Jewish audio on Chabad.org. The דף, we will start in דף ל״ה עמוד ב׳, the last line of the עמוד. The גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it said: והשמן שלהן. The משנה here mentions different things of גוים that the חכמים אסר. And among the things that the חכמים אסר, the משנה says was שמן שלהן, their oil. That a איד is not allowed to eat, drink the oil of a גוי. And the גמרא here discusses that. שמן, this איסור of oil, רב אמר, רב says: דניאל גזר עליו, דניאל decreed upon it. That דניאל yet and his בית דין decreed that the Jews should not eat, drink oil of גוים. And the reason for that is simple, because this would also lead to חתנות. That this would also lead to intermarry, that if you will have the oil of גוים, this will lead you to socialize with the גוים, and then this could bring to intermarriage.

ושמואל אמר, but שמואל said that it wasn't דניאל who made the גזירה because of חתנות, but there is a different reason why it's אסור. And who made the איסור? The תלמידים of שמאי and הלל. And what was the reason for the איסור? So he says: זליפתן של כלים טמאים אוסרתן. The residue of their כלים which were טמא, that made it אסור. That when the גוי would pour the oil out of his כלי, there would also be there residue of טומאה that came from his כלי, and that's why the חכמים made an איסור upon drinking the oil, using the oil of a גוי. But the גמרא asks: אטו כולי עלמא אוכלי טהרות נינהו? Are most of the people people who only eat טהור? We know that טרף, איסור, you're not allowed to eat, but to be careful for טומאה וטהרה, not everyone was careful. Certain people were careful not to become טמא, but not most of the people. The דין is only that a person who is טמא is not allowed to enter the בית המקדש, or is not allowed to eat קדשים. But there is no דין that a person is not allowed to become טמא. Therefore, most people were not careful of not becoming טמא. Only certain people were careful to eat טהרות and not to become טמא. And in that itself, there were many levels. Some only ate חולין בטהרה, some ate חולין בטהרת תרומה, some ate חולין על טהרת הקודש, different levels of טהרה. But nevertheless, there is no obligation in not becoming טמא and only eating טהור food. So therefore, the גמרא asks here: how can you say that the reason the חכמים אסר שמן, oil, was because when the גוי poured the oil out of his כלי, it would take along certain things which were טמא in the כלים, but not most people were careful with טומאה?

Therefore, the גמרא says: אלא, we must say, what did he mean? זליפתן של כלים אסורין אוסרתן. That the residue of forbidden כלים would make it אסור. That since the גוי would keep the oil in his טרפה כלים, when he would pour the oil out and give it to the איד, there would be residue of some טרף that came from the כלי. That when the oil was poured out, it would take along the טרף that was absorbed in the כלי. And therefore, the חכמים said that you are not allowed to use the oil of a גוי. אמר ליה שמואל לרב, שמואל said to רב: בשלמא לדידי, מילא according to me, דאמינא, that I say, זליפתן של כלים אסורין אוסרתן, that the reason why it is אסור is because of the residue of the non-kosher כלים, היינו, this will explain the פשט in the כי אתא of רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא, that when רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא came, ואמר, and he said: דריש רב שמלאי בנציבין, that רב שמלאי דרשנט in נציבין, שמן, that oil, רבי יהודה ובית דינו נמנו עליו והתירוהו, that רבי יהודה and

his בית דין voted upon it, took a count, and they were מתיר, they permitted oil. So if the reason why originally the oil was אסור was because the residue of the טרפה כלים would be in the oil, I understand how he was able to be מתיר it. Because קסבר, because רבי יהודה and his בית דין held: נותן טעם לפגם מותר. That if a taste of non-kosher food is given into kosher food, if the taste is not a good taste, then it is מותר. And therefore, in this case it's מותר. Since the taste that's put into the oil from the כלים is נותן טעם לפגם, doesn't give a good taste, so therefore he holds it's מותר, and therefore he allowed the oil. The earlier תלמידים of שמאי and הלל who made the גזירה that you shouldn't use oil, they held נותן טעם לפגם אסור, that if it gives a taste in the food, even if it's a bad taste, as long as it's a טרף taste that's given into the food, then you are not allowed to eat it. And that was the reason they אסר oil. But רב... יהודה and his בית דין, who held that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, so he had a reason to allow it, because the whole reason why they made it אסור was based on this סברא of נותן טעם לפגם אסור. But if he פסק'ד נותן טעם לפגם מותר, he was able to be מתיר it. אלא לדידך, but according to you, דאמרת, that you say, דניאל גזר עליו, דניאל made the גזירה, and it is not because of נותן טעם לפגם that it is אסור, that's why he made the גזירה. But if we

hold that דניאל made the גזירה, it was because of חתנות, because he was afraid that this would lead to intermarriage. Now, if this was the reason, דניאל גזר, דניאל made the גזירה, ואתא רבי יהודה הנשיא ומבטל ליה? Comes רבי יהודה הנשיא and annuls this גזירה? How is it possible? והתנן, didn't we learn in the משנה that אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו, that one בית דין cannot be מבטל the words of a different בית דין, אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין, unless he is greater than him in חכמה, which means the חכמה of the חכמים of the second בית דין is greater than the חכמה of the חכמים of the earlier בית דין, ובמנין, it also has to be more in numbers. But otherwise you cannot annul a decree of a previous בית דין. So how was the בית דין of רבי יהודה הנשיא able to be מבטל the decree of דניאל? Definitely, they were not greater than the בית דין of דניאל. אמר ליה, so he said to him, שמלאי לודאה קאמרת, you're telling me this in the name of רב שמלאי who came from לוד. שאני לודאי, those that come from לוד are different, דמזלזלו. They are מזלזל, they are not careful with the גזירות of the רבנן. So the whole קשיא you asked is from the fact that רב שמלאי said that רבי יהודה and his בית דין were מתיר, allowed oil. If it's only a question based on what רב שמלאי from לוד said, there is no question, because לכתחילה, the people from לוד were not careful with the גזירות דרבנן. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אשלח ליה? Should I send for him? Because as you say, what he said was wrong, it is only because he was מזלזל in the words of the חכמים, that's why he said it. So should I call for him? איכסיף, he got embarrassed. ואמר רב, and רב said, אם הם לא דרשו, if they didn't דרשן, in other words, he טאקע accepted the fact that רבי יהודה and his בית דין allowed the oil, but he didn't agree with it. He felt that what they did was wrong, because he said if they, רבי יהודה and his בית דין, did not דרשן the פסוק properly, אנן לא דרשינן, and we also shouldn't דרשן it? Because רב held that we have a ראיה from a פסוק in דניאל that דניאל אסר'ד שמן. So how was רבי יהודה and his בית דין able to be מבטל it? אלא מאי, because רבי יהודה and his בית דין did not learn the פסוק properly. So he said if they didn't learn the פסוק properly, so we shouldn't learn the פסוק properly? What is the פסוק? דכתיב, because the פסוק says, וישם דניאל על לבו, that דניאל put to his heart, אשר לא יתגאל בפת בג המלך, that he should not get himself disgusted with the food of the king, וביין משתיו, and in the wine of his drink. So we see here that he put to his heart not to drink, and it says יין משתיו לשון רבים, with the wine of his drinks, שתי משתאות הכתוב מדבר, the פסוק is speaking about two drinks, and he decided not to drink two kinds of drinks. אחד משתה היין, one is the drink of wine, ואחד משתה שמן, and one is the drink of oil. So we see here that דניאל already decided not to drink oil. So since דניאל was the one that אסר'ד to drink oil, so how was רבי יהודה and his בית דין able to be מתיר it? And therefore רב held that what רב שמלאי said, that רבי יהודה and his בית דין were מתיר it, was wrong, because רבי יהודה and his בית דין had no right to do it. But still we have to understand what is the מחלוקת here between רב and שמואל. If we have a פסוק where it says that דניאל אסר'ד oil, how was שמואל able to say that דניאל did not אסר it, but it was נאסר later on by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל for a different reason because of the residue of the טרף that came from the כלים? But the גמרא says, רב סבר, רב holds, על לבו שם ולכל ישראל הורה. The פסוק just says that דניאל put to his heart not to drink it. So רב holds he put to his heart and he also פסק'ד like that to all the יידן. ממילא, we see that he did אסר שמן. ושמואל סבר, but שמואל holds, על לבו שם, to his heart he put, ולכל ישראל לא הורה, but to all the יידן he didn't פסקן. He just on his own decided that he will not drink oil, but he did not make this גזירה for כלל ישראל. So according to שמואל, it is not a גזירה from דניאל's time. It is a גזירה from later generations, and is not because of חתנות, not to intermarry, but it is because, as the גמרא says before, because the residue of the טרף is in the oil, and that's why they אסר'ד it. And according to this, we understand why רבי יהודה and his בית דין were מתיר it, because it is נותן טעם לפגם, and those that made it אסור held that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, that's why they made the שמן אסור, while רבי יהודה and his בית דין פסקנ'ד that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, and that's why they were מתיר it. But תוספות asks a קושיא: according to this, how is it possible that the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, they should פסקן נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, and רבי יהודה הנשיא, who was later generations, should come and argue against them and פסקן that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר? And not only that, we see from this גמרא that שמואל also held like רבי יהודה הנשיא, because he quoted from רב שמלאי, and he held like רב שמלאי that רבי יהודה and his בית דין were מתיר it. In other words, he agreed with it. So שמואל also held that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. So how is he able to argue on the דין that was פסקנ'ד by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור? And we also see later on in דף ס"ז concerning the דין of vinegar that was put into the beans, so שמואל there פסקנ'ס that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. So we see clearly that he holds like that not only from this גמרא here where we see that he holds like רב שמלאי that רבי יהודה was מתיר oil, but we see clearly there he says בפירוש that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. And also later on in our גמרא it says that concerning a certain thing it says that it is not אסור because נותן טעם לפגם הוא, and נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. So how is it possible that these אמוראים should argue on earlier generations, on the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, to be מתיר the דין of נותן טעם לפגם? Now,

concerning the oil itself, that we could say that the reason it's מותר is not because of נותן טעם לפגם itself. You could say because the גזירה of שמן, as the גמרא says later on, did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, and אין רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד, and most of the people couldn't stand this איסור, which means they couldn't follow it because it was too hard on them, so there the דין is that you could be מתיר it. So if the question would only be how they, רבי יהודה, was able to be מתיר a דין that was אסר'ד by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, so we could say for the reason we just mentioned. But here it comes out it is not just oil that was מותר. They argued against the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל in the whole concept of נותן טעם לפגם. The תלמידים of שמאי and הלל פסקנ'ד that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, and these אמוראים פסקנ'ד that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. How is that possible? Another קשיא that תוספות asks: if our תנא, who does mention that oil is אסור, he holds obviously that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, because in our משנה it doesn't say that it's מותר. Because even though it does mention that רבי ובית דינו were מתיר it, so as we learned in the משנה that this is really a mistake in the משנה, as רש"י explains, because it wasn't רבי that made it מותר, but as we said in our גמרא it was רבי יהודה הנשיא who was from a later generation, so in our משנה it doesn't mention that oil is מותר. It just mentions that oil is אסור. And the reason, according to שמואל, why is oil אסור, because of נותן טעם לפגם. So obviously the תנא of our משנה holds that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור. So if so, later on in the גמרא on דף ל"ח, where the גמרא discusses whether honey is אסור, and the גמרא says, "For what reason should we be afraid, what should we suspect that we should make honey אסור? If it is because it has absorbed the taste from the גויישע כלים, that's no problem because it's נותן טעם לפגם." But if we are just saying now that the תנא of our משנה holds that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, so what kind of קשיא does the גמרא have later to say that it shouldn't be אסור because it's only נותן טעם לפגם, but the תנא of the משנה holds that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור? Therefore, תוספות learns that the פשט in our גמרא is different. It is not the פשט that we learned that the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל who אסר'ד oil, so it was because they held נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, and רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין who were מתיר the שמן, they held that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, it's not like that. באמת, the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל also held that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. The reason they made שמן אסור was mainly because of חתנות, mainly because they were afraid that this would lead to intermarriage. But after all, oil does not lead as much to intermarriage as wine, so if it would be just the reason of intermarriage, they wouldn't make it אסור. So therefore, they combined it with another reason. They said after all, there is also here the residue of non-kosher food from the כלים, so that, together with the reason of bringing to intermarriage, was a good enough reason to make it אסור. In other words, even though normally the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל also held that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, but after all, to say that נותן טעם לפגם is nothing at all, as if it's completely kosher, it is not. It is just מותר. So if you have something else to combine it with, so the two reasons together is a good enough reason to make it אסור. And therefore they said that since it could lead to intermarriage, even though not so direct, but there is some חשש of חתנות in oil also, plus it is also, it has a taste of the איסור, even though that itself would not be a good enough reason to make it אסור because it's נותן טעם לפגם and it's מותר. But if you combine the two, the חשש of חתנות and after all the בליעה of איסור, together was a good enough reason for them to make it אסור. So רב holds that דניאל made the גזירה, he holds it was only because of חתנות. Because דניאל felt that this could lead to חתנות, and therefore this was good enough reason for him to make שמן אסור. But according to שמואל who holds it was תלמידים of שמאי and הלל who made it אסור, because it has the taste of the כלים of the גוים, so שמואל says that they felt that חתנות itself is not a good enough reason, because it really cannot lead so much to חתנות. But if you have something else to combine with, the two reasons together is a good enough reason to make it אסור. And the other reason is that it has a taste of איסור, even though that reason itself is also not enough, because נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. And this is what שמואל meant when he said to רב, מילא according to me that I hold that the reason why שמן was אסור is not from דניאל's time yet, but it is from later time, from the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, and the reason they made it אסור was as we said before, we understand how רבי יהודה הנשיא was able to be מבטל it. Because רבי יהודה הנשיא felt that since the הלכה is נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, not that he argued against them and they said it's אסור and he said it's מותר. What he was saying was, since they also hold that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, and the whole reason they made it אסור is because they combined it together with חתנות, but after all, since this גזירה did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, and also רבי יהודה felt that the reason of חתנות is not strong enough, plus after all נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, so with all this together, רבי יהודה הנשיא was able to be מתיר שמן. But he said to רב, according to you who holds that דניאל made the גזירה, and it was a hundred percent because of חתנות, and it did spread amongst כלל ישראל, how was רבי יהודה הנשיא able to be מבטל it? And what makes שמואל so sure that if דניאל made the גזירה, it definitely spread amongst כלל ישראל? So he says, because according to רב that דניאל made the גזירה, then it is mentioned in the תורה, as the גמרא says. And since it's mentioned in the תורה in the פסוק, certainly this איסור spread amongst כלל ישראל. And therefore he said, according to you that it did spread amongst כלל ישראל, how was רבי יהודה הנשיא able to be מבטל it, when we have a כלל that אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין? And also the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל were after דניאל about three hundred years, and they made the גזירה even stronger, because as the גמרא will explain later on, that even according to רב, דניאל made the גזירה, later on the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל added a stage to the גזירה. So if they added a stage to the גזירה, obviously the גזירה that was done before that, three hundred years, must have spread amongst כלל ישראל, because if the גזירה that was made three hundred years before did not spread amongst כלל ישראל yet at the time of שמאי... הלל ושמאי, so then certainly הלל ושמאי, the תלמידים of הלל ושמאי, would not have added another step to this גזירה. So since this all proves that the גזירה did spread amongst כלל ישראל, so that's what שמואל asked רב, how was רבי יהודה הנשיא able to be מתיר it? And that's what רב said to him, that רבי יהודה הנשיא, טאקע, didn't do the right thing, because it is clearly from the פסוק, and therefore he had no right to be מתיר it. One might ask a question, that if we're using this פסוק to prove that דניאל אסר שמן, why can't we prove from here too that דניאל אסר פת, bread? We know that דניאל was not the one that אסר bread of גוים, but in this פסוק it says that he made up his mind, אשר לא יתגאל בפתבג המלך, which means bread, בפשטות, because the word פת is bread. So לכאורה, from here we should prove that דניאל אסר bread also. So the תוספות brings in the name of the רשב״ם that here פת doesn't mean bread. It means food, but not regular bread. It means food that was used together with bread. And the ראיה is, because it says there that the waiter brought them the פת, and he gave them seeds to eat. Now, if it was bread, then they wouldn't leave the bread and eat the seeds. Therefore we must say that this פת was not bread, it was other kinds of food, and they ate that together with the seeds. And now we'll continue with the גמרא. גמרא asks the שאלה, according to רב who said that דניאל אסר שמן, שמן דניאל גזר? Concerning oil, was it דניאל who made the גזירה? והאמר באלי, didn't באלי say: אמר אבימי נבואה משמיה דרב, and said it in the name of אבימי נבואה who said it in the name of רב, that פיתן, their bread, the bread of גוים, ושמנן, and their oil, יינן, their wine, ובנותיהן, and their daughters, כולן משמונה עשר דבר הן, they are all from the eighteen things. It says in the גמרא in שבת, that at one point, when the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל got together to פסק certain דינים, so there was one day when the תלמידים of שמאי were the majority, cuz usually the תלמידים of הלל were the majority, but at one point the תלמידים of שמאי were the majority, and on that day it says they, their hand was stronger, and eighteen גזירות, eighteen decrees were taken on that day. And these decrees were very strong, עד כדי כך, because it says that עמדו עליהן בנפשותיהם, they went on מסירות נפש to make these decrees. And it says there, נעצו חרב בבית המדרש, that they stuck a sword in the בית המדרש, and they said no one should leave, to make sure that we pass these laws. And on that day, they passed these eighteen גזירות. So רב said that amongst the eighteen גזירות was the איסור of not eating bread of גוים, and oil of גוים, and drinking wine of גוים, and not marrying the daughters of גוים. Now the גמרא later on will ask, what do we mean by that when we know that to

marry a גויישע woman is אסור מדאורייתא? What's the פשט that this was amongst the י״ח גזירות? But לפועל we see here that amongst the י״ח גזירות was the איסור of oil. So how can רב say that this was already אסור from the time of דניאל? And as תוספות says, the גמרא could have asked the same question concerning wine, that how can we say that wine was אסור from the time of דניאל yet? Because in the פסוק that we quoted before it also says that he made up his mind not to drink wine, so obviously it was אסור in the time of דניאל yet, when here רב says that it was amongst the י״ח גזירות. And the reason the גמרא asks it concerning the oil, because we are talking about oil now, so the גמרא asks it concerning the oil. And the גמרא continues, הכי תימא, if you're going to want to say that אתא דניאל גזר ולא קיבלו, that דניאל טאקע made the גזירה, but the people didn't accept it, ואתו תלמידי דהלל ושמאי וגזרו וקיבלו, then came the תלמידים of הלל and שמאי, and they made this decree and it was accepted, and that's what רב meant, that this was one of the י״ח גזירות, even though רב himself said that this was yet אסור from דניאל, because from דניאל's time it wasn't accepted, but later on from the time of הלל ושמאי, תלמידים of הלל ושמאי, it was accepted. אם כן, if so, מאי אסהדותיה דרב? What is the meaning in the testimony of רב? Since we're saying now that the גזירה of דניאל was not accepted, so why did רב tell us that concerning oil, דניאל made the גזירה? If his גזירה was not accepted, so it's really not דניאל's גזירה. The fact was דניאל did make the גזירה according to רב, but it has no value because it wasn't accepted. So why did רב have to tell us that דניאל made the גזירה? אלא, therefore we can't say that this is the פשט. We must say that there is a difference between the גזירה of דניאל and the גזירה of the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, that דניאל גזר אלא בעיר, דניאל made a גזירה you shouldn't use their oil in the city. And the reason is because in the city there are many people, so there is more chance that it could bring a person to intermarriage. But in the field, where there are no people, so in the time of דניאל, it wasn't אסור yet. ואתו אינהו, so they came, the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, וגזרו אפילו בשדה, and they made the גזירה that even in the field you're also not allowed to use the oil of גוים. And then the גמרא asks, ורבי יהודה הנשיא היכא מצי למישרא תקנתא דתלמידי שמאי והלל? רבי יהודה הנשיא, we said before, was מתיר oil, how was he allowed to be מתיר the תקנה of the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל? And as

תוספות says in the name of the רשב״ם, this is a קושיא on רב and on שמואל, because שמואל also admits that this was from the י״ח דבר. According to רב, who says דניאל made the גזירה, he himself also said that it was amongst the eighteen things, as we said in the גמרא before. And according to שמואל, it certainly was a גזירה by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, and probably it was from the י״ח דבר, because there is no reason to say that שמואל argues on רב. When רב said that this was included in the eighteen things, there is no reason to say that שמואל argues. So בפשטות, if שמואל holds that this was a גזירה that was made by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, it was amongst the eighteen things. So according to both, when רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were מתיר oil, they were מתיר a גזירה that were אסור earlier by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל. So the גמרא asks, how were they able to be מתיר this תקנה that was made by the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל? והתנן, didn't we learn in a משנה that אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו, that one בית דין cannot be מבטל the words of another בית דין, אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין, unless it's greater than the בית דין before in חכמה, in wisdom, in knowledge, and in amount, in numbers? ועוד, another thing, הא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, didn't רבה בר בר חנה say in the name of רבי יוחנן, בכל יכול לבטל בית דין דברי בית דין חבירו, in everything one בית דין is allowed to be מבטל the words of a previous בית דין, which means if it is greater in חכמה and in מנין it could be מבטל the words of a previous בית דין, חוץ משמונה עשר דבר, except these eighteen things, שאפילו יבוא אליהו ובית דינו, that even if אליהו הנביא will come with his בית דין, which is definitely a greater בית דין in חכמה and in מנין, than the בית דין of שמאי and הלל, and still אין שומעין לו, we won't listen to them, because the תקנות of the 18 things were very strong, stronger than other תקנות. So the question is, how was רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין able to be מתיר שמן? אמר רב משרשיא, רב משרשיא said, מה טעם? What is the reason why you cannot be מבטל these 18 things? הואיל ופשט איסורו ברוב ישראל, since the איסור spread amongst most of the יידן, and therefore, it was a very strong תקנה. שמן לא פשט איסורו ברוב ישראל. Oil, this איסור that they made concerning oil did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, and therefore, this could be annulled by a later בית דין. דאמר רב שמואל בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן, because רב שמואל בר אבא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, ישבו רבותינו ובדקו, our רבייס sat and they investigated. This probably refers to רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין. They investigated על שמן, concerning the oil, שלא פשט איסורו ברוב ישראל, that its איסור did not spread amongst most of the יידן. And since it didn't spread amongst most of the יידן, סמכו רבותינו, and our רבייס, which means רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין, relied על דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ועל דברי רבי אלעזר בן צדוק, on the words of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and of רבי אלעזר בן צדוק, שהיו אומרים, that they said, אין גוזרין גזרה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד בה, that you are not allowed to make a decree on the ציבור, on the community, unless you know that the majority of the ציבור are able to take it. And since by oil, they saw that it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל because they weren't able to take it, so לכתחילה the גזרה of oil wasn't such a strong גזרה. It never was established, and therefore, רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were able to be מתיר. דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה, because רב אדא בר אהבה said, מאי קרא?

What is the פסוק that tells us that you only make a גזרה on the ציבור if most of the ציבור are able to take it? Because the פסוק says in מלאכי, and this is קאפיטל ג׳, פסוק ט׳, it says, במארה אתם נארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו. Which means you are cursed with the curse, for you rob me, even this whole nation. And the way he means to explain it in here is that if the whole nation undertook to fulfill a law, then the penalty for not listening for this law is a curse. And now that they robbed God by utilizing what they had agreed to forego, the curse has come upon them. And the פסוק says that this was only הגוי כולו, which means that אי איכא גוי כולו, if you have the whole nation, which means when you make this law, this decree, the whole nation is able to take it, אין, then you are cursed by not keeping it because the גזרה is a גזרה. אי לא, לא, and if not, if the whole nation didn't take it, then it's not a גזרה. Now because שמן was not accepted by the whole nation, therefore the גזרה was not a strong גזרה, therefore רבי יהודה הנשיא was able to be מתיר. But one might ask that since it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, so לכתחילה the גזרה is no גזרה, so why do you have to be מתיר it? Here we see that רבי יהודה הנשיא had a right to be מתיר it because of this. But if he wouldn't have been מתיר it, it would have been אסור even though it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל. Because the פשט is that when the חכמים make a גזרה, it is a גזרה. The only thing is, if it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, then another בית דין, even if it's a smaller בית דין than the previous בית דין, is able to be מתיר it. If it did spread amongst כלל ישראל, then a smaller בית דין cannot be מתיר it. But if it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, then a smaller בית דין could be מתיר it. But if no בית דין is מתיר it, then it remains אסור. And that's why here too, שמן was אסור till רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were מתיר it, even though it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל. But right away a question comes up: when was this דין said that if a בית דין is bigger than the previous בית דין בחכמה ובמנין, he's able to be מבטל the דין of the previous בית דין? לכאורה ממה נפשך, from our גמרא it comes out that the reason you couldn't be מבטל the י״ח דבר is because that spread amongst כלל ישראל. It's משמע that even if it's a bigger בית דין, you cannot be מבטל the words of a previous בית דין if it did spread amongst כלל ישראל, because that's what the גמרא is saying here: that even if the בית דין of אליהו will come, he won't be able to be מבטל the י״ח דבר, why? Because it spread amongst כלל ישראל. It's משמע that if it spread amongst כלל ישראל, then not even a bigger בית דין could be מבטל it. On the other hand, if it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, even a smaller בית דין could be מבטל it, as we see here that רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין, who are smaller than the בית דין of the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, nevertheless they were able to be, because as we see here that the בית דין of רבי יהודה הנשיא, which was a smaller בית דין than the בית דין of the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, nevertheless they were מבטל the איסור of שמן because this did not spread amongst כלל ישראל. So we see that if it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even a smaller בית דין could be מבטל. So when is this דין that a bigger בית דין could be מבטל the previous בית דין. If it spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even a bigger בית דין couldn't be מבטל. If it didn't spread, and even a smaller בית דין could, so when is it that only a bigger בית דין could be מבטל? And it's not just a קשיא in סברא, but it's a קשיא on the גמרא in גיטין. The

גמרא in גיטין says, concerning the דין of פרוזבול, פרוזבול is a שטר that הלל was מתקן. Because like this the דין is that when שמיטה comes and a person has a debt, the debt automatically is בטל and you don't have to pay. And הלל saw that people stopped lending money when it got close to שמיטה, which was against the תורה where it says a person should not close his hands thinking that since שמיטה is coming I will not get the money back. And הלל saw that people didn't care and they stopped lending money before שמיטה, so he made a תקנה. A תקנה of פרוזבול, that the מלוה, the lender, would write a שטר before שמיטה where it says that he gives over his debts to בית דין, and the דין is if the debts are given over to בית דין, you are allowed to collect them. And by doing this פרוזבול, then he was able to collect. So the גמרא says in גיטין that שמואל said, "If I would have the power, I would be מבטל this דין of פרוזבול." And the גמרא says, what did he mean? "If I would have more power than הלל." Because otherwise he can't be מבטל it, because a בית דין cannot be מבטל the words of a previous בית דין. And that's what he said, "If I would have more power than הלל, then I would be able to be מבטל the תקנה of הלל." But לכאורה the question is, if the תקנה of פרוזבול spread amongst כלל ישראל, then what did he mean if he would have more power than הלל? Even if he would be a greater בית דין than הלל, still couldn't be מבטל, as we see here that if it spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even a greater בית דין can't be מבטל. On the other hand, if the תקנה of פרוזבול did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, then what did he mean if he would be greater than הלל? Because we see here that even if you're not greater, but if it's a תקנה that did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, you are able to be מבטל it. So לכאורה שמואל was able to be מבטל it if it didn't spread. On the other hand, if it did spread, even if he would be greater he wouldn't be able to be מבטל it. Therefore תוספות says that the פשט is like this, that this דין that a בית דין that's greater than the previous בית דין is able to be מבטל it is in a case where it did not spread amongst כלל ישראל. איי, in our גמרא it seems that if it

didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even if you are not greater you're able to be מבטל? So תוספות says in our גמרא there was another reason also. The reason was, as the גמרא says, that אין גוזרין גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד בה, that if the majority of the ציבור cannot withstand this גזירה, then you don't make a גזירה. So it comes out that in our גמרא, concerning שמן, it wasn't just because it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל, but it was also because it was a גזירה that most of the people couldn't withstand. So it comes out the כלל like this: that if it's a גזירה that spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even a bigger בית דין cannot be מבטל. If it's a גזירה that did not spread amongst כלל ישראל, but it is a גזירה that most people could withstand, so then you need a bigger בית דין to be מבטל, but a bigger בית דין could be מבטל. But if it has both, that it didn't spread amongst כלל ישראל and also it's a גזירה that most people can't withstand, so then even a smaller בית דין could be מבטל. But תוספות asks, according to this it comes out that concerning פרוזבול, when שמואל said, "If I would be greater than הלל, I would be מבטל it," so we must say that this was a תקנה that did not spread amongst כלל ישראל. It's a תקנה that they could withstand, but it's a תקנה that did not spread, and therefore a bigger בית דין is able to be מבטל. But תוספות asks, it's hard to say that the תקנה of פרוזבול should not spread amongst כלל ישראל. Why shouldn't it? It's only for the benefit of the מלוה, and the מלוה is the one that's supposed to write a פרוזבול. So why should this תקנה not spread? Why should the מלוים not want to make a פרוזבול? Therefore תוספות learns the פשט different, that באמת the פרוזבול did spread amongst כלל ישראל. איי, we ask the question that if it spread amongst כלל ישראל, it comes out from the גמרא here that even a bigger בית דין cannot be מבטל it, so תוספות says it is not so. When we say that a bigger בית דין could be מבטל, it's even if it spread amongst כלל ישראל. When the גמרא says here you can't, that is only specifically concerning the י״ח דבר, the 18 things. There we say that even if אליהו הנביא will come, we wouldn't listen to him. Why? Because it says in ירושלמי, מפני שעמדו להם בנפשותיהם. That means, as we said before, that they went on מסירות נפש to make this גזירה. So concerning these גזירות we say that since we have both reasons, it spread amongst כלל ישראל and also they went on מסירות נפש, even a bigger בית דין can't be מבטל it. But other גזירות, even if it spread amongst כלל ישראל, a bigger בית דין could be מבטל. And that is the reason why שמואל said that "if I would be greater than הלל, I would be מבטל the תקנה of פרוזבול." Even though the תקנה of פרוזבול definitely spread amongst כלל ישראל, still, had he been greater than הלל, he would be able to be מבטל it, because a greater בית דין is able to be מבטל any תקנה even if it spread, except if it is one of the י״ח דבר. Then the גמרא continues: גופא. Now

we're going to discuss the גוף of the דין that we brought before. Said before, אמר בעלי אמר רב אבימי נסאה משמיה דרב, that באלי said in the name of אבימי נסאה in the name of רב, פיתן their bread, ושמנם and their oil, יינם and their wine, ובנותיהם and their daughters, כולם משמונה עשר דבר הן. They are all from these 18 things that they made the גזירה on that day. But the גמרא asks, ובנותיהם מאי היא? Their daughters, what does that mean? How can we say that not to marry their daughters is an איסור that was made on that day amongst the 18 things? Isn't it an איסור דאורייתא that you can't marry a גויישע woman? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, that רב נחמן בר יצחק said, what they meant was גזרו על בנותיהם נדות מעריסותן, that they made a גזירה that their daughters, that a גויישע girl should be considered a נדה even from the crib, meaning from the day a גויישע girl is born she is considered a נדה, and if she touches anything it becomes טמא just like a נדה would touch it. וגניבא משמיה דרב אמר, גניבא said in the name of רב, כולם משום עבודה זרה גזרו בהן, that all these things, the reason why they made a גזירה was because of עבודה זרה. Why? דכי אתא רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב יצחק, because when רב אחא בר אדא came he said in the name of רב יצחק, גזרו על פיתן משום שמנן, that the חכמים made a גזירה you shouldn't eat their bread in order not to come to eat their oil. And before he managed to finish what he was going to say, that all this leads up to עבודה זרה, the גמרא stopped in the middle and tried to correct it, because the גמרא asks,

what do you mean that they made a גזירה on bread in order not to come to eat their oil? מאי אולמא דשמן מפת? Why is oil stronger than bread? You're saying bread is in order not to lead to oil. Why is oil worse than bread that we say that the bread is אסור in order not to come to the oil? אלא, therefore we must say it was different, על פיתן ושמנן משום יינן. It goes together. It wasn't bread because of oil, but bread and oil go together. That the חכמים made the bread and the oil אסור because of their wine. ועל יינן, and their wine they made אסור משום בנותיהם, because of their daughters, because if you're going to drink wine of גוים you'll come to socialize and you'll come to intermarriage. ועל בנותיהם משום דבר אחר. And the reason why they don't want you to intermarry is in order not to come to something else, and that something else is עבודה זרה. So we see here that everything is because of עבודה זרה. Everything is אסור because it'll lead up to עבודה זרה. ועל דבר אחר משום דבר אחר. And then there is something else that the חכמים made אסור because of something else, and the גמרא will explain what that is. But in the meantime the

גמרא asks the question, we said before that the reason why their daughters is אסור, intermarriage is אסור, because it leads to דבר אחר, something else, to עבודה זרה, בנותיהם דאורייתא היא! Not to marry their daughters is מן התורה! So you can't say it is a גזירה in order not to come to עבודה זרה. דכתיב, because the פסוק says, לא תתחתן בם. You shouldn't marry them. So we see clearly the תורה says you're not allowed to marry a גויישע woman. So how can you say it's a גזירה because of עבודה זרה? And the גמרא answers, דאורייתא, ז' אומות. From the תורה, from this פסוק, it's only that you're not allowed to marry a daughter from one of the seven nations of ארץ ישראל, אבל שאר עובדי כוכבים לא. But daughters of other גוים you are not אסור מדאורייתא. ואתו אינהו, so they came, the רבנן came, meaning the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל in these 18 things, they came, וגזור, they made a גזירה, אפילו דשאר עובדי כוכבים, even daughters of other גוים. And then the גמרא asks, ולרבי שמעון בן יוחי, according to רבי שמעון בן יוחי, דאמר, that he says, that the פסוק says there, כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי, the reason you shouldn't marry them is because they will turn away your son from Me. And then the end of the פסוק says, ובתו לא תקח לבנך, and his daughter you should not take to your son, because that will lead him to turn away from השם. So רבי שמעון בן יוחי says the פשט in the פסוק is לרבות כל המסירין, comes to add, to include all turnings away, which means it comes to tell us that not only are you not allowed to marry a daughter of one of the seven nations, but also a daughter of any other גוים. So according to him, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say? Which means because according to him you're not allowed to marry any גויישע woman. So according to him, what is the פשט that the חכמים said you shouldn't marry their daughters because of עבודה זרה, when according to him you're not allowed to marry their daughters מדאורייתא? אלא, therefore the גמרא says the פשט is like this: דאורייתא, אישות דרך חתנות. מדאורייתא you're not allowed to have relation with the גויישע woman only through marriage, but if it's not through marriage, you are allowed. ואתו אינהו, came they, the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, גזור, and made a גזירה אפילו דרך זנות. Even if it's done through זנות, you're also not allowed. But then the גמרא asks, זנות, if you're talking about זנות, נמי בבית דינו של שם גזרו! That already was decreed much earlier in the time of the בית דין of שם. שם, the son of נח, and we know he learned תורה and had a בית דין, and in

his בית דין he made a גזירה against זנות. דכתיב, because it says, ויאמר יהודה, and יהודה said, הוציאוה ותשרף, take her out let's burn her. This is concerning תמר, that when תמר became pregnant, and they thought she became pregnant through זנות, so יהודה said take her out and burn her. On what basis did he want to burn her? Because at that time זנות was forbidden, and who forbid it? שם, who was actually her father, he forbid זנות with the punishment of מיתה. So we see that זנות was already אסור from before. אלא, therefore the פשט is different: דאורייתא עובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל. מדאורייתא, what is אסור? To have a גוי have relations with a Jewish daughter, דמשכא בתריה, because he will pull her to him. Since he is the male, the גוי is the man, and he will pull her to his side to worship idols, and therefore the תורה אסר'ד that a גוי should not have any relations with a Jewish woman. אבל ישראל הבא על עובדת כוכבים לא, but a ייד should have relations with a גויה woman, from the תורה it's not אסור, because she will not pull him to עבודה זרה, because he is the man. ואתו אינהו, so they came, תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, גזרו, they made a גזירה, אפילו ישראל הבא על עובדת כוכבים, but even a ייד who has relations with a גויה woman is also אסור. But then the גמרא asks: ישראל הבא על עובדת כוכבים, a ייד who has relations with a גויה woman, הלכה למשה מסיני היא, that is forbidden already from הלכה למשה מסיני. It was a הלכה given over to משה רבינו מסיני. The term הלכה למשה מסיני is used to a דין which is not mentioned in the פסוק, not even hinted in the פסוק, but it is a דין that was given over to משה, which is מדאורייתא. Where do we see that this is a דין that was given over to משה? דאמר מר, because we know, הבועל ארמית, the דין is that if somebody has relations with a גויה woman, קנאים פוגעים בו. קנאים, zealots, people who are מקנא the קנאת ה׳, who care a lot about ה׳, would get him, which means they are allowed to kill him. As we find the story in חומש concerning פנחס, that when זמרי בן סלוא took the גויה woman כזבי בת צור and had relations with her, so פנחס took the רומח, took the spear, and went and killed them. And the דין is you're only allowed to kill him during the act, but during the act the קנאי is allowed to kill them. In other words, there is no real חיוב מיתה מדאורייתא, and if they would be brought to בית דין and tried, they wouldn't be sentenced to death, but a קנאי act during the time of the act is allowed to kill them. Why? Because it is אסור. So how can we say that the בית דין of שמאי and הלל made the גזירה that a ייד is not allowed to have relations with a גויה woman when here we see it's הלכה למשה מסיני that it's אסור, עד כדי כך that the קנאי is even allowed to kill him for that? אלא, therefore the גמרא says, דאורייתא בפרהסיא. דאורייתא only in public this is אסור to have relations with a גויה woman, וכי מעשה שהיה, as the מעשה was, as the מעשה with זמרי בן סלוא and פנחס. ואתו אינהו, so they came, the בית דין of שמאי and הלל, גזרו, they made a גזירה, אפילו בצנעא, even in private it is אסור. But then the גמרא asks, בצנעא, in private, נמי also, בית דינו של חשמונאי גזרו, the בית דין of the חשמונאים made the גזירה. Because we know דכי אתא רב דימי, when רב דימי came, אמר, he said, בית דינם של חשמונאי גזרו, the בית דין of חשמונאי made a גזירה, that ישראל הבא על עובדת כוכבים, if a ייד has relations with a גויה woman, חייב משום נשג״א. He is

חייב for four איסורים, and the word נשג״א is an abbreviation of four words: נדה, שפחה, גויה, אשת איש. And even though a גויה woman מדאורייתא is not a נדה, because only blood of a Jewish woman is a נדה, but blood of a גויה woman has the same דין as blood of a בהמה, but nevertheless the רבנן made a גזירה that the blood of a גויה woman is also blood of a נדה, and therefore the גויה woman is considered a נדה. She is also a שפחה, the חכמים said that even though she is not a שפחה, she is not actually a slave by a person, but nevertheless every גויה woman has an איסור of שפחה, and also גויה has an איסור of marrying a גויה because of לא תתחתן בם, as we said before, you're not allowed to marry a גויה woman, and also אשת איש, even though there is no real קידושין by גוים, but nevertheless there is a דין of אשת איש that a woman who is married is considered a married woman, and if she has relations with another man, she is חייב as an אשת איש. So the בית דין of the חשמונאים said that when you have relations with any גויה woman, you are חייב for these four איסורים, for נדה, שפחה, גויה, and אשת איש. וכי אתא רבין אמר, when רבין came he said, משום נשג״ז, that when the בית דין of חשמונאים made the גזירה, it was for these four things: נדה, שפחה, גויה, and זונה. This adds another איסור concerning a כהן, because we know a כהן is not allowed to marry a זונה. A זונה is a woman who, once in a lifetime even, had relations with somebody that she was forbidden to have relations with. So a גויה is always considered a זונה, because the גוים are מפקיר their daughters to do זנות, so therefore every גויה is considered a זונה. So we see here that the בית דין of the חשמונאים made the גזירה concerning having relations with a גויה woman even בצנעא. So how can we say that this was the גזירה of the תלמידים of שמאי והלל. Therefore the גמרא says, כי גזרו בית דינם של חשמונאי ביאה. What did the בית דין of the חשמונאים make the איסור about? Actually having relations, אבל ייחוד, but just to be in private, לא, that they didn't make the איסור. ואתו אינהו, so came then the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל on these 18 things, גזרו, they made a גזירה, אפילו ייחוד, that even being privately alone is also אסור. But then the גמרא asks: ייחוד

נמי בית דיניה של דוד גזרו, even ייחוד was also already אסור earlier from the בית דין of דוד! דאמר רב יהודה, because רב יהודה said: באותה שעה, at that time, after the story of אמנון and תמר, that there was ייחוד between אמנון and תמר, and that brought that אמנון had relations with תמר, so then at that moment גזרו על ייחוד, so the בית דין of דוד המלך made the גזירה not to have ייחוד. So how can you say that the בית דין of שמאי and הלל made this גזירה? So the גמרא says, אמרי, I will tell you. התם, over there, ייחוד דבת ישראל. There, בית דין of דוד המלך made the גזירה not to have ייחוד with a Jewish woman. אבל ייחוד דעובדת כוכבים לא, but to have ייחוד with a גויישע woman wasn't forbidden. ואתו אינהו, so they came, the תלמידים of שמאי and הלל, גזרו, they made the גזירה אפילו על ייחוד דעובדת כוכבים, even on ייחוד of a גויישע woman. But then the גמרא asks: How can you say that? ייחוד דבת ישראל דאורייתא היא, not to have ייחוד with a Jewish woman is מדאורייתא! So how can you say that the בית דין of דוד המלך made the איסור on ייחוד with a Jewish woman? דאמר רבי יוחנן משום דרבי שמעון בן יהוצדק, רבי יוחנן said in the name of רבי שמעון, the son of יהוצדק, רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין? Where do we find a רמז, a hint for the איסור of ייחוד in the תורה? שנאמר, it says: כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך, the תורה says that if your brother, the son of your mother, will convince you, etc. And the question is: וכי בן אם מסית, בן אב אינו מסית? Only the son of one mother is able to convince you, but not the son of one father? So why does the תורה mention בן אמך? אלא, therefore the פשט is like this: בן מתייחד עם אמו, what the פסוק is saying that a son is allowed to have ייחוד with his mother, because when it says יסיתך, it means he's going to convince you in private, the פסוק says. So the פסוק says that with your mother you are allowed to be in private, ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל העריות שבתורה, and no one else is allowed to have any ייחוד with any of the relatives which are forbidden to him. So we see from this פסוק already that there is a איסור of ייחוד with an ערוה. So how can you say that דוד המלך and his בית דין made the איסור for ייחוד? And the גמרא answers: ייחוד דאורייתא דאשת איש. The ייחוד that the תורה said you're not allowed is only if it's with one of those forbidden עריות, which means, for instance, with an אשת איש, with a married woman. But if she is an unmarried woman and not a relative, there is no איסור ייחוד מדאורייתא. ואתא דוד וגזר אפילו אייחוד דפנויה. Came דוד and made a גזירה even on ייחוד with a non-married woman. And then ואתו תלמידי בית שמאי ובית הלל, then came the תלמידים of בית שמאי and בית הלל, גזרו, they made a גזירה אפילו אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים, even on ייחוד of a גויה who is not married. And this is what we meant before, that one of the י"ח גזירות was the איסור of בנותיהן, the איסור of their daughters. It means the איסור of having ייחוד with a גויישע woman. Then the גמרא continues. We said before that amongst the 18 things was דבר אחר משום דבר אחר, that they made an איסור on something else because of something else. The question is: מאי על דבר אחר משום דבר אחר? What do we mean that they made an איסור on something else because of something else? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said: גזרו על תינוק עובד כוכבים שיטמא בזיבה. They made a גזירה that even a baby, a גוי, is טמא like a זב. Because like this the דין is that when by a Jewish adult certain liquids come out of the body, it makes him טמא, he becomes a זב, and the דין by a זב is that it's טמא. But by a גוי there is no דין of a זב. Then they made a גזירה that even a גויישע baby that definitely cannot have any זיבה, this liquid can never come out of his body, he's too young for that, nevertheless he has a דין of a זב even while he's a baby. And the reason they made this גזירה, שלא יהא תינוק ישראל רגיל אצלו במשכב זכור. That in order that a Jewish child should not be close to him and this shouldn't lead them to do an immoral act. דאמר רב זירא, because רב זירא said: צער גדול היה לי אצל רבי יוסי, I suffered a lot by רבי יוסי, which means I had a lot of problems getting an answer from him. ורבי יוסי אצל רבי יוחנן, and then רבי יוסי had problems getting an answer from רבי יוחנן, ורבי יוחנן אצל רבי ינאי, ורבי ינאי אצל רב נתן בן עמרם, ורב נתן בן עמרם אצל רבי, concerning this question: תינוק עובד כוכבים מאימתי מטמא בזיבה? A child, a גוי, a baby, a גוי, from how old does he become טמא like a זב? ואמר לי, and he said to me, finally the answer came: בן יומו, from a day old. וכשבאתי אצל רבי חייא, but when I came to רבי חייא, אמר לי, רבי חייא said to me: בן תשע שנים ויום אחד, that he becomes טמא like a זב only from nine years and up. And the reason is because a boy from nine years is considered ראוי לביאה. He already is fit to have relations, and therefore, from then on, he is טמא like a זב. וכשבאתי והרציתי דברים לפני רבי, when I came and I told these things to רבי, I mentioned to רבי what רב חייא said, אמר לי, he said to me, הנח דברי, leave my words, ואחוז בדברי רב חייא, and grab onto the words of רב חייא, דאמר that he said, תינוק עובד כוכבים, אימתי מטמא בזיבה, that a child a גוי, when does he become טמא with זיבה? בן תשע שנים ויום אחד, from nine days, years and a day. הואיל וראוי לביאה, מטמא נמי בזיבה. Since he's already by then fit to have relations, so already then he is מטמא בזיבה. Because the whole reason they made this תקנה that a גוי should be טמא like a זב, is in order that the Jewish children shouldn't be too close to them. It shouldn't lead them to have immoral acts. So from the moment he is שייך, he is fit to have this immoral act, he is ראוי לביאה, that's when he has a דין like a זב because that's when we want the Jewish children to stay away from them. Then the גמרא says, אמר רבינא, רבינא said, הלכך, therefore, הא תינוקת עובדת כוכבים, a little girl, a גויה, בת ג' שנים ויום אחד, from when she's three years and a day, הואיל וראויה לביאה, since she is fit for relations then, מטמאה נמי בזיבה, she's also טמאה like a זבה. Since we said that why is the דין that by a גויישע boy, he becomes like a זב from nine years and a day, because that's when he is ראוי לביאה, so we understand that by a girl, since from three years on she is ראויה לביאה, so by a girl, from three years on, she is מטמאה בזיבה. The גמרא asks, פשיטא, it's simple. Since the reason by the boy is because that's when he is ראוי לביאה, so obviously by the girl, when she is ראויה לביאה, she becomes טמאה like a זבה. And since she is ראויה לביאה from three years, so she should be טמאה like a זבה from three years. Why did he have to tell us that? And the גמרא says, מהו דתימא, I would think, האי ידע לארגולי, that by a boy who is able to convince, so therefore when he is nine years old and he's already able to convince somebody else to do an עבירה, that's why they made him טמא like a זב. והא, but the, she, a girl from three years old, לא ידעה לארגולי, even though she's ראויה לביאה, but she's still not fit, she doesn't know how to convince, she's not yet at the age of being able to convince somebody else to do an עבירה. So I would think that even though she's ראויה לביאה from three, she still shouldn't become טמאה like a זבה from three. קא משמע לן, that's why it tells us that even though, still a גויישע girl becomes טמאה בזיבה from three years old. Concerning what we learned before, that there was a מחלוקת between רב דימי and רבין, what kind of איסור did the בית דין of the חשמונאים make concerning a גויה? That according to רב דימי, it was משום נשג''א: נדה, שפחה, גויה, and אשת איש. And according to רבין, it was because of נדה, שפחה, גויה, and זונה. So it seems that according to the first opinion, according to רב דימי, she doesn't have a דין of a זונה. In other words, if a כהן will have relations with a גויה, he will not be חייב for זונה. And the, and the reason for the מחלוקת is, because the one that holds that you are חייב for זונה holds, because the גוים are מפקיר their daughters for זנות, and therefore she is considered a זונה. And the one that holds that you're not חייב for זונה is because they are not מפקיר their daughters for זנות, that's how he holds and therefore she doesn't have a דין of a זונה. Then תוספות says, that רב משה מפונטויז asked a question, that here it comes out that the בית דין of the חשמונאים made the גזירה of a גויה having a דין of a זונה, and in פרק הבא על יבמתו in יבמות, it says, חכמים say, אין זונה אלא גיורת, או משוחררת, ושנבעלה בעילת זנות, וזו היא זונה אמורה בתורה. Which means, who has a דין of a זונה concerning a כהן מדאורייתא? Only a גויישע woman who converted, or a גויישע שפחה who was freed and became a Jewish woman, or a Jewish woman who had relations that was forbidden to her. And the גמרא gives the reason, why is a גיורת considered a זונה? Because when she was a גויה, she was מזנה. So we see that by גוים there is a גדר of זנות. So how can רב דימי says here that a גויישע woman doesn't have a דין of a זונה? And תוספות answers, that the איסור of a זונה to a כהן is based on the פסוק where it says, זונה לא יקחו, that he's not allowed to take a זונה. So only by a Jewish woman, who where there is a דין of קיחה, a דין of קידושין, then there is an איסור of זונה. And therefore, the גיורת, who is now Jewish, so by her חל the דין of זונה לא יקחו. But if she is still a גויה, so she is not included in the דין of לא יקחו, because there is no קיחה, there is no קידושין, so the דין of a זונה לא יקחו doesn't apply to her either, and therefore he is not עובר on the איסור of זונה. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, it says in the גמרא in תמורה, אביי says, a כהן הבא על עובדת כוכבים, a כהן has relations with a גויה, he doesn't get מלקות, רבא says he does get מלקות. Now according to רבא who says he get מלקות, obviously this מדאורייתא. And the reason is because she's a זונה, so we see that מדאורייתא she is considered a זונה. And also in פרק עשרה יוחסין in קידושין there is a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר בן יעקב רבי יהודה and רבי יוסי and רבי שמעון, concerning a גיורת who marries a כהן, and it says there רבי שמעון, even who is מתיר, is only מתיר if she was נתגיירה before she was three years old. But if she was נתגיירה later, certainly if she's still a גויה, definitely there is a איסור זונה. And תוספות answers that the גמרא in תמורה where רבא says that he gets מלקות for marrying a גויה, and also the גמרא in עשרה יוחסין and the גמרא in יבמות where it comes out that there is a דין of זונה by a גויה, that is only where we know ודאי בעולה, where that she is for sure not a virgin. And the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא is that אביי says that you don't get מלקות, and רבא says you do get מלקות is, because אביי holds that the reason why a גויה is אסור to a כהן is not because of a זונה, it is because the פסוק says בתולה מעמיו, that he should take a virgin from his nation. So from here we learn out only from his nation he should take, and not from the גוים. And since the תורה doesn't say it in a form of a לא תעשה, in a negative form, but in a positive form, it says you should take מעמיו, and it doesn't say don't take a גויה, so that has the דין of an עשה, because לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה. And רבא holds that she is included in the דין of זונה, and therefore רבא holds you do get מלקות. But that is only if we know for sure she's not a virgin. The גזירה of the בית דין of the חשמונאים was by סתם גויה, that we don't know that she's not a virgin. So there it's only a ספק, so מדאורייתא you don't get מלקות, even according to רבא. And that's where the בית דין of the חשמונאים came in and they made it אסור. And why do they make it אסור? So according to רבא they made it אסור because of זונה, and according to רב דימי that they are not מפקיר their women, so they didn't make it because of זונה, they made it because of the other things.