Jewish Audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף ל״ה, but we will start 13 lines from the bottom of דף ל״ד עמוד ב׳. The גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it said: אמר רבי יהודה, רבי יהודה said: שאל רבי ישמעאל, רבי ישמעאל asked רבי יהושע when they were going on the trip, said to him: Why did they אסר cheese of גוים? And he said to him: Because they curdle it with rennet of נבילה. So he said to him: Is rennet of נבילה really אסור? Rennet of an עולה is certainly worse, because we know that an עולה, קרבן עולה, is stricter than נבילה. An עולה was forbidden to be eaten, because an עולה was כולו לה׳, the קרבן עולה had to be brought completely to ה׳, not like other קרבנות, that part of it was burnt on the מזבח and part of it was eaten by the כהנים, and some of them were eaten by the בעלים, by the owners. But a קרבן עולה was כולו לה׳, כליל כליל, it had to be burnt completely on the מזבח. And nevertheless, the דין was that a כהן שדעתו יפה, a כהן that his mind was good, which means he wasn't especially particular, would eat the קיבה while it was raw. And even though the חכמים did not agree, they said that you should not do that, but they also admit that you are not מועל, which means that מדאורייתא it is not אסור. So if we see that the קיבה, the rennet of עולה is not אסור, and the reason for that would be because the rennet is not considered food, but considered waste of the animal, and the waste is not אסור, so certainly the rennet of a נבילה should not be אסור. So how can you say the reason the cheese is אסור because they curdle it with the rennet of נבילה? So then he gave him a different reason. The reason was because they curdle it with the rennet of calves of עבודה זרה. So he asked him: But if so, it should also be אסור בהנאה, why didn't they say it's אסור בהנאה? And the משנה says: השיאו לדבר אחר, he turned his attention away to something else. In other words, he did not want to answer him this question. So the גמרא says here:

אמר רב אחדבוי אמר רב, רב אחדבוי, he said in the name of רב: המקדש בפרש שור הנסקל מקודשת. If someone is מקדש a woman with the waste of the שור הנסקל, שור הנסקל is an ox that gored and killed a person, and the דין is that you have to bring that ox to the בית דין, and the בית דין will try the ox, and the דין is that it's sentenced to death to be stoned, and this ox is אסור בהנאה. Not only can't he eat it, but it is also אסור to derive any benefit from this ox. So if someone will take the waste of the שור הנסקל of this ox and be מקדש a woman with it, he would take this waste and give it to a woman and say הרי את מקודשת לי, you should be מקודשת to me with this waste, so then the דין is that she is מקודשת. Because the דין by קידושין is that one of the ways you're able to be מקדש a woman is through כסף, through money, which is a פרוטה, or through something which is worth a פרוטה. If something is אסור בהנאה, something that cannot be used, you are not allowed to derive any benefit from it, it definitely has no value. So if someone will be מקדש a woman with an object which is אסור בהנאה, she is not מקודשת, because you really didn't give her anything which is worth a פרוטה. So he says the דין that if you מקדש a woman with the waste of the שור הנסקל, מקודשת, she is מקודשת. In other words, the waste is not אסור בהנאה, and therefore it does have some value, so the קידושין is קידושין. But if you are מקדש a woman בפרש עגלי עבודה זרה, with the waste of calves of עבודה זרה, אינה מקודשת, she is not מקודשת. Why? Because by עבודה זרה even the waste is אסור בהנאה, and therefore when he gave her the waste as קידושין, he did not give her anything which is a שוה פרוטה. And the reason for that is, for this difference: איבעית אימא סברא, if you want, it is out of logic, ואיבעית אימא קרא, and if you want, it is based on a פסוק.

Let me explain: איבעית אימא סברא, if you want that it is logic, it is common sense, I'll tell you what the סברא is, what the difference is between the waste of the שור הנסקל and the waste of the calves of עבודה זרה. גבי עגלי עבודה זרה, by the calves of עבודה זרה, ניחא ליה בנפחיה, he is happy that it's blown up. The fatter it is, the happier he is, because every part of it is for עבודה זרה. So he wants it to be blown up, so he is happy with the waste, so the waste is also part of the עבודה זרה, because he wants it. Since it's part of the עבודה זרה, it is אסור בהנאה. Since it is אסור בהנאה, if you מקדש a woman with it, then she is not מקודשת. אבל גבי שור הנסקל, but by the שור הנסקל הנסקל, לא ניחא ליה בנפחיה, he is not happy with it being blown up, being fat. In other words, he has no use with the fact that it's fat, it makes no difference to him. So therefore, he doesn't specifically want the waste, so the waste is not part of the שור הנסקל, and therefore, it is not אסור בהנאה. And since it's not אסור בהנאה, then if he is מקדש a woman with it, she is מקודשת. This is the difference based on logic. אי בעית אימא קרא, if you want, I could tell you a difference based on the פסוק. כתיב הכא, here it says concerning עבודה זרה, it says, לא ידבק בידך מאומה, that nothing of it should be connected to your hand. So it says מאומה, nothing, meaning every little bit of עבודה זרה is אסור. So even the waste of the עבודה זרה is אסור. וכתיב התם, but concerning the שור הנסקל, it says, סקול יסקל השור, the ox should be stoned, ולא יאכל את בשרו, its meat should not be eaten. So we דרשנן, בשרו אסור, its meat is forbidden, הא פירשו מותרת, but its waste is allowed. So therefore, since it's allowed, it's not אסור בהנאה. If he מקדש a woman with it, she is מקודשת. אמר רבא, רבא said, תרווייהו תנינהו, both of these דינים we learned in our משנה. The דין that the waste of a שור הנסקל is מותר, and the waste of a calf of עבודה זרה is אסור, both of them are mentioned in our משנה. And he doesn't mean to ask a קשיא, that why did he tell us the דין when it's really learned in our משנה, as תוספות says. He is just telling us that it is learned in our משנה.

מדקאמר ליה, since he said to him originally, the reason why the cheese is אסור, מפני שמעמידין בקיבת נבילה, because they curdled it with the rennet of נבילה, וכמהדר ליה, and he answers him, והלא קיבת עולה חמורה מקיבת נבילה, that the rennet of an עולה is stricter than the rennet of a נבילה, and nevertheless, the rennet of an עולה is מותר, so certainly the rennet of a נבילה should be מותר. Now, an עולה we know is אסור בהנאה, and nevertheless, he said to him that the rennet of an עולה is מותר, מכלל that proves דאיסורי הנאה שרי פירשייהו, that things which are אסור בהנאה, the waste is מותר, because he told him clearly that the rennet, the waste, of an עולה is מותר בהנאה. And that would apply so, too, to a שור הנסקל, that even though it's אסור בהנאה, but the waste of this איסור הנאה is מותר. ומדקאמר ליה מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים, and since the second reason he gave him was that they curdled it in the rennet of calves of עבודת כוכבים, וכמהדר ליה, and he asked him back, אם כן למה לא יאסרו בהנאה, so if it is because of that, why didn't they say that the cheese is also אסור בהנאה? מכלל that proves דעבודת כוכבים אסור פירשייהו, that עבודה זרה, the waste is אסור. Because after he told him that the reason is because they curdled it in the rennet of עבודה זרה, and he asked him, then why isn't it אסור בהנאה? That means that of עבודה זרה, the waste is אסור בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks, ולהדר ליה, why didn't he answer him משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה, because the איסור is not obvious? In the משנה we see that when he asked him why isn't it also אסור בהנאה, he didn't answer him anything, he just took his attention away from this שאלה, and he brought it to something else, he asked him a question in the פשט of a פסוק in שיר השירים. But לכאורה he could have answered him very simple, that the reason why the cheese is not אסור בהנאה, because the איסור of the cheese, which is because of the עבודה זרה, is not בעין. It is the substance of the עבודה זרה is not here. And he proves that this is a difference. דהמורייס לרבנן, the דין of מורייס according to the רבנן, דלא אסרו בהנאה, that they did not make it אסור בהנאה, as we saw in the משנה that רבי מאיר says מורייס is also אסור בהנאה, but the רבנן said מורייס is not אסור בהנאה. Even though we're afraid that they mixed wine into the מורייס, nevertheless, why is it not אסור בהנאה? מאי טעמא, what is the reason? לאו isn't it משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה, because the איסור of the wine is not בעין, is not obvious, the substance of the איסור is not here, and therefore it is not אסור בהנאה? So the same thing should be here, too, that the reason why the cheese is not אסור בהנאה, even if the reason why it is אסור בכלל is because it was curdled with the rennet of עבודה זרה, so the reason is because the איסור of עבודה זרה is not בעין, the substance of the איסור is not here. But the question of the גמרא is, why didn't he answer him that? And the גמרא says, אמר לך, we will tell you, הכא, here, כיון דאוקומי קא מוקים, since this is what curdles it, חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה. is considered as if the איסור is here, as if the substance of the איסור is here, because this is what causes the cheese to turn into cheese. Therefore, he couldn't answer him to say this, and he didn't answer him anything, he just took his attention away to something else. Then the גמרא continues, that when he didn't answer him the question, וששייה לדבר אחר וכולי, he took his attention away to something else. And what was the something else? He asked him a פשט in a פסוק in שיר השירים. And the

פסוק says, כי טובים דודיך מיין, that your love is better than wine. Is it לשון זכר or is it לשון נקבה? Do we have to read כי טובים דודיך מיין, לשון זכר, that is כנסת ישראל, the אידן, who are referred to as the woman, and השם is the man, and the אידן are speaking to השם and they're saying, because your love is better than wine. Or כי טובים דודיך מיין, are we saying to the אייבערשטער that ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, you should kiss us with the kisses of your mouth because you had said that your love, meaning you said to us that our love is better than wine. So then we are quoting what השם said to us, the man saying to the woman, then we would have to read it not כי טובים דודיך מיין, but כי טובים דודיך מיין. But he said to him, from the other part of the פסוק we could prove that it's לשון זכר, because there it says לריח שמניך טובים, and that is definitely לשון זכר, so this part is also לשון זכר. But the גמרא asks, מאי כי טובים דודיך מיין, what does the פסוק mean that he said that your love is better than wine? כי אתא רב דימי אמר, when רב דימי came he said, אמרה כנסת ישראל לפני הקב״ה, that כנסת ישראל, כלל ישראל says to השם, רבונו של עולם, ערבים עלי דברי דודיך יותר מיינה של תורה, that the words of the ones that love you, which are the חכמים, their words are more beloved to me than the wine of תורה. The wine of תורה refers to the עיקר of תורה שבכתב, and what the אידן are saying that the words of the חכמים are more precious to us than the words of the תורה themselves. The reason for this is, is explained in חסידישע ספרים, because when we keep the words of the חכמים, that they, who are part of כלל ישראל, establish, this is the way we show our love to השם more even than when we keep the תורה. This is understood through a משל. When a person has a servant, and the servant does everything that his master asks him to do, that shows a certain amount of love from the servant to his master. But if he is a servant that does more than the master asks him, he finds himself things that he assumes the master would be happy with, and he does them even though he wasn't commanded to do it, that shows that he loves his master more than if he would be doing only what he was commanded to do. And the same here also. When אידן do what השם tells them to do, that shows that they have a certain amount of love to השם, or maybe it just shows that they have fear of השם, they believe in השם, and השם said that you have to do the מצות, so they keep it. They know if they won't keep it, they will be punished, just like a servant who might do what his master wants him to do because he's afraid that if not he will be punished by his master, but it doesn't show that he really cares and loves his master. And the same with us, when we do what it says in the תורה, what השם told us to do, that shows that we're afraid of השם, or it does show maybe that we also love השם, but to a certain degree. When we do more than what השם told us to do, we do things that we assume and understand השם is happy with it, even though we were not commanded to do it, and that is when we do the words of the חכמים. The חכמים themselves are part of כלל ישראל. When we do the words of the חכמים, then we do things that we on our own, that כלל ישראל on its own decided to do to give pleasure to the master, understanding that the master, השם, is happy with it. When we do that, that's when we really show to השם that we really love Him. And that's why the words of the חכמים are more precious and more beloved, to a certain degree, than the words of the תורה themselves. This is similar to the idea of לפנים משורת הדין. We know that when a person does לפנים משורת הדין, more than the דין requires him to do, so then he shows that he loves השם more than if he would be doing just what the דין requires, for the same reason. Because if you only do what the דין requires you to do, that shows that you are afraid not to do the דין, or even if you love the one that told you, but only to a certain degree. When you do more than you are required, then you show your true love to the one you do it for. So when you do לפנים משורת הדין, you show your love to השם. And the same is with the דינים of דרבנן, that when you do a דין דרבנן, then you show השם that you love Him so much that you do more than He Himself commanded to do. And that's what כנסת ישראל was saying to the אייבערשטער, that the words of the חכמים are more beloved to us than the words of the תורה. Then the גמרא asks, מאי שנא האי קרא דשאיל ליה? Why was עפעס this פסוק that he asked him? If he wanted to take his attention away, but why did he take it away by asking him פשט in this פסוק? אמר רב שמעון בן פזי, so רב שמעון בן פזי said, ואיתימא רב שמעון בר אמי, and some say it was רב שמעון בר אמי, מרישא דקרא קאמר ליה. He was really telling him from the beginning of the פסוק. The beginning of the פסוק says, ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, you should kiss me with the kisses of your mouth. So אמר ליה, what he said to him was, ישמעאל אחי, my brother ישמעאל, חשוק שפתותיך זו בזו, kiss your lips one to another, which means close your lips, ואל תבהל להשיב, do not be so fast in asking. In other words, you're trying to find out the real reason for this גזירה of the דרבנן, that they said that cheese is אסור, do not be so fast to inquire. Close your lips and don't ask this question. So that's really what he hinted into. He asked him פשט in this פסוק, trying to hint to him to the beginning of the פסוק where it says ישקני מנשיקות פיהו. But then the גמרא asks, מאי טעמא? What was the reason? Why did he not want him to inquire the reason for this גזירה? אמר עולא, ואיתימא רב שמואל בר אבא, so עולא said, some say it was רב שמואל בר אבא that said, גזירה חדשה היא. What he's saying to him was that this is a new גזירה, a new decree of the חכמים, ואין מפקפקין בה. When it comes to a new decree, we don't look into it, we don't inquire to understand the reason for this גזירה. And the reason for that is because if people are going to know the reason of the גזירה, as the גמרא will say, some of them might not agree to the reason of the גזירה, and therefore, they will not keep it. So as long as people don't know the reason, they just know that the חכמים made a גזירה, they will keep it. But if they will find out the reason and they might not hold of the reason, they might not keep it. So therefore, the custom used to be that when they used to give out a גזירה, for the first year, they wouldn't reveal the reason, and after it was accepted already and people practiced it, that's when they revealed the reason. And that's what he said to him, that since this is a new גזירה, don't look into it, don't try to figure out the reason. מאי גזירתא? The גמרא asks, what was the גזירה? What was the reason? Why did the חכמים make a גזירה not to eat cheese of גוים? אמר רב שמעון בן פזי

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, that רב שמעון בן פזי said in the name of רבי יהושע בן לוי, משום ניקור, because of the bite, which means we're afraid maybe a snake ate from it. Like we learned earlier in the גמרא, that if you leave liquid uncovered, then you're not allowed to drink it because we're afraid that maybe a snake drank from it, and if he did, he left some of his venomous poison in it, and if somebody else will drink it, he could die from the poison of the snake. And the same here also, we're afraid that maybe the milk was left uncovered and a snake drank from it, and therefore the חכמים said we shouldn't eat the cheese of גוים. It is definitely not because we are afraid that maybe the גוים mixed in milk of a non-kosher animal, as the reason is why we're not allowed to drink חלב עכו"ם, why we are not allowed to drink milk that was milked by a גוי and a Jew didn't watch him, because we're afraid maybe some milk of a non-kosher animal was mixed in. But concerning cheese, this couldn't be the reason, because as we know, milk of a non-kosher animal will not allow it to become cheese. So then the reason is, the גמרא says at this point, because we're afraid the milk was left uncovered and then maybe a snake drank from it, and that's why we're not allowed to eat the cheese. But the

גמרא asks, ולימא ליה משום ניקור? So why didn't he tell him that the reason is because of ניקור, because of the bite of a snake? כי דעולא, the answer is like עולא, דאמר עולא, עולא said, כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא, when they would make a גזירה in ארץ ישראל, לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא, they wouldn't reveal the reason for the first twelve months, דילמא איכא איניש דלא סבירא ליה, maybe there's a person that doesn't hold of that reason, ואתי לזלזולי בה, he might take it easy, might not be careful with it. But if he doesn't know the reason, then he'll be careful because he knows that this is a דין דרבנן. אגחך בה רבי ירמיה, but רבי ירמיה made fun of this. He said, if this is the reason, אלא מעתה, if so, יבשה תשתרא, if it's dry, if it's hard, if the cheese is hard, it should be מותר. ישנה תשתרא, if it's old, it should be מותר, דאמר רבי חנינא, because רבי חנינא said, יבש מותר, that if there's something that we're afraid that maybe a snake drank from it, but if it gets hard, it gets dry, you're allowed to eat it, because אין מניחה ליבש. If there is venom of a snake in it, it wouldn't allow this food to get hard. ישן מותר, if it is old, if it's fermented, then it is allowed, because אין מניחה לישן, the venom that's in it wouldn't let it become old, wouldn't... So then the דין should be that when the חכמים made cheese of גוים אסור, dry cheese or old cheese should be מותר. And since they didn't make this difference, obviously this is not the reason why they said the cheese was אסור. אמר רב חנינא, so רב חנינא said the reason is לפי שאי אפשר לה בלא צחצוחי חלב, 'cause it's impossible that it shouldn't have some pieces of milk. In other words, the reason is because we are afraid that maybe milk of a non-kosher animal was mixed into the milk. איי, we said before that then it wouldn't be able to become cheese, the truth is that it טאקע can become cheese, but maybe that little bit of milk that was mixed in remains between the holes. It can become cheese, but sometimes it remains milk and stays between the holes. And that is milk of a non-kosher animal. So that is the reason why we're not allowed to eat cheese of גוים. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט in the answer of רב חנינא. But תוספות asks if this would be the פשט, it means that we changed our mind now from the reason we gave before, that it is not because of the venom of the snake, but it's a different reason because

we're afraid he mixed in non-kosher milk. Now the כלל is wherever the גמרא gives a reason, and then the גמרא asks a קשיא and changes the mind and gives a new reason altogether, the גמרא always says אלא. So the גמרא here should have said אלא אמר רב חנינא. But רב חנינא said that it's a different reason because we're afraid he mixed in milk of a non-kosher animal. Therefore, תוספות learns that the פשט is different, that באמת we're still speaking to the reason that we're afraid that he left it uncovered and a snake drank from it. איי, the קשיא we asked, that if a snake drank from it and left some venom in it, then it can't become old and can't become hard, that רב חנינא says, sometimes it could. איי, the venom we said doesn't let it become old or hard, sometimes the venom remains between the holes. And therefore, even though we know that the venom doesn't allow the milk to become cheese, but sometimes it could happen that the milk becomes cheese and the venom remains between the holes. And that's the answer that he gave him. ושמואל אמר, but שמואל said that the reason why the חכמים אסר'ד גוייִשע cheese, מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבת נבילה, because they curdle it in the skin of the rennet of נבילה. In other words, we know that the קיבה itself, as it said in the משנה, is not אסור. Since the קיבה, the rennet itself, is waste of the animal, and waste is not אסור. So therefore, we wouldn't care if they curdle it with the waste, with the rennet, of a נבילה. But they put it in the עור קיבת נבילה, in the skin of the קיבה of the נבילה, and that skin is אסור. And that's why the חכמים said we can't eat the cheese. But

תוספות asked the question, if that is the reason that you put it in the skin of the קיבה, then why do we have to say the reason is because they use the עור of a קיבה of a נבילה, and it makes the cheese אסור because of נבילה, even if it wouldn't be נבילה, even if it would be a kosher animal which was געשחט'ן? If you use the skin of that kosher שחט'ן animal to make cheese, it should be אסור because of בשר בחלב, even if it's not נבילה. And תוספות says that if it would be בשר בחלב, then it wouldn't be אסור מדאורייתא, since it's cold. Therefore, we say that it's because of נבילה, and that is also אסור מדאורייתא. Then the גמרא asks, הא קיבה גופה שריא, you're telling me the reason is because they curdle it with the עור of the קיבה of נבילה, but if they would do it with the קיבה itself, it would be מותר. ומי אמר שמואל הכי, did שמואל say that? שמואל was the one that gave the reason because they curdle it with the עור of the קיבה נבילה. Is משמע that שמואל himself holds that if it would be with the קיבה itself, it would be מותר. והתנן, didn't we learn, קיבת עובדי כוכבים, קיבה of a גוי, ושל נבילה, or of נבילה, הרי זו אסורה, it is אסור. That's what it says in the משנה. והוינן בה, we thought into it, עובדי כוכבים לאו נבילה היא, isn't the קיבה that comes from an animal of a גוי, isn't it נבילה anyway? So what's the פשט when we say the קיבה of an animal of a גוי and a קיבה of נבילה? ואמר שמואל, and שמואל answered on this, חדא קתני, he's really saying one thing. It's not like two things he's saying, the קיבה of an animal of a גוי, and another thing, the קיבה of נבילה. He's saying one thing: קיבת שחיטת עובדי כוכבים, the קיבה of an animal of a גוי that he שחט'ד. Even if he שחט'ד the animal, it is נבילה, and אסורה, it is אסור. But in the meantime, we see here that שמואל said that the קיבה of נבילה is אסור. And before we learned in the גמרא that he says the whole שאלה is because they put it into the עור of the קיבה of נבילה, which is משמע that if they would use the קיבה itself, it wouldn't be אסור. And the גמרא says לא קשיא, there's no קשיא. כאן קודם חזרה, כאן לאחר

חזרה. Here it is before רבי יהושע had חרטה, and here it's after רבי יהושע had חרטה. Because we see in our משנה that first רבי יהושע says that the reason why you can't use the cheese of גוים is because they curdled it with the rennet of נבילה. And רבי ישמעאל said to him, but that shouldn't be אסור, and he proved proved it from the קיבה of an עולה. So רבי יהושע had חרטה. The משנה that we brought before, where it's משמע that the קיבה of נבילה is אסור, it was a משנה in חולין, that was said before the story that our משנה tells us that רבי יהושע had חרטה. So therefore, there it says that the קיבה of נבילה is אסור. But in our משנה, it says that the קיבה of נבילה is מותר, because this is already when רבי יהושע had חרטה. איי, the question is, if רבי יהושע had חרטה, why don't they change the משנה that's learned in חולין? משנה לא זזה ממקומה. A משנה does not get pushed away from its place, which means a משנה that was established stays that way, and therefore the משנה in חולין remains the way it is, that a קיבה of נבילה is אסור, but that's not על פי הלכה, because the הלכה is that it's מותר, as in our משנה we find that רבי יהושע changed his mind and admitted that it is מותר.

ומלאכיה משמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמר, but מלאכיה in the name of רב אדא בר אהבה said, he gave a different reason why the חכמים אסר'ד cheese of גוים: מפני שמחליקין פניה בשומן חזיר, because they smear the outside with fat of a חזיר. That's what they used to do and that's why they made it אסור. רב חסדא אמר, רב חסדא said: מפני שמעמידין אותה בחומץ, because they curdle it with vinegar, vinegar that's made of wine that became sour. And since it's wine from גוים, so it is אסור, so therefore the cheese is also אסור. רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר, רב נחמן בר יצחק said: מפני שמעמידין אותה בשרף ערלה, because they curdle it with the the sap of ערלה. ערלה is the first three years after you plant a tree, the fruit that grows, ערלה, it is אסור בהנאה. And since it's possible that they curdle it with the sap of ערלה, therefore it is אסור, because ערלה of a גוי is also אסור. So therefore, since they might use the sap of ערלה, you can't eat their cheese. Then the גמרא says: כמאן, according to who does this go? כי האי תנא. It follows the opinion of a certain תנא.

דתנן, because we learn in a משנה: דאלעזר, אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר says, המעמיד בשרף ערלה אסור, if you curdled with the sap of ערלה, it is אסור, מפני שהוא פירא, because the sap is פירא. Because we know the דין that the fruit of ערלה is אסור, the tree itself is not אסור. Now the sap he says is considered fruit of the tree and therefore it is אסור. So this fits according to that מאן דאמר. When רב נחמן בר יצחק said that the reason you can't eat the cheese of גוים is because they curdle it with the sap of ערלה, this fits according to רבי אלעזר. רבי יהושע there argues and he says that the sap of ערלה is מותר because he doesn't consider it fruit. But רבי אלעזר holds it is considered fruit, and therefore, according to רבי אלעזר, we understand why the חכמים אסר'ד the cheese of גוים, because they curdle it with the sap of ערלה. And then the גמרא says: אפילו תימא רבי יהושע, you could say even רבי יהושע, and this fits even according to רבי יהושע, because עד כאן לא פליג רבי יהושע עליה דרבי אלעזר, because only then does רבי יהושע argue against רבי אלעזר, אלא בקטפא דגוזא, concerning the sap of the tree, אבל בקטפא דפירא מודה, but the sap of the fruit, he is מודה, he admits. And concerning the cheese, we suspect that maybe they curdled it in the sap of the fruit of a tree of ערלה. היינו דתנן, and this is what we learn in a משנה, דאמר רבי יהושע, that רבי יהושע said: שמעתי בפירוש, I heard clearly, שהמעמיד בשרף עלין ובשרף עיקרין מותר, that if somebody curdled milk in the sap of the leaf or in the sap of the root, it is מותר. בשרף פגין אסור, but in the sap of the unripened fruit it is אסור, מפני שהוא פירא, because that's fruit. So the sap of the fruit is definitely אסור according to everybody, and that's why the cheese of גוים is אסור. Then the גמרא asks: בין לרב חסדא, בין לרב נחמן בר יצחק תיאסר בהנאה. Whether we accept the reason of רב חסדא, that he said before because they curdled it with vinegar which was made from יין נסך, or we accept the reason of רב נחמן בר יצחק because they curdled it with the sap of the fruit of ערלה, it should be אסור בהנאה, because these are things which are אסור בהנאה. Now

according to the other opinions, that we're afraid maybe because it was left open, or we're afraid maybe because they mixed in milk of a non-kosher animal, or because we're afraid that it was put into the עור, the skin of the קיבה of נבילה, or if we're afraid maybe they smeared it with חזיר, all that is not אסור בהנאה, and therefore, the חכמים only said you can't eat the cheese, but it's מותר בהנאה. But according to רב חסדא who says it's because of the יין נסך, or according to רב נחמן בר יצחק who says it's because of ערלה, why isn't it אסור בהנאה? And the גמרא says: קשיא. This remains a קשיא, there is no answer to this קשיא. And the גמרא continues: דרש רב נחמן בר דרב חסדא, רב נחמן in front of רב חסדא דרש'נד: מאי דכתיב, what is the meaning of the פסוק where it says, לריח שמניך טובים that the smell of your ointment is good, and the פסוק there continues and says, שמן תורק שמך, that your name is as ointment and the end of the פסוק is, שמן תורק שמך, that your name is as ointment which is poured forth. So what is the meaning of this פסוק? למה תלמיד חכם דומה, to what is a תלמיד חכם compared? לצלוחית של פלייטון, to a bottle of perfume. Why? אם מגולה, if it is uncovered, ריחו נודף, its smell goes out, ומכוסה, if it's covered, אין ריחו נודף, its smell does not go out. What he's trying to say here is if a תלמיד חכם gives out his תורה, is uncovered and doesn't keep it to himself, but he teaches תלמידים, then his name will travel, he will be known, but if not, then his name is not known. ולא עוד, not only that, אלא דברים שהם מכוסים ממנו מתגלים לו, but things which are hidden for him will be revealed to him, שנאמר, because the פסוק there continues and says, עלמות אהבוך, that maidens will love you, קרי ביה עלומות, you should read not עלמות, but עלומות. עלומות comes from the word העלם, which is covered, so what he is saying is, עלומות אהבוך, that the hidden things will love you, which means that the hidden things will be revealed to you. Which means there are certain things that you will not have to learn, it will come to you by itself. If you teach תלמידים, then certain things in תורה will come to you. Or as תוספות says, what it means is, that people will reveal to you what is hidden by them. Because it says in פרקי אבות, if a person learns תורה לשמה, נהנים ממנו עצה ותושיה, that people have הנאה, gain from him עצה, advice, and תושיה and help, means that people will come and tell them their problems, so that's what he says here, that hidden things in the minds of other people will be revealed to you. ולא עוד, not only that, אלא שמלאך המות אוהבו, even the מלאך המות, the angel of death, likes him, שנאמר, as it says, עלמות אהבוך, קרי ביה אל מות. The word עלמות could be made up of two words: אל מות, which refers to the מלאך המות, he also loves you. ולא עוד, not only that, אלא שנוחל שני עולמות, he inherits two worlds, אחד העולם הזה ואחד עולם הבא, one is this world and one is the world to come, שנאמר, because it says עלמות, עלמות אהבוך, so we דרשן קרי ביה עולמות, the worlds. Which are the two worlds? עולם הזה, this world, and עולם הבא, the other world, the world to come. So that's what it says, that if he is a תלמיד חכם that uncovers himself and teaches תלמידים, he will inherit both worlds. And now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says: אלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה. Here are the things of גוים which are forbidden, but they are not forbidden בהנאה. This is in continuation to the previous משנה. The previous משנה started by saying that these are the things of גוים which are forbidden and the איסור is an איסור הנאה. So now the משנה says there are other things which are also forbidden, but they are not אסור בהנאה. And which are they? חלב שחלבו עכו"ם, milk that was milked by a גוי, ואין ישראל רואהו, and a ייד was not watching, so then it's אסור. והפת והשמן שלהן, the bread and the oil of the גוים, then the משנה says: רבי ובית דינו התירו השמן, רבי and his בית דין allowed the שמן, took off the איסור from the oil. But רש"י says that we cannot be גורס this in the משנה, because it wasn't רבי that took off the איסור, but we see from the גמרא later on it was רבי יהודה נשיאה who was a grandson of רבי. רבי had a son, רבן גמליאל ברבי, and his son was רבי יהודה נשיאה, who was an אמורא, not even a תנא. So we can't be גורס in the משנה that רבי and his בית דין were מתיר, because really it was רבי יהודה נשיאה who was מתיר. Then the משנה continues: והשלקות, anything that was cooked by גוים, even if it was cooked in a כשר כלי, it is also אסור, and the reason is, in order for us not to socialize with the גוים and to come to intermarry, because if you eat from their food that they cooked, it'll bring you to socialize with them, eat at their tables, and this will bring to intermarriage. וכבשים, or if it was food that was soaked and preserved with vegetables and things like that, for instance like the head or the feet of a בהמה, which they soak and they preserve in vinegar, שדרכן לתת לתוכן יין וחומץ, that the custom is that they put wine or vinegar in it, וטרית טרופה, herring which was chopped up, וציר שאין בו דגה כלבית שוטטת בו, or brine of fish that has no כלבית fish floating in it, because the nature is that when you have brine of כשר fish, then this automatically makes that דגה כלבית starts floating in it. But if it has non-כשר ציר in it also, then this דגה כילבית would not be floating in it. So this is what the משנה says, that you are not allowed to eat the ציר of fish if it has no דגה כילבית in it. And also והחילק, it's these are small fishes which are כשר fish, it's called סילתנית, and as we learned in the גמרא before, then they're small, they have no fins or scales, but when they get bigger, that's when the fins and scales grow on them, and it's very hard to tell the difference between them and non-כשר fish. So to buy this חילק from גוים, you're not allowed, because they don't tell the difference and they don't separate it, and therefore, when you buy this from them, so it could be that it has some non-כשר fish in it. And that's why you're not allowed to buy it. And here, it makes no difference whether it is minced, chopped up, or not, because you might have even a very, very small amount of that fish which you can't tell, even if it's not chopped up in it, because it's hard to tell. So, therefore, even if it's not chopped up, you're not allowed to eat it. In the case of the טרית which was the herring, there we said only if it's טרוף, only if it's chopped up, because otherwise you could tell the difference. If they're chopped up, you can't tell the difference. But in חילק, even if it's not chopped up, it's hard to tell the difference, therefore you are not allowed to buy it from גוים. וקורט של חלתית and pieces of חלתית, and רש״י says this is a kind of fruit that they call לאזרא, and when they cut the pieces, they cut it with a knife, and the knife could have some fat of איסור on it, therefore you can't buy that cut up piece of fruit. ומלח סלקונדית, and the גמרא will explain what kind of salt this is. הרי אלו אסורין, all these things are forbidden, אבל אין איסורן איסור הנאה, but it is not forbidden to have any הנאה from. And now the גמרא will explain the משנה. גמרא says חלב למאי ניחוש ליה, milk, what should we be afraid of? One of the things mentioned in the משנה was milk that was milked by a גוי and a ייד did not watch, why is it אסור? What are we afraid of? אי משום אחלופי, if we're afraid he might exchange, in other words, he'll give us instead of milk from a כשר animal, he'll give us milk from a non-כשר animal, such a mistake he can't make, because טהור חיור, milk from a כשר animal is white, טמא ירוק, milk from a non-כשר animal is greenish. ואי משום עירובי, if because we're afraid that he won't exchange and give us completely milk from a non-כשר animal, but he might mix in into the milk of a כשר animal some milk of a non-כשר animal, ניקמיה, let him curdle it, דאמר מר, because we know the דין is, חלב טהור עומד, milk of a כשר animal could become curdled, חלב טמא אינו עומד, but milk of a non-כשר animal can't curdle. So, therefore, if he buys milk from a גוי, let him curdle it, and if he'll see that it curdles, he knows that there is no mixture of milk from a non-כשר animal. So the גמרא says: אי דקבעי לגבינה הכי נמי, if he wants to buy milk to make cheese, you are right, that he could do that, and that would prove to him whether there was milk of a non-כשר animal mixed in, but הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking דקבעי ליה לקמחא, he has to eat it, he wants to drink milk itself, so then how will he know whether it has a mixture of non-כשר animal's milk in it or not? And the גמרא says, there's still an עצה, there's still something we could do to figure out. ונישקול מיניה קליל, let him take a little bit of it, וניקמיה, and let him curdle that, and if he will see that that little bit does curdle, he will know that this whole milk that he bought from the גוי has no mixture of milk of a non-כשר animal, and he'll be able to drink the rest. The גמרא says it's no ראיה, כיון דבטהור נמי איכא נסיובי, since even by milk of a כשר animal there is this whey דלא קאי, that doesn't curdle, לא קים ליה מילתא, so we can't prove it. Since even from the כשר milk certain parts of it remain, so when he will take a little bit and curdle it, and it'll get curdled, and a little bit will remain not curdled, so that little bit he will think is the נסיובי, the whey of the כשר animal's milk, and really, within that whey there could be a mixture of non-כשר animal's milk, and he'll think that the little bit that didn't curdle was because it is the whey of the כשר milk. And therefore, even if he curdles it, he will not know whether there is a mixture of milk of a non-כשר animal in it or not. And therefore this won't do any good. At this point, we still think that if he's going to take the whole milk and curdle it for cheese, then that would prove that the milk has no mixture of milk of a non-כשר animal, and he would be able to eat the cheese. The only problem is if he wants to use it to drink, then the only עצה that we thought we have was to take a little bit of it and curdle it, and for that the גמרא says there is no advice. But for cheese you really could do it. And now the גמרא says, ואי בעית אימא, if you want I could tell you, אפילו תימא דקבעי ליה לגבינה, that באמת even if he wants to use the milk for cheese, still, even if it curdles, there is no ראיה that it has no mixture of non-kosher milk in it, because איכא דקאי ביני אטפי, there is this milk that remains between the holes. So when the milk curdles and becomes cheese, between the holes there remains parts which are not curdled, and that could be the milk of the non-kosher animal, and therefore you can't prove it even if you make the whole milk into cheese. And therefore the חכמים said you're not allowed to drink milk of גוים unless a איד watches it. Then the גמרא continues: in the משנה it said, והפת, that bread of גוים is אסור. אמר רב כהנא אמר רב יוחנן, רב כהנא said in the name of רב יוחנן, פת לא הותרה בבית דין, that bread, bread of גוים, was not permitted through a בית דין. The גמרא said, מכלל that proves דאיכא מאן דשרי, that there is somebody who said it's allowed. If there would be no opinion that you're allowed to eat bread of גוים, then why should he say that bread was never מותר בבית דין? Certainly it wasn't מותר. The בית דין אסר it and that's it! Since he comes to tell us, you should know it didn't become מותר in בית דין, obviously there is a סברא to make it מותר. There is an opinion that says it's מותר, and nevertheless he tells us that it never became מותר בבית דין. So who is that opinion? So the גמרא says, אין, yes, דכי אתא רב דימי, because when רב דימי came, אמר, he said, פעם אחת יצא רבי לשדה, once רבי went out to the field, והביא עובד כוכבים לפניו פת פוני מאפה סאה, and a גוי brought before him a loaf of bread baked in a large oven from a סאה flour. אמר רבי, and רבי said, כמה נאה פת זו, how

nice is this bread! מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה? Why did the חכמים feel fit to forbid it? So the גמרא asks, what did he mean by that question? מה ראו חכמים, why did the חכמים see to make it אסור? משום חתנות! It shouldn't lead to intermarriage! אלא what he meant to ask was, מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה בשדה? Why did the חכמים feel fit to make it אסור even in the field? Since the whole reason they said it was אסור was because it'll bring to socializing, which will bring to intermarriage, but that is only in the city where there are a lot of people. But in the field, where there are no people, there they shouldn't have made it אסור. כסבורים העם, so the people thought, התיר רבי הפת, that רבי allowed the bread. ולא היא, it is not true. רבי לא התיר את הפת, רבי never made the bread מותר. He just asked a question, but he never made it מותר. And that's what we mean here, that he said that בית דין did not allow bread, because there was a סברא to think that the בית דין did, based on this story, and that's why he said that the בית דין did not allow it.

רב יוסף, ואיתימא רב שמואל בר יהודה, אמר, רב יוסף, and some say it was רב שמואל בר יהודה that said, לא כך היה מעשה, the story wasn't like this. אלא אמרו, but they said, פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד, once רבי came to one place, וראה פת דחוקה לתלמידים, he saw that it was hard for the תלמידים to get bread there. אמר רבי, so רבי said, אין כאן פלטר? Don't you have a baker here? כסבורים העם, so the people thought, לומר to say, פלטר עובד כוכבים, that what he meant was a גויישע baker. And based on that, they thought that you're allowed to eat bread from a גויישע baker. והוא לא אמר אלא פלטר ישראל, but what he meant was only a יידישע baker. אמר רב חלבו, רב חלבו said, אפילו למאן דאמר פלטר עובד כוכבים, אפילו according to the one that holds that what he meant was a גויישע baker, and he טאקע held that you're allowed to buy bread from a גויישע baker, לא אמרן, this was not said, אלא דליכא פלטר ישראל, only in a place where you don't have a יידישע baker. אבל במקום דאיכא פלטר ישראל לא, but in a place where you do have a יידישע baker, then you shouldn't buy, you're not allowed to buy from a גויישע baker.

רב יוחנן אמר, רב יוחנן said, אפילו למאן דאמר פלטר עובד כוכבים, אפילו according to the one that he said that is there a גויישע baker here, which meant that you are allowed to buy from a גויישע baker, הני מילי בשדה, this is only in the field, אבל בעיר לא, but in the city you can't even buy from a גויישע baker. משום חתנות, because we're afraid this could lead to intermarriage. Then the גמרא says, איבו הוה מנכיס ואכיל פת אבי מיצר. איבו would bite and eat bread by the border of the city. In other words, he accepted the דין that in the field you're allowed to eat bread from a גוי, so he would come till the border of the city, which was still considered part of the field, and there he would eat bread of גוים. אמר להו רבא, so רבא said to them, to the people, ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק, and some say it was רב נחמן בר יצחק that said this, that לא תשתעו בהדיה דאיבו דקאכיל לחמא דארמאי, don't talk to איבו because he eats גויישע bread. Or the way the גירסא of the רי״ף and the ר״ן and the רא״ש is here, not לא תשתעו בהדיה דאיבו, do not talk with איבו, but לא תשתעו מיניה דאיבו, do not talk from איבו, which means to say do not give over any דינים in the name of איבו because he eats גויישע bread. Concerning what we learned before, that one of the reasons the גמרא gave why you shouldn't eat cheese from גוים was because of ניקור, which means we're afraid that they left the milk uncovered, and maybe a snake drank from it, and that's why the cheese that was made from that milk should not be eaten, so תוספות asks a קשיא, according to that, when the גמרא says later on that the reason we are not allowed to drink milk of a גוי unless a ייד watches it is because we're afraid maybe he mixed in milk from a non-kosher animal, why doesn't the גמרא give the reason because of גילוי? That maybe the גוי left it uncovered, and maybe a snake drank from it, and we are not allowed to drink from any liquid that was left uncovered. And תוספות answers אין הכי נמי, טאקע we couldn't drink the milk of a גוי because of that too, but this would not be a good enough reason for what the משנה says. The משנה says that you're not allowed to drink milk of a גוי if a ייד didn't watch it. Now if the reason is only because of גילוי, then you wouldn't have to have a ייד watch it, because sometimes it could be that a ייד did not watch it and nevertheless there shouldn't be an איסור of גילוי. For instance, if he sees the גוי walk out of the place where he just milked the בהמה, so since the גוי was holding it the whole time in his hand, so then there is no חשש of גילוי, because the גוי was holding it, and as soon as the גוי left, the ייד is there, but ייד wasn't there by the milking. And since the משנה says that the only time you're allowed to drink the milk is if the ייד stood by the milking, then there must be another reason for it, and that's why the גמרא gives the reason because we're afraid he might mix in milk of a non-kosher animal into this milk. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, according to this reason in the גמרא why you can't eat cheese of a גוי is because we're afraid the milk was left uncovered, why עפעס does the גמרא worry about milk more than other things? Why is the דין that you're allowed to drink water of a גוי, you're allowed to have honey of a גוי, and according to some מאן דאמר'ס in גמרא in חולין there is a דין of גילוי by them too, and nevertheless there is no דין that you shouldn't drink water of a גוי or you shouldn't eat honey of a גוי? So how come by milk they are more worried about גילוי than by the other things? And תוספות answers because by all the liquids, even though the גוים don't care about גילוי, but they care on cleanliness, as the גמרא said before. And therefore we assume that they have had it covered not because of the דין of the חכמים of גילוי, but because of cleanliness, so therefore we could drink it. But by milk, since many times or most cases milk is not drank just the way it is, but it is put into other things, and before you put it into other food they sift it through, so therefore they don't care if it gets dirty because they'll sift it anyway, and therefore they do not cover it. So concerning גילוי that we are afraid of because of the snakes, sifting doesn't help, as the גמרא says in בבא קמא. So therefore for us it is not enough, the sifting, and we are afraid that they left it uncovered because they don't worry about the cleanliness of the milk, therefore by milk the חכמים אסר it. But by other liquids where we assume that they will cover it for cleanliness, there the חכמים did not אסר. But then the גמרא asks on this reason that we know that if a snake drank from it, it won't get hard and it won't get old, so hard and old ones should be מותר. So תוספות asks, why doesn't the גמרא answer there was a גזירה? באמת טאקע the reason applies only to if it was new, but the חכמים made a גזירה that you shouldn't drink old as a גזירה if you're going to drink old you might come to drink new, just like the גמרא said before concerning שכר, that we make a גזירה if you're going to drink שכר you're going to come to drink wine. And תוספות answers when do we make such a גזירה? Only in a place where they are very similar and it's hard to tell the difference. So therefore we say if we're going to allow one, you might come to do the other. But in the case of the old and the new of the cheese, you could tell the difference very easily, so here there is no reason for the חכמים to make this גזירה and say that if we're going to allow to you to eat old cheese you'll come to eat new cheese, because people know the difference, and therefore the גמרא couldn't answer that the reason is because of a גזירה. Concerning what the גמרא says later on concerning the איסור of פת, bread of גוים, when the גמרא said אמר רב כהנא אמר רבי יוחנן that פת לא הותרה בבית דין, that bread was not מותר by בית דין, and the גמרא says from the fact that he said that פת is not מותר בבית דין, מכלל דאיכא מאן דשרי, that shows that there is somebody who is מתיר, which means that there is a reason to be מתיר, and what he was saying was that nevertheless they weren't מתיר it. Now the question is how could the גמרא even think that they were מתיר it, when we know that when a גזירה was established, in order to be מתיר it you must have a bigger בית דין than the בית דין before? אלא מאי this proves from the fact that the גמרא says that they could have been מתיר it and they weren't מתיר it, that shows that this was לכתחילה a גזירה that wasn't פושט בכלל ישראל. that didn't spread out amongst יידן. When is this דין, that a גזירה that was already established, you can't be מתיר unless you are a bigger בית דין? That is if a גזירה that was accepted by everybody, then you can't be מתיר that גזירה. But a גזירה that wasn't פושט איסורו בכל ישראל, that wasn't accepted by everybody yet, such a גזירה you could be מתיר. So here, since the גמרא says that they weren't מתיר פת, which means that they could have been מתיר, that shows that this גזירה of פת was not פושט בכל ישראל, it wasn't spread out amongst all יידן. And תוספות, and תוספות says, on this the people rely that they eat bread of גוים, since the איסור did not spread amongst all יידן. And we could rely on the words of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and of רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק that they say that אין גוזרין גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד בו. You cannot make a גזירה on the ציבור unless we know for sure that the ציבור is able to take it. And since in this גזירה we saw that not everybody is able to take it, so the גזירה is not a real גזירה. And another ראיה תוספות says, it says later on, that the reason they weren't מתיר פת was because they didn't want to be called a בית דין שריא, a בית דין which is מתיר איסורים. So they, טאקע, weren't מתיר it, but the בית דין later was מתיר it. And another ראיה, it says in ירושלמי, in this פרק of עבודה זרה, and also in the first פרק of שבת, that פת עמדו עליו והתירוהו, that concerning the פת of גוים, the בית דין were מתיר this איסור. And then תוספות says that anybody who is careful from eating פת of גוים, still is allowed to sit and eat together with another person who is not careful in eating bread of גוים. He could even eat in one plate. Even though the taste of the bread of גוים will be mixed into the bread of the יידן, still, you shouldn't be מחמיר that much to make it אסור even על תערובות, even from a mixture. Like it says in the first פרק of חולין, דלא גזרו על תערובת דמאי, that even דמאי, which was an איסור דרבנן, but תערובת דמאי they didn't make אסור. And the same applies to פת עכו"ם, that those who are careful with eating פת עכו"ם, it is only the פת itself. But if it just has a בליעה, a taste of the פת עכו"ם, that you don't have to be careful with according to תוספות. Concerning what the גמרא said before, when they דרש'ן the פסוק לריח שמניך טובים, then it said שמן תורק שמך, so the גמרא said למה תלמיד חכם דומה, to what is a תלמיד חכם compared to? לצלוחית של פלייטון, to a bottle of perfume, that if it is uncovered then the smell goes out, if it's covered then the smell doesn't go out. And then, which means that if a תלמיד חכם gives out his תורה, then his name goes out, his smell goes out, and if he doesn't, then it doesn't go out. And the גמרא goes on and says even more than that, but also that they reveal to him things which are covered, and also that even the מלאך המות becomes his friend, and also that he inherits both worlds. So the מהרש"א asked the קשיא, לכאורה why do we compare the תלמיד חכם to the bottle of the perfume? לכאורה the תלמיד חכם is compared to the perfume itself. And the גמרא says למה תלמיד חכם דומה, לצלוחית של פלייטון, to the bottle of the perfume. And therefore the מהרש"א says the פשט as follows: The body of the תלמיד חכם is compared to the bottle. The שכל, the intellect that's in the brain of the תלמיד חכם, that is compared to the oil that's in the bottle, because we know that the שכל is connected to the נשמה, and the נשמה is compared to a candle as it says נר ה' נשמת אדם, and the candle burns through oil. And this is what the גמרא means to say, that a person shouldn't think that he's going to keep the תורה for himself and he's not going to teach this to others and still he will be called a תלמיד חכם. So we tell him אדרבה, take an example of the bottle of the perfume. When you empty the bottle into another כלי, so then the bottle itself, the first bottle, even though now there is no perfume in it, nevertheless it has still a good smell. But if you don't empty the perfume from this bottle into another כלי, but you keep it covered, so then there is no smell that comes from this bottle. The same with a תלמיד חכם. If he gives out his תורה to others, so then his body, which is compared to the bottle, will also smell, which means will also gain from the חכמה. But if he keeps it covered, which means he doesn't give it out, so then he himself, which is compared to the bottle of the perfume, will not have any smell, which means there will be no additional חכמה that will be added even to him, to his own body. And he continues and says ולא עוד, but more than that, דברים שמכוסים ממנו נגלים לו, things which are covered from him will be revealed, which means when he teaches others, he will gain more, because as the גמרא says in תענית and in מכות, that הרבה למדתי מרבותי, one of the חכמים said, I learned a lot from my רבי'ס, ויותר מחבירי, from my friends I learned even more, ויותר מתלמידי, and from my תלמידים I learned even more. And that's the פשט here too, that if he teaches others, then things which are hidden from him will be revealed, which means means he will learn more תורה than if he wouldn't have taught others. And then he continues and says, and not only that, but the מלאך המות becomes his friend. So the מהרש"א says the פשט here is based on what it says in the גמרא in שבת, that when משה רבינו went up to heaven, and the מלאכי השרת, מלאכים wanted the תורה, and השם said to משה give them an answer to all their questions, and he answered it, so it says there מיד כל אחד ואחד נעשה אוהבו. Every מלאך became his friend, and every מלאך gave him a present, as the פסוק says, לקחת מתנות באדם, he took presents from the מלאכים. And the גמרא says there that even the מלאך המות also became his friend, and also gave him a present. The present was that he told him a secret that if there is ever a מגפה, the way to stop it is through קטורת. So that's what he means here when he says that if a person teaches others, which means he has the זכות of himself plus he has the זכות of being מזכה others, so he is similar to what משה רבינו was that he was זוכה ומזכה את האחרים. So just like by משה רבינו, the מלאכים became his friends and revealed secrets to him, and even the מלאך המות became his friend and revealed a secret to him too, so this person also, so it says that things which are hidden will be revealed to him, which means that the מלאכים will reveal things to him, and even the מלאך המות becomes his friend, just like by משה that the מלאך המות revealed a secret to him, so too to this person who learns with others, which is similar to משה רבינו, will also get a secret from the מלאך המות. And then he continues more than that, and not only that, but he also inherits both worlds. It says, because we find a similar thing that אברהם אבינו, who was זוכה וזיכה את הרבים, אברהם had his own זכות and was מזכה others, because it says, את הנפש אשר עשו בחרן. So, therefore, אברהם and his תלמידים have both worlds, so the same thing here, this תלמיד חכם who not only learns תורה himself, but also reveals it to others, also will be like אברהם אבינו, and he will be זוכה to both worlds. And then the מהרש"א explains how we are able to דרשן from the same פסוק three דרשות. בכלל, we know that from one פסוק we only דרשן one דרש, and here we דרשן three דרשות. One, we דרשן the word עלמות from the words עלומות, which means hidden, we also דרשן the word as if it would have said אל מות, and also we דרשן it from the לשון עולמות. So he says like this: since the word is עלמות, which is made up of two words אל מות, so that's the first דרש, that the מלאך המות becomes his friend. But since it doesn't say the word אל מות, that shows that we should דרשן another דרש. And since it doesn't say עולמות with a ו after the ע, that comes to tell us that we should דרשן another דרש. And on the other hand, since it doesn't say עלומות with a ו after the ל, it comes to teach us that we should דרשן another דרש. So that's why we דרשן here all three דרשות, to teach us that when a תלמיד חכם teaches תורה, so then he has all these three מעלות.