שאלה whether this is considered a fast or not, but one thing is for sure according to this פשט, that he has to fast a full day. But if he eats in the beginning of the day, then the other part of the day is definitely not considered a תענית. But in ירושלמי it says a different פשט, that even if a person ate the first half of the day, he could still decide later that he's going to fast the other half of the day till the night, and this is considered a תענית. Because the ירושלמי says that from the words of רבי יוחנן we're able to learn out this דין that מתענין לשעות, that you do fast for hours. Because רבי יוחנן said, if somebody says, "I will fast till I finish my פרק," or "till I finish the פרשה," that is considered a fast. And also we know that in the ירושלמי it says from the words of רבי יונה, because רבי יונה was once in צור, and he said that even though he ate before and he drank before, nevertheless, "I will fast from now on." So we see here that the ירושלמי considers מתענין לשעות even if he ate before or he's going to eat later on. So we see that this is the פשט according to the ירושלמי in מתענין לשעות. אי, the גמרא says in the first פרק of תענית, when it says there, "כל תענית שלא שקעה עליו חמה לאו שמיה תענית," that any fast day that the sun didn't set on the fast, which means he didn't continue to fast till the end of the day, till sunset, it is not considered a fast, and it asks a שאלה there that this contradicts what רבי יוחנן said, that a person is able to say, "I will fast till I get home." So how can we say that you must fast till the end of the day? And the גמרא doesn't answer that this is מתענין לשעות, that maybe when רבי יוחנן says that he could fast till he comes home, that is only if it's a תענית שעות. And when it says there that the only time it's a fast day if it goes till the end, that is a regular fast, a fast of a full day. And since the גמרא doesn't answer that, לכאורה it's משמע that you must fast a full day, like רש״י says here, that the only פשט in תענית לשעות is that you don't eat a full day, the only thing is part of it you intended to fast, but not that if you eat part of the day it still can be considered a תענית. Because if that would be true, then the גמרא could have answered very easily that רבי יוחנן was talking in the case of תענית שעות. So תוספות says that it's no ראיה, because the גמרא there answers a better תירוץ anyway. But in continuation to this, תוספות says that since we just quoted the גמרא where it says that any fast day that you don't continue till the שקיעה, till sunset, is not a fast day, it's משמע that you don't have to fast further than the שקיעה, that if you could go up to the שקיעה it's enough. So how come our מנהג is that we fast till צאת הכוכבים, we fast till the stars come out, which is quite a while after the time of sunset? So תוספות says, first of all we don't want to get into ספיקות, we don't want to go into doubts, because after all after the שקיעה it is not clear exactly whether it is considered night or not, so we don't want to put ourselves into a ספק, that's why we don't do it. And another thing, because how do we know that when the גמרא says there that you have to wait for שקעה חמה, till the sun set, that it means what we call sunset? Maybe it means the end of sunset, which means when it finished completely, that not when it started setting, but when the sun set completely, which is the time when the stars come out. Then תוספות says that if somebody fasts Friday, even though the גמרא פסקנ'ס in עירובין that הלכה מתענה ומשלים, that you fast and you finish the whole fast day, here you don't have to be מדקדק, תוספות says, to wait ממש till צאת הכוכבים, here it could be a little bit earlier. And תוספות says there was a story that somebody came to the רבינו תם, that he fasted a lot, but he didn't accept upon himself the fast days from before, but the רבינו תם said that he didn't spoil his תעניתים, because since before generally he had in mind to fast many תעניתים, so it is considered that he did make up his mind in the day before to fast. And this is included in the פסוק "נדיב לב", that the גמרא says that you have to make up your mind, and even if you don't say it with your mouth, as long as you made up your mind before to fast, it is considered a fast. So therefore here, too, even though he didn't say the night before that he's going to fast the next day, but since generally he knew beforehand that he is going to fast many תעניתים, so then all the תעניתים are considered תעניתים. And when שמואל and רבי יוחנן say that you must accept upon yourself the day before, that is only לכתחילה, but בדיעבד it is good enough even if you didn't. And also did the רבינו תם say, תוספות says, that even if he didn't make up his mind till the night, still he could fast the next day, and he could say עננו in שמונה עשרה, and he's יוצא his נדר as if he was מקבל the day before. In other words, normally the דין is that you have to accept upon yourself the day before, before sunset, before it gets night, but the רבינו תם said בדיעבד if you didn't, but he did accept upon himself at night, before the next morning, it is okay, and it is considered that he fulfilled his נדר. But the רבינו תם didn't have a clear ראיה for this. Nevertheless he himself said that מצוה מן המובחר, the better way to do it is to be מקבל upon yourself the day before at the time of מנחה. And the ר"י, תוספות says, used to have the custom that when he wants to fast on Sunday, he would accept upon himself the תענית on שבת by מנחה, by the תפלה of אלקי נצור in שמונה עשרה. Now let's go back to the גמרא. But the first question that they asked דבי עקיבא or מר עוקבא was: is a תענית שעות continue considered a תענית? According to רש"י, as we said before, it would mean that if he didn't eat the first part of the day, and then the second part of the day he intended it to fast, is it considered a תענית or not? And according to the ירושלמי it would mean בכלל can a person fast part of the day, even if he ate before or if he's going to eat later, but a few hours of the day he intends to have as a תענית, is that considered a תענית or not? לא הוה בידיה, he didn't have what to answer. Then they asked him another question: קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים, אסורים או מותרים, the jars of גוים, is it אסור, is it מותר? In other words, do you have to kasher it or not? לא הוה בידיה, he didn't have the answer to it. Then they asked him a third question: במה שימש משה כל שבעת ימי המלואים, with what did משה serve in the משכן all the seven days of מלואים? We know that when השם told משה to put up the משכן, so first there were seven days called שבעת ימי המלואים, the seven days of dedication, that there were special קרבנות that they had to bring during those days, and משה רבינו was the כהן. אהרן and his children, they were considered the בעלים, they were considered the owners of the קרבנות because they were the ones that were being dedicated, and משה רבינו was the כהן. And then on the eighth day that's when they put up the משכן permanently, it stood till they had to travel. But the seven days before it was put up every day and taken down every night. So the גמרא's question is: what בגדים, what garments did משה רבינו wear during those seven days when he acted as the כהן? And the reason they asked him the question, and they were so sure that he didn't use the regular בגדי כהונה, that he didn't use the regular garments that a כהן גדול has to use, because רש"י says that concerning the בגדי כהונה the פסוק says ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך, that you should make holy garments for your brother אהרן. So the פסוק tells us that it's only made for אהרן, which means for the כהנים, but not for anybody else. And משה was considered a זר, a stranger concerning these בגדים, because משה רבינו wasn't a כהן, so therefore he couldn't wear the בגדים. איי, if he couldn't wear the בגדים because he wasn't a כהן, why was he able to act as a כהן doing the עבודה, serving in the משכן? That was על פי הדיבור, because השם at that time said that he should be the כהן. But השם didn't say he should wear the בגדים. So as long as השם didn't say specifically he should wear the בגדים, so the איסור of wearing the בגדים by a stranger applied to משה רבינו also. So he definitely did the עבודה, but didn't wear the בגדים. So the question they asked him was: what בגדים did he wear? לא הוה בידיה, he didn't have an answer to this question either. אתא, he went, שאל בי מדרשא, he asked these questions in the בית המדרש. אמרו, and they said to him like this: הלכתא, the הלכה is, מתענין לשעות, that you could fast for hours, which means that if you accept upon yourself just to fast for hours, it is considered a fast. ואם השלים, מתפלל תפלת תענית, and if he finished that fast, if he fulfilled his נדר of fasting for hours, he could daven the תפלת תענית, which means he could say עננו in שמונה עשרה. הלכתא, the הלכה is also, קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים, that the jars of גוים, לאחר י"ב חדש מותרים, that after twelve month it's מותר, that if they last for twelve months without being used, then you could use them right away, and you don't have to kasher them. When we said in the גמרא earlier that you have to kasher it by putting it into water for three מעת לעת, for three days, emptying the water every twenty-four hours, this was only if you don't want to wait the twelve months. But if you want to wait the twelve months, then right after the twelve months you could use it without kashering it. And concerning the third question, במה שימש משה שבעת ימי המלואים, with which garments did משה serve in the משכן during the seven days of מלואים? The answer is: בחלוק לבן, in a white shirt. רב כהנא מתני, רב כהנא learns: בחלוק לבן שאין בו אימרא, in a white shirt that had no border, had no collar. And the reason why he had to have it without a collar, so רש"י says that some say because they shouldn't suspect him that he hid something under the collar to steal it. Because when they worked in the משכן, to make the משכן and everybody brought their donations, so משה רבינו to make sure that no one suspected him that he stole any of the gold or silver, etc., so his בגד had no collar, so he had no place to hide it, so no one would suspect him that he stole it. But רש"י says this could not be the real פשט, Because in the שבעת ימי המילואים, it was already after the עבודה, the מלאכה in the משכן was finished, which means that they already had made the whole משכן. So there was nothing to suspect him of. So can't be that this is the reason why he had to wear this shirt without a collar. But תוספות gives another reason, that the דין by בגדי כהונה is that it has to be a בגד that a הדיוט didn't use. It has to be a garment that is made special for a כהן, and it should not be have you have been used before that by an ordinary person. So when משה רבינו wore this shirt, people might have thought that this was a shirt used before by an ordinary person. So when it didn't have a collar, it looked new, so people understood that this was made special for this, and it wasn't used before by a זר, by an ordinary person. But then תוספות says that רבינו משה has the פשט, that later on when אהרן took over and אהרן became the כהן, people shouldn't say that the reason why אהרן took over from משה because they found a מום in משה, that משה got a blemish and therefore he couldn't continue being the כהן גדול. So therefore they made it without a collar, so everyone should know לכתחילה that it was made temporary, that the reason he was a כהן גדול before was only a temporary thing, so they shouldn't say that originally he was supposed to be a כהן גדול the whole time, and then it was changed, that it was taken away from him because he had a מום. So לכתחילה they made a בגד which looks temporary so they should know that it was a temporary thing too, לכתחילה. But תוספות asks the question, why did the גמרא לכתחילה only ask concerning the seven days of מילואים? In the גמרא in זבחים, פרק טבול יום, we find a מחלוקת whether משה רבינו was a כהן גדול for all 40 years. There is an opinion that he was a כהן גדול only for the שבעת ימי המילואים, but then there is an opinion that he was a כהן גדול all 40 years. Now according to the מאן דאמר that he was a כהן גדול all 40 years in the desert, the גמרא should have asked not what garments משה used during the שבעת ימי המילואים, but it should have asked which garments did משה use during all 40 years. But the פשט, the תירוץ will be, that during all 40 years משה used the regular בגדים of a כהן גדול, the regular eight בגדים that the כהן גדול has to use, and as the לשון in the גמרא in זבחים is משמע, because the לשון there is that משה שימש בכהונה גדולה מ' שנה, that משה served as a כהן גדול during the 40 years. Now since he served as a כהן גדול, so he probably wore the same בגדים as a כהן גדול. Now if so, that during those 40 years according to this opinion he wore the regular בגדי כהונה, so why does the גמרא ask what kind of בגדים he wore during these seven days? Why couldn't he wear the same בגדי כהונה during these seven days? And תוספות' answer is not like רש"י who said that the reason the גמרא feel that he didn't wear the בגדי כהונה during the seven days was because the פסוק says you should make him בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך, only for אהרן, not to משה. But if משה was a כהן גדול during these seven days, he could have worn the בגדי כהונה during these seven days, because he would not be considered a זר, a stranger לגבי the בגדי כהונה. So why does the גמרא feel that he did not wear the בגדי כהונה during the seven days? And he must have worn other בגדים, and that's why the גמרא asks what he wore? So תוספות says, because during those seven days the בגדי כהונה weren't נתקדש yet. For the פסוק says והזית על אהרן ועל בגדיו, that they had to spray on אהרן and on his בגדים, so the way the בגדים became קדוש was through the spraying, and this was done later. So during the seven days the בגדים, the eight בגדים of a כהן גדול, didn't have the קדושה yet, so we know for sure משה couldn't wear them and use them as the בגדי כהונה. And that's why the גמרא asks which בגדים did משה use during those seven days? But then תוספות says that רבינו יעקב מאורליינ"ש explained that even if they would have been נתקדש, still during these seven days משה couldn't have used it. Why? Because during these seven days the משכן was only put up temporarily. They would put it up every day and take it apart in the evening. So really this not this did not have a דין of a משכן, it only had a דין of a במה. A במה is a private מזבח that a person is able to make. So since it did not have a דין of a משכן, but of a במה, the כלל is אין בגדי כהונה בבמה. When a person brings a קרבן on a במה, you don't wear the בגדי כהונה, as it says in the second פרק of זבחים. So therefore we know for sure he didn't wear the בגדי כהונה, but the question was what did he wear? But the question is only concerning these seven days, because later on the משכן had a דין of a משכן, so there they had to wear בגדי כהונה, so definitely משה רבינו

wore the בגדי כהונה. The question is only these seven days, when you don't wear the בגדי כהונה, because it was a במה, what did משה wear? But then תוספות asks, how can we say that during these seven days it didn't have a דין of a משכן, but had a דין of a במה, when we know that one of the קרבנות that he brought was a חטאת, and the כלל is אין חטאת קריבה בבמה, and a חטאת could not be brought on a במה? And תוספות says that is no ראיה because because הוראת שעה הייתה. That had a special דין, השם then said a special thing that you should bring a חטאת, even though על פי הלכה normally you couldn't bring a חטאת because it was a במה. As we see that many other things concerning those קרבנות had special דינים that don't apply to later generations. For instance, we don't find a חטאת should be burned, and the חטאת there was burned, and the reason was because it was a הוראת שעה. So the same thing would apply to the עצם דין that he brought a חטאת, that it was a הוראת שעה that you could bring a חטאת on a במה, but really it did have a דין of a במה. So concerning the בגדי כהונה, where השם did not give the הוראת שעה that they should wear the בגדי כהונה, so there the דין that you're not allowed to wear בגדי כהונה by a במה applies, and that's why the גמרא is so sure that he didn't wear the בגדי כהונה, and the question is: what did he wear when he served in the משכן then? And now the

גמרא goes back to the משנה. It said in the משנה: והחרצנים והזגים של עובדי כוכבים וכולו, that the pits of grapes or the shells of grapes of גוים, so the משנה brings a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. רבי מאיר says they are אסור, and not only are they אסור to be eaten, but they are also אסור בהנאה, you can't have any benefit from it. But the חכמים say that if they are wet, fresh, then they are אסור, but if they are dry, they are מותר. The גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: החרצנים והזגים של עובדי כוכבים, the חרצנים and the זגים of גוים, the pits of the grapes and the shell of the grapes, the peel of the grapes of גוים, לחים אסורים, if they are wet, they are אסור, יבשים, if they are dry, מותרים, they are מותר. And the גמרא says: הי נינהו לחים? הי נינהו יבשים? What is considered still fresh, and what is considered dry? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, so רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל: לחים, כל י״ב חודש, wet, fresh is considered the first 12 months, יבשים, dry is considered לאחר י״ב חודש, after 12 months. And the גמרא says: איתמר, we learned: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן: כשהן אסורין אסורין אפילו בהנאה, when we say that they are אסור, they're even אסור בהנאה, you can't even have any benefit from it; כשהן מותרין, and the ones that are מותר, which means the dry ones which we said are מותר, מותרין אפילו באכילה, are allowed even to be eaten. Since they are dry and there is no wine in it, so you're even allowed to eat it.

Concerning the translation of the word חרצנים and זגים, there is a מחלוקת in גמרא נזיר whether the חרצנים is the pit and the זגים is the shell, or the חרצנים is the shell and the זגים are the pit, and the מסקנה in the גמרא there is that חרצנים is the pit and זגים is the shell, the outside. And תוספות says there is an easy way, a סימן to remember that the זגים are the outside, because in a bell we have two parts: the זוג and the ענבל. The ענבל is the part that's inside, and the זוג is the part that's outside. So to remember that זגים refers to the part that's outside, if you compare it and connect it to זוג, which is by a bell, you remember that this is the outside. And the גמרא continues: אמר רב זביד, רב זביד said: האי דורדיא דחמרא דארמאי, these שמרים, the dregs of the wine that come from גוים, that were used as yeast in dough, בתר תריסר ירחי שתא, after 12 months, שרי, it is מותר. אמר רב חביבא בריה דרבא, רב חביבא the son of רבא said: הני גולפי, these jugs, בתר תריסר ירחי שתא שרי, after 12 months it's מותר, the jugs that they have wine in it, but after 12 months you're allowed to use it. אמר רב חביבא, רב חביבא said: הני אפתדתא, these are the traveler's wine bag, בתר תריסר ירחי שתא שרי, after 12 months it is מותר. אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, רב אחא the son of רב איקא said: הני פורצני דארמאי, these kernels of גוים, בתר תריסר ירחי שתא שרי, after

12 months it is מותר. אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא, רב אחא the son of רבא said: הני גולפי, these jugs, שחימי ואוכמי, the red ones and the black ones, בתר תריסר ירחי שתא שרי, after 12 months, it is מותר. Concerning this אפתדתא that we said before that you need 12 months, then it's מותר, so as we said before, רש״י learns that this means the traveler's wine bag. And the reason you need 12 months for it is since the traveler puts wine in it for his trip, so it's called מכניסו לקיום, it is called that he puts the wine in לקיום for a permanent time. This is the way רש״י learns. But the ערוך, תוספות brings, is גורס not אפתדתא, but אכתדתא with a כ. That what they used to put into this כלי was not just wine, they would put in a certain mixture that was made of flour, and certain grass, and certain spices. They would soak it in milk, and they would sprinkle wine on it. And that and תוספות says that the רבינו חננאל is טאקע גורס אפ... with a ב, but he says it means from the לשון of אבטיח, a melon, that they would make the כלי from a melon and they would put wine in it. But תוספות says you can't learn this פשט, because if this is the פשט that comes out, that the way to make this כשר, this כלי made of the melon, is by waiting 12 months, is משמע that only if you wait 12 months it can become כשר, but no other way. But that is not so, there is no כלי that you cannot כשר by putting in water for three מעת לעת, as the גמרא said before. So why shouldn't this כלי not be able to do that? Therefore, we cannot learn this פשט. But the מהרש''א asks the קשיא, that how does תוספות know from our גמרא, that our גמרא is saying that you cannot כשר it any other way, just through 12 months, and you couldn't כשר it through filling it up with water for three מעת לעת? If the ראיה of תוספות is from the fact that the גמרא says after 12 months is מותר, which is משמע that that is the only way to be מתיר it, but you can't be מתיר it any other way, which means through filling it up with water for three מעת לעת, and the קשיא of תוספות is, why shouldn't you be able to? So what does that have to do with the פשט of the רבינו חננאל? You could ask that קשיא on the other things of the גמרא, also! The גמרא just mentioned a few things, that after 12 months is מותר, the jugs, for instance, so why can't תוספות ask the same קשיא? Why should it only be מותר after 12 months, why shouldn't you be able to כשר it by putting in water for three מעת לעת? אלא מאי, the reason that is not a קשיא, because who says the גמרא means you can't do that? All the גמרא says is, that after 12 months you could use it without כשר'ינג, but if you want to כשר it before you could. Now, if that is the reason why we can't ask the קשיא concerning the other things, why does תוספות ask this קשיא concerning the פשט of the רבינו חננאל, that this כלי was made of אבטיח, of melon? Why דוקא here does תוספות feel that when the גמרא says it's מותר after 12 months, that means that this is the only way to do it, but you can't כשר it? But the מהר''ם learns פשט in תוספות, that the reason תוספות feels that way, is because according to the ר''ח, this is a כלי made of food. And by food it seems that you can't כשר, just like we said before concerning the חרצנים and the זגים, the pits and the shells of the grapes, that we said that after 12 months it's מותר. So there it טאקע means only after 12 months, there is nothing else that you could do before that to make it מותר. So when the ר''ח learned that this is a כלי made of food, so תוספות learns probably what the גמרא means, that you have to wait 12 months, it means that there is nothing else you could do with it, being that this is food. But תוספות' קשיא is, since it is a כלי now, and the only reason it is אסור is because it absorbed the wine that's put in, why shouldn't you be able to כשר it during those 12 months through putting in water for three מעת לעת? And that's why תוספות has the קשיא only on this פשט, but not on the other things. And now we'll continue with the גמרא. The

גמרא quotes from the משנה, the משנה said, המורייס, which is the fat of fish. So it said there that this מורייס, and גבינות בית אונייקי, and the cheese that comes from אונייקי of גוים are אסור, and the איסור is איסור הנאה, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר, and the חכמים say that it's not אסור בהנאה. And the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מורייס אומן מותר, the מורייס that comes from an expert is מותר, is allowed, which means that even according to רבי מאיר that says that מורייס is not only אסור באכילה but also אסור בהנאה, but if it's מורייס that comes from an expert, it is מותר. And the reason for that is, because, after all, the reason why מורייס was אסור, was not because we were afraid that they used fat of non-כשר fish. They only made it from כשר fish. The thing was, that they sometimes used to mix wine in. So we're not allowed to use the מורייס of גוים, because of the יין נסך that's put in. But an expert, who knows exactly what he is doing, will not have to put in wine by the first and second extracts of the fish, because they are so fat that you don't have to put the wine in. So therefore, he said that מורייס of an אומן, of an expert, is מותר. And according to this, we have to say that in the משנה, where רבי מאיר says that it is אסור בהנאה, and the רבנן who say that at least it's אסור באכילה, that is if it's מורייס not of an אומן, it's not of an expert. So there, since he doesn't know exactly how to do it, so in order to have it to give taste, they would put wine in. And that's where there's a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים, that רבי מאיר said that it's אסור בהנאה, and the חכמים say it is מותר בהנאה. But מורייס of an אומן, that is even מותר באכילה, because there is no wine put in. Or, another פשט תוספות says, that, as we just said before and the גמרא will explain, that when doesn't an אומן put wine in? Only the first and second extract, but the third one already, he also would have to put wine in. So the third one even of an אומן is אסור. So that's where we have the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים, that according to רבי מאיר, you are not allowed to even have הנאה from it, and according to the חכמים, it is מותר בהנאה. But בפשטות we must say that it's obvious whether it came from the first, second extract? But we must say that it's obvious, you could tell whether it came from the first or second extract or from the third extract, because if not, then it should always be אסור, because we should always suspect maybe it is from the third extract, so even if it's from an אומן, it still should be אסור. Therefore we must say, תוספות says, that it is ניכר, we could tell whether it came from the first and the second or from the third. So therefore, if it came from the first and the second, it is מותר, but if it came from the third, it is אסור, and that's where we have the מחלוקת between ר' מאיר and the חכמים. Then the גמרא continues, רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל, רבי יהודה בן גמליאל said in the name of רבי חנינא בן גמליאל, אף חילק אומן מותר, also the brine of חילק of an expert is מותר. And as רש"י explains, this was a kind of fish, small fish which were כשר fish, and also סולצינס, which is a כשר fish, and when they are small, it is very hard to tell the difference between them and a non-כשר fish, because when they are still small, they don't have the fins and the scales, but they get the fins and the scales later on when they become bigger. So it is a כשר fish, but nevertheless, it is hard to tell the difference between them and a non-כשר fish. And the גמרא says later on in דף ל"ט, that חילק של עובדי כוכבים אסור, that to buy חילק from גוים is אסור. Why? Since you can't tell the difference between this and a non-כשר fish, so sometimes when they catch this fish, some of the non-כשר fish get mixed into it, and they will mix them together. But an אומן, an expert, since an expert is able to tell easily the difference between the חילק and the non-כשר fish, so he definitely separates them and doesn't leave the non-כשר fish to stay amongst the כשר fish, because the taste of non-כשר fish is not so good, so it'll spoil the taste of the חילק, which has a much better taste. So if he's not an expert and he can't tell the difference, then he leaves it. But an expert, who could tell the difference, definitely takes them out. And therefore, גמרא says here that if you have חילק of an אומן, you're allowed to eat. Then the גמרא says, תני אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו, אבימי, the son of רבי אבהו learned, מורייס אומן מותר, מורייס of an expert is allowed. הוא תנא לה, he learned the דין, והוא אמר לה, but he also said another detail in this דין. פעם ראשונה ושניה מותר, the first or second extract of the fish is טאקע מותר, as we said before, because then it's fat enough, and the expert will not mix wine into it. שלישית, the third extract, אסור, is אסור. מאי טעמא? פעם ראשונה ושניה, the first or second time, which is fat, לא צריך לארומוכי בחמרא, he doesn't have to put wine in. מכאן ואילך, from now on on, which means after the second time, רמי ביה חמרא, he does put wine in. And therefore, even from an expert, it is אסור. And as we said before, you could tell the difference whether it came from the first or second extract or from the third. Then the

גמרא tells a story. ההוא ארבא דמורייסא, there was a ship full of מורייס, דאתא לנמלא דעכו, that came to the port of עכו. אותיב רב אבא דמן עכו נטורא עלה, that רב אבא of עכו put a guard on the fish to see that they don't mix any wine in. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him, or according to the גירסא of the ב"ח, it was רב אבא, עד האידנא מאן נטרה? Till now who watched it? Now you're going to put a guard to it, but till now, no one guarded it. Maybe they mixed in the wine till now. אמר ליה, so he said to him, עד האידנא למאי נחוש לה? Till now, what should we be afraid of? What should we suspect? אי משום דמערב ביה חמרא, if you suspect that maybe they mixed wine into it, so he says we know for sure that they didn't, because כיסתא דמורייסא בלומא, a small measurement, a כיסתא of מורייס is worth a לומא. כיסתא דחמרא בד' לומי, a small measurement, a small amount of wine costs four לומי. לומא was the name of a coin. Which means to say that wine is more expensive than מורייס, so why should they put wine in to make the מורייס look more, when the מורייס is much cheaper than the wine? But that was only till now, in the place it came from. So therefore there, we don't suspect they put wine in. In the place that it came to, into עכו, there wine is not more expensive than מורייס. So here we do suspect, maybe they put wine in, that's why he put the guard there to watch. אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא, so רבי ירמיה said to רבי זירא, דילמא איידי דצור אתו, maybe they came through צור, דשפיך חמרא, where wine is cheap? Since on the way they came they had to pass through צור, maybe they stopped off in צור, and in צור wine is cheap, and maybe that's where they put the wine in? אמר ליה, so he said to him, התם עקולי ופשורי איכא. There, there are narrow bays and shallow water, so we assume that probably he didn't risk it to stop there, and therefore he didn't come to צור, where wine is cheap, and the first stop he made was here. And here, טאקע, wine is cheap, so here we're guarding it. But all the places where he came from before, there wine is more expensive, so therefore we don't suspect that he mixed wine in. Then the

גמרא continues, תנן במשנה גבינת בית אונייקי, the cheese from בית אונייקי, רבי מאיר says it is אסור בהנאה, and the חכמים say that it is not אסור בהנאה. And the גמרא says, אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, רבי שמעון בן לקיש said, מפני מה אסרו גבינת אונייקי? Why did they make גבינת אונייקי אסור? According to רבי מאיר who says it's אסור בהנאה, what is the reason why is it אסור בהנאה? And he answered, מפני שרוב עגלים של אותה עיר, because most of the calves of that city, נשחטין לעבודת כוכבים, were slaughtered for עבודה זרה. And since they used to use the rennet of those calves to make the cheese, and it is עבודה זרה, and עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה, therefore they made this cheese of that place אסור בהנאה. Then the גמרא asks him, מאי איריא רוב עגלים? Why did he have to say the reason is because most of the calves were slaughtered for עבודה זרה? אפילו מיעוט נמי! Even if only a minority of the calves were slaughtered for עבודה זרה, it is still a good enough reason why רבי מאיר should say it's אסור בהנאה. Why? דהא רבי מאיר חייש למיעוטא. רבי מאיר suspects even the minority. Like this we know we go בתר רוב, that we always follow the majority, but we don't care about the minority. If the majority is מותר and the minority is אסור, so we always follow the majority and we say it's מותר. But רבי מאיר holds that we always suspect the minority also, and if the minority is אסור, then we have to make it אסור. Where did רבי מאיר say this? רבי מאיר said this in יבמות, that a קטן וקטנה לא חולצין ולא מייבמין. And if a person dies without any children, his wife normally has to get יבום from his brother, or if he doesn't want to be מייבם, then he could give חליצה. The דין is that if he was a סריס, if the brother was a person who couldn't have children, or if the wife, the אלמנה, the widow is a woman who's an איילונית who can't have children, then you don't have to have חליצה and you don't have to have יבום. But when they are children and we still don't know whether they will grow up to be a סריס or she will grow up to be an איילונית, the דין is you could give חליצה or you could give יבום. And we don't say let's suspect maybe she is an איילונית or he is a סריס. And the reason is because most people are not a סריס and most people not איילונית. So we follow the majority, בתר רוב, and we say that they could get חליצה or יבום. But רבי מאיר says no, you can't give them חליצה or יבום, you have to wait till they grow up, because we do suspect maybe he might be a סריס or she might be an איילונית, because רבי מאיר is חייש למיעוטא, רבי מאיר suspects even for a מיעוט. So if so, the גמרא asks here: why did you have to tell me that the reason why according to רבי מאיר this cheese is אסור בהנאה because the majority of the calves are slaughtered for עבודה זרה? Even if the minority of the calves would be slaughtered for עבודה זרה, still it should be אסור according to רבי מאיר, because the rennet is used from these calves, and even though most of them are not עבודה זרה, but since some of them are for עבודה זרה, according to רבי מאיר it's a good enough reason to be אסור. The גמרא says no. אי אמרת רוב, if you would say that the majority of the calves are slaughtered for עבודה זרה, then according to him it would be אסור because איכא מיעוט. So then we have a minority, because באמת there are not only calves that could be used for the cheese, you could use other cattle also, and most of the other cattle were not slaughtered for עבודה זרה. So if you have at least the majority of the calves are used for עבודה זרה, so then at least we have a מיעוט, a minority of animals that are used for עבודה זרה, and רבי מאיר is חייש למיעוטא, so therefore we can't use the cheese because of this מיעוט. אלא אי אמרת מיעוט, but if you would say לכתחילה that only a מיעוט, a minority of the calves are used for עבודה זרה, so כיוון דאיכא רוב עגלים דאינן נשחטין לעבודת כוכבים, since according to this the majority of the calves are not slaughtered for עבודה זרה, ואיכא נמי שאר בהמות דאינן נשחטין לעבודת כוכבים, and we also have other animals, other cattle which is not used for עבודה זרה, הוה ליה מיעוטא דמיעוטא, so it is a minority of a minority, because even from the calves it's only a minority, and בכלל it is a minority because you have other cattle also. ולמיעוטא דמיעוטא לא חייש רבי מאיר. And for a מיעוט of a מיעוט, for a minority of a minority even רבי מאיר doesn't suspect. When does רבי מאיר say we have to take in

consideration the מיעוט? Only if it's one מיעוט, but not if it's a מיעוט of a מיעוט. And therefore he said that when we look for a reason why רבי מאיר holds that this cheese is אסור בהנאה, he said because the majority of the calves are slaughtered for עבודה זרה, so at least together with the other cattle we have a minority for עבודה זרה, and according to רבי מאיר it's good enough. But if we would have a minority of the calves for עבודה זרה, then it would be a מיעוט of a מיעוט. And then רבי מאיר would admit that it's not אסור בהנאה. אמר ליה רבי שמעון בר אליקים לרבי שמעון בן לקיש, רבי שמעון בר אליקים said to רבי שמעון בן לקיש, כי נשחטי לעבודת כוכבים מאי הוה, even if it is so that they shecht these calves for עבודה זרה, who cares? והא את הוא דשרי, aren't you the one that's מתיר? According to what you yourself said, it should be מותר even if they shecht it for עבודה זרה. דאיתמר, because we learned, השוחט את הבהמה, someone shechts a בהמה, לזרוק דמה לעבודת כוכבים, intending to sprinkle the blood for עבודה זרה, או להקטיר חלבה לעבודת כוכבים, to burn its fats for עבודה זרה, רבי יוחנן אמר אסורה, רבי יוחנן says that בהמה is אסור, the שחיטה is אסור, it is considered that when you shechted it, it already is considered for עבודה זרה, קסבר, because רבי יוחנן holds, מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה, you think from one עבודה to another, וילפינן חוץ מפנים, and we learn out the שחיטה of outside from the שחיטה of inside.

Which means as follows: The דין by a קרבן, which is considered a שחיטת פנים, the שחיטה inside in the בית המקדש, the דין is if a person shechts a בהמה for a קרבן, intending to spray the blood not in a proper place or in a proper time, that is called פיגול, and the שחיטה is פסול. איי, the שחיטה he intended כדין, he only intended while he was shechting to sprinkle the blood in a not a proper time or not a proper place, still we combine the two עבודות, and we say the mind that he had, the intentions that he had now during the שחיטה to do the other עבודה שלא כדין has an effect on the עבודה he is doing now, has an effect in the שחיטה also. That is the דין by a קרבן, by the פנים. So רבי יוחנן says we learn out חוץ from פנים. We learn out the דינים by עבודה זרה from the דינים by a קרבן. Just like by a קרבן we combine the two עבודות and we consider this עבודה also פסול because at this time he thought about doing another עבודה in a פסול way, the same thing by עבודה זרה. Even though he shechts it not intending for עבודה זרה, but since at the time of the שחיטה he thinks that he will do an עבודה later on for עבודה זרה, so the שחיטה itself is considered a שחיטה for עבודה זרה. And therefore רבי יוחנן says if he shechts the בהמה in order to sprinkle the blood for עבודה זרה, the שחיטה itself is a שחיטה פסולה.

ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר, רבי שמעון בן לקיש says מותרת, it is מותר, because he holds that we do not combine the two עבודות. Only by a קרבן, there the דין is that we combine the two עבודות and the שחיטה would be פסול because you intended to do the second עבודה שלא כדין, but we do not learn out חוץ from פנים. We do not learn out the דינים by עבודה זרה from the דינים of a קרבן in the מזבח, in the בית המקדש. So according to רבי שמעון בן לקיש, the שחיטה itself is not אסור. So he asked him, according to you yourself that says that שחיטה is not אסור, so what kind of reason did you give as why can't you use the cheese because it was made with the rennet from the calves that were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, and the שחיטה itself doesn't make it אסור, so it's not considered עבודה זרה? אמר ליה, so he said to him, תרעיך שעתך, let your time have מזל, which means he congratulated him. He says you have a very good question, but there is one mistake you made. We are talking here באומר בגמר זביחה הוא עובדה, that we're afraid that בשעת he shechted that he said that I want to worship the עבודה זרה at the moment my שחיטה is finished, which means that he didn't think during the שחיטה that he's going to do a second עבודה for עבודה זרה, then according to רבי שמעון בן לקיש the שחיטה would be כשר, but he had in mind that the שחיטה itself should be a שחיטה for עבודה זרה. He had in mind that the moment the שחיטה is finished, the last end of the שחיטה, that should be for עבודה זרה. And the reason he picked the end of the שחיטה, why didn't we say that we're talking in a case where he had in mind that the שחיטה itself should be for עבודה זרה? The whole question he asked him was that if you have in mind by the שחיטה to sprinkle the blood for עבודה זרה, the שחיטה is not פסול, so he could have answered him that we're talking in a case where he had in mind the שחיטה itself to be for עבודה זרה. Why did he have to say that we're talking in a case where he said בגמר שחיטה הוא עובדה, that at the end of the שחיטה he will worship it for עבודה זרה? So רש״י says because רבי שמעון בן לקיש himself is the one that holds in בבא קמא and in חולין that אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף, which means we have a מחלוקת concerning שחיטה whether ישנה לשחיטה מתחלה ועד סוף or אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף, whether שחיטה, every part of the שחיטה is part of the שחיטה from the beginning through the end, the whole time of the שחיטה it is part of the שחיטה, and therefore if you have in mind in the beginning of the שחיטה for עבודה זרה for instance, it is considered that you shechted for עבודה זרה, or we hold אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף, that the main שחיטה, the שחיטה is considered only the last drop, the end when you finish the שחיטה. The beginning and the middle of the שחיטה is only an introduction to the end. So if you have in mind in the beginning of the שחיטה that this is for עבודה זרה, it is not considered that you שחט it for עבודה זרה, because that part is not really שחיטה yet, that is just a הכנה, an introduction to the שחיטה, which is the last drop of the שחיטה. And since רב שמעון בן לקיש is the one that holds that אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף, that שחיטה is only the end, so according to him, if he would say that we're talking here a case where he had in mind to שחט for עבודה זרה, it still wouldn't be considered a שחיטה for עבודה זרה. Therefore, he has to say that we're talking here where he had in mind that it should be for עבודה זרה at the end of the שחיטה, which is the part of the שחיטה which has the דין of שחיטה. And therefore, it is considered that the שחיטה was for עבודה זרה also, so then this calf is אסור בהנאה because it's עבודה זרה, so the rennet is also אסור בהנאה, and that's what he said, that the reason why רב מאיר says that you can't use the cheese and it's אסור בהנאה, because they use it with the rennet of these calves, which the calves themselves are אסור because the שחיטה is a שחיטה for עבודה זרה. This is the way רש״י learns פשט in this גמרא. But תוספות learns the פשט different. And it's all based on a קשיא that תוספות asks. תוספות asks, לכתחילה, what did he ask רב שמעון בן לקיש? His קשיא was, how can you say that the reason according to רב מאיר it's אסור בהנאה, because the rennet is from calves which are געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, when you yourself say that a שחיטה doesn't make it אסור? What kind of קשיא is it? When did רב שמעון בן לקיש say the שחיטה is not considered שחיטה for עבודה זרה? If he שחט the animal with the intentions of spraying the blood for עבודה זרה, or he שחט the animal with the intentions of burning the fats on the מזבח for עבודה זרה. But if he שחט the animal intending the שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה, then definitely it is אסור. So what made him so sure that the calves that we are talking about here that they שחט for עבודה זרה, the שחיטה לכתחילה wasn't for עבודה זרה? That he had a קשיא that since it's not for עבודה זרה, it is just to do something later for עבודה זרה, it should be מותר according to רב שמעון בן לקיש? בפשטות, when he said that they use calves that they שחט for עבודה זרה, בפשטות it means that they שחט it for עבודה זרה. So what kind of קשיא לכתחילה did he ask from the case where they שחט it with the intentions to do another עבודה for עבודה זרה? So therefore תוספות says we must say that the custom was that they would not שחט any animals for עבודה זרה. They would שחט it with the intentions of doing something else for עבודה זרה. But it wasn't common that they should שחט an animal with the intentions that the שחיטה itself should be for עבודה זרה. And therefore he asks him a קשיא, that normally they שחט it only with the intentions of later doing something else for עבודה זרה, and you yourself say that in a case like that the שחיטה is not considered a שחיטה for עבודה זרה, so why do you say that according to רב מאיר this is the reason why it's אסור בהנאה? And that's why he answers him that we are talking in a case where he did שחט for עבודה זרה. אי, it is not common for them to שחט it for עבודה זרה, that's why he said בגמר זביחה הוא עובדה, that the last drop of the שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה, and that was common. It wasn't common that the whole שחיטה should be for the sake of עבודה זרה, but the end of the שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה, that was common. So

according to תוספות, the reason he says that he intended that the end of the שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה is not because he holds that אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף like רש״י, but it is because otherwise it wasn't common. It wasn't common that the whole שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה, but it seems like it was common that the end of the שחיטה should be for עבודה זרה. And that's what he said, when he has that in mind, the שחיטה itself becomes פסול, and therefore, if you use that calf to make the cheese with its rennet, that cheese is also אסור בהנאה. Concerning what we learned before, that the דורדיא דארמאי, which means the שמרים, the dregs that come from wine גוים, so after 12 months, you're allowed to use it. And the reason is because it dried up, and it doesn't have any more wine in it, and therefore, you're allowed to use it. תוספות says that the רבינו אפרים used to say that על פי סברא, the logic says that if you took the dregs and you dry them in the oven, it should help the same as if you waited 12 months, because the whole idea of waiting 12 months is that it dries it up, so if you put it in the oven and it dries up from the oven, it has the same דין. And because of that, רבינו אפרים was מתיר to use bread that was baked by a גוי that the yeast was made of the שמרים of wine that was dried in the oven, because he holds that even though 12 months didn't pass, but if it's dried in the oven, it has the same דין. But the רבינו תם was upset about it, and he said that when the גמרא here allows דורדיא, which means the שמרים, after 12 months, that means only if the שמרים were used first to make סמד. Custom of the world used to be that they used to take the שמרים and pour water over it, and let it stay for a while, and that water would absorb the taste of the שמרים, and the water would get a taste of wine, and they used to do it once, and twice, and a third time, and all these three times the water that came out was like wine. It is it is only the fourth time that the water didn't get the real taste of wine and it wasn't like wine. So the שמרים before you put the water on it to make the wine, which was called תמד, then it's called שמרים. Afterwards, it is called דורדיא. After it was already used up, they put water on it as much as they could, and it absorbed the whole taste, then it's called דורדיא. So when it says here in the גמרא that the דורדיא of the גוים is allowed after 12 months, it means if first you put water over it, once and twice as much as you could, and you took out the whole taste of the wine, this דורדיא after 12 months is מותר. But if you didn't take the תמד out of it, then it is אסור even after 12 months, because it still has the taste of the wine in it. And therefore, a dough that the yeast that was put in was made of these שמרים that was not turned into תמד, that you didn't put it through the process of water to take out the taste of the wine in it, so it is always אסור, because this is אסור whether it's within 12 months or after 12 months. And not only that, it wouldn't even become בטל even if it was mixed in a thousand. Since yeast is made to give a taste, and we know that anything which is made to give a taste is not בטל אפילו באלף, and therefore, you cannot allow these שמרים that were dried in the oven, because these שמרים were not put through the process of taking out the taste of the wine that's in it. And the רבינו תם wrote very sharp words concerning the רבינו אפרים. He wrote, והמורה יורה כבן סורר ומורה, that the one that פסקנ'ט this דין פסקנ'ט like a בן סורר ומורה. ועלי יערה רוח הבורא, that on me, he says, should come the spirit of the Creator, of השם. And תוספות brings even more. It says in the תוספתא, שמרים שיבשו אסורים בהנאה, that שמרים that dried up are אסור בהנאה. So we see clearly that even if they dried up, it is אסור בהנאה. It is only דורדיא that is מותר, but not שמרים. And דורדיא is, as תוספות said before, it's only if you put the water on it as much as you can to take out the taste of the wine.

Concerning what the גמרא said later on that the reason for רבי מאיר, why he says that this cheese is אסור, is because most of the calves in that place were slaughtered for עבודה זרה, and the גמרא asked a question: Why do you have to say most of the calves? What would be if it wouldn't be most, if it would be some of the calves? Still, since רבי מאיר is חייש למיעוטא, the דין still should be, according to רבי מאיר, it should be אסור בהנאה. And the גמרא said that no, if there are the רוב of the calves are for עבודה זרה, so then we have the מיעוט. Why? Because there are other cattle also, and they are not for עבודה זרה. But since most of the calves are for עבודה זרה, so then if you take most of the calves and compare it to all the cattle that's there, it is at least a מיעוט of the animals that were for עבודה זרה. But if you would say that only a מיעוט, some of the calves are for עבודה זרה, now compare that with all the cattle, then it's not even a מיעוט, it's a מיעוט דמיעוט. And there, רבי מאיר himself is also not חייש, and therefore, the דין would not be it should be אסור בהנאה. תוספות asks a קשיא that even if you do say that the majority of the calves are for עבודה זרה, you still don't have a מיעוט. It's still considered a מיעוט of a מיעוט. Why? Since we have a רוב against it. The majority are not for עבודה זרה, and except that, we also have a חזקה להיתר. There is a חזקה that it's מותר, because even these calves that were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, but they have a חזקת היתר. חזקה means that first it was in a היתר'דיקע way, then maybe something happened to it to make it אסור. Now, even those calves that were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, before that happened, they were all מותר, they were not עבודה זרה. As long as we don't know that a change took place and made them אסור, they have the חזקת היתר. So we have here most of the בהמות who are not for עבודה זרה, now in addition to that, even those that were for עבודה זרה also have a חזקת היתר. So when you have the רוב with the חזקה, the גמרא says in the second פרק of יבמות that this has a דין of מיעוטא דמיעוטא. So in our case here, why does the גמרא say that if we say most of the calves are for עבודה זרה, there is at least a מיעוט? But לכאורה, there still shouldn't be a מיעוט, it still should be considered a מיעוטא דמיעוטא. And תוספות answers that here it's different, because as soon as they שחט'ד the animal, there was a רעותא in the חזקה, because we know for sure that some of the animals were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, and now the קיבה that we are talking about here, the rennet we are talking about here, are taken from the animals after the שחיטה. Now, the שחיטה itself made a רעותא in the חזקה, spoiled the חזקה, because we know know that some of them were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה. And therefore we cannot consider this as a חזקת היתר. When do we consider this a חזקה? In a clay place where we are later on with a ספק whether there is an איסור here or not. So we say since there is a ספק whether there is איסור or not, and there is a חזקת היתר, so the חזקת היתר is a real strong חזקה. But here where we have ודאי איסור, some of them were definitely געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, because we said that the majority of the calves were געשאכטן for עבודה זרה. So therefore, since some were definitely for עבודה זרה, the חזקה is not a strong חזקה. And therefore we can't consider this חזקה as another מיעוט, and to consider this as a מיעוטא דמיעוטא. And therefore the גמרא says this is considered only one מיעוט, and therefore according to רבי מאיר, who is חייש למיעוטא, this is a good enough reason why it should be אסור בהנאה.

Concerning what the גמרא says that according to רבי שמעון בן לקיש, if he שחט the בהמה intending to sprinkle the blood for עבודה זרה, or intending to be מקטיר the חלב for עבודה זרה, so then the שחיטה is not אסור. The בהמה is not considered געשאכטן for עבודה זרה, because as the גמרא said, אין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה, that concerning עבודה זרה we don't פסקן that we compare and we connect one עבודה to the other, and therefore since his intentions were just to sprinkle the blood for עבודה זרה, it doesn't have an effect on the שחיטה. But תוספות asks a קושיא, לכאורה it should be אסור anyway. Since this person who is doing it, who intended to do the other עבודה for עבודה זרה, becomes a מומר to עבודה זרה. And the דין is that a מומר of עבודה זרה, שחיטתו פסולה, his שחיטה is פסול. So his שחיטה should be פסול not because the שחיטה itself was for עבודה זרה, but because the שחיטה was done by a person who is a מומר לעבודה זרה. And תוספות says that in the first פרק of חולין, it is clear that there are three kinds of מומרים. There is a מומר that his שחיטה is מותר even באכילה, there is a מומר that his שחיטה is מותר only בהנאה, and not באכילה, and there is a type of מומר that his שחיטה is אסור also בהנאה. And so the type of מומר that happens here, that he becomes a מומר when he intends that the other עבודה should be done for עבודה זרה, he is in the category of a מומר where it is not אסור, but his שחיטה is מותר.