Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכתא עבודה זרה דף ל"ז. We will start six lines from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא concerning the איסור of שמן. In the משנה it said that שמן of גוים is אסור. Just like the חכמים said that you're not allowed to drink wine of גוים and eat bread of גוים, you're also not allowed to use, drink, or eat oil of גוים. But nevertheless, it says in the משנה according to one גירסא, and in the גמרא it's explained, that רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were מתיר שמן. They allowed שמן. And the גמרא explains the different reasons why they allowed שמן. The גמרא here says, ומסתמיך ואזיל רבי יהודה הנשיא, רבי יהודה הנשיא was going and leaning, אכתפא דרבי שמלאי שמעיה, on the shoulders of his servant, רבי שמלאי. אמר ליה, and he said to him, שמלאי, לא היית אמש בבית המדרש, you weren't yesterday in the בית המדרש, כשהתרנו את השמן, when we allowed, we permitted the oil. אמר ליה, so he said to him, בימינו תתיר אף את הפת. In our days, you should also allow to eat bread of גוים. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אם כן, if we would do that, קרו לן בית דינא שריא, they would call us the בית דין that allow.

דתנן, as we learned in a משנה, העיד רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה, that רבי יוסי בן יועזר, a person from צרידה testified, על איל קמצא דכן, that a certain locust, which is called איל קמצא, that it's allowed, that this is מותר, because we know that there are certain חגבים, certain grasshoppers, locusts, which is מותר and certain which is אסור. So he testified that איל קמצא is מותר. And also, ועל משקא בית מטבחיא דכן, that the liquid from the place where they שחט קרבנות in the בית המקדש, and there you would have the water and the blood get mixed together, so he testified that that liquid is טהור. Normally, if liquid gets contact with טומאה it becomes טמא, but the משקין from בית מטבחיא, from the slaughterhouse of the בית המקדש, he testified doesn't become טמא. And in the גמרא later we have a מחלוקת what he means. רב holds that it doesn't become טמא at all, and שמואל holds that it becomes טמא, but it can't become טמא enough to make other things טמא. And the גמרא will explain that the reason for the מחלוקת is that רב holds that מדאורייתא בכלל liquid doesn't become טמא, the whole דין of טומאה of liquid is מדרבנן, and the רבנן when they made their איסור, it was only concerning other liquids, not the liquids of the בית המקדש. And שמואל holds that liquid becomes טמא מדאורייתא, and therefore even the liquid of the בית המקדש is also טמא. The רבנן added that liquid becomes טמא even to make other things טמא, and since that is מדרבנן, so that the רבנן limited that only other liquids, not the liquids of the בית המקדש. And the third thing he said, ודיקרב במיתא מסאב, if you get close to a dead body, if you touch a dead body you become טמא. So these are the three things he said.

וקרו ליה, and they called him יוסי שריא, the יוסי that permits, because he permitted these three things. Concerning the third thing, the גמרא later on will ask, first of all, it's a דין מדאורייתא that if you touch a dead body you become טמא, and second of all, in this case he didn't permit anything, on the contrary, he made something אסור, he said that if you touch a dead body you become טמא. So concerning that they shouldn't have called him יוסי who permits, but on the contrary, יוסי who makes אסור. But the גמרא will explain that. So that's what he said to him, just like we see over there that רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה, since he permitted three things, they called him יוסי שריא, so he said on himself also that if I'm going to permit bread of גוים, they're going to call me also בית דינא שריא, that I'm from a בית דין that permits. אמר ליה, so רבי שמלאי said to him, what kind of comparison is it? התם שרא תלת. There, in the case of רבי יוסי בן יועזר, he allowed three things. That's why they called him יוסי שריא. ומר, but you, שרא חדא, you only allowed one thing so far, which is the oil. ואי שרי מר חדא אחריתא, if you're going to allow another thing, which is the bread, אכתי תרתין הוא דהוין, it's still only two. You're afraid they're going to call you the בית דין that permits as they did to רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה, but there's no comparison, because he permitted three things, and you, if you permit bread, you'll still only be permitting two things. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אנא שראי אחריתי, I already permitted something else. And therefore, if I'm going to permit bread, it'll be a third thing, and then they will call me the בית דינא שריא. מאי היא? What is the other thing that he already permitted? דתנן,

because we learn in a משנה, if a husband give the get to his wife and he says to her זה גיטך, this should be your get, אם לא באתי מכאן עד שנים עשר חודש, if I don't come from today 12 months, for instance, if he left on a trip and he was afraid that if he's going to die on the way, his wife will become an אלמנה, a widow, and the דין by an אלמנה is that she זקוקה ליבם. If he didn't have any children and he died, then his brother must marry her or give her חליצה, and he wanted to avoid the problem of her having to get חליצה, so he said, here is a get, if I don't come back by 12 months, the get should be a get, ומת בתוך שנים עשר חודש, and he died within the 12 months, אינו גט, it's not a get, and the reason for that is, since he said to her that this get should be a get if I don't come back after 12 months, in other words, when did he want the get to be valid? After 12 months, and before that the get is no get. Now since he died within the 12 months, and the get is only valid after 12 months, it comes out that the get is only valid after he died already, and we have a כלל, אין גט לאחר מיתה, you can't give a get after he dies. Only a person who is alive could divorce his wife. If he died already before the get was valid, then this get is not a get. So here too, since he died before the 12 months were up and he said that the get should be a get only after 12 months, so this get is no get, so she's not considered a גרושה, a divorcee, and therefore she would be פטור from חליצה, but she is considered an אלמנה, a widow, and she would have to get חליצה from her husband's brother. ותני עלה, and we learned on this משנה, ורבותינו התירוה להינשא, that our rabbis did allow her to get married, ואמרינן, and we said, מאן רבותינו? Who are these people who are called our rabbis who allowed it?

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, so רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, בית דינא דשרו משחא, it's the same בית דין that allowed the oil, that was the בית דין that allowed this woman to get married. In other words, that this בית דין held that the get is valid, even though he died before the 12 months. What is the reason? סבר לה כרבי יוסי, this בית דין holds like רבי יוסי, דאמר, that he said, זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו, that the time, the date of the שטר, of the document, proves it proves that when he said that this should be a get after 12 months, he didn't mean that after 12 months the get should be valid. What he meant was, that the get should be valid now, on condition that I don't come back after 12 months. Because the whole reason why did the חכמים say the get is not a get? Because the get is not valid till after 12 months, and by then he was already not alive. But had he said לכתחילה that the get should be a get now, if I don't come back after 12 months, so then even if he would have died in the middle, the חכמים would have agreed that this get would be a get. Why? Because since he didn't come back, the condition was fulfilled, and he said the get should be a get now if I don't come back, so then למפרע, retroactively the get is a get from the date he gave it when he was still alive. The only problem here is, since he did not say מעכשיו, when he gave the get, he said, this is your get if I don't come back from today 12 months, and he didn't say the get should be a get from now, so we assumed that the get is not a get till after the 12 months, and since he already died, אין גט לאחר מיתה. But the בית דין that allowed it, they held that since he wrote a date in the get, so he meant to say that the get should be a get from today. The date proves that even though he didn't write מעכשיו, he didn't say the get should be a get from today, from now, but that's what he meant. And this is the opinion of רבי יוסי. רבי יוסי said this דין concerning another case. The גמרא says in בבא בתרא in פרק יש נוחלין, if someone has a few children and he wants to give away all his possessions to one of his children, and he writes a document that all his possessions should go to this son after he dies, so in order for that to be valid, he would have to write in the שטר: מהיום ולאחר מיתה, that's from today and after I die. If he would just write in a שטר that I give away all my possessions to this son after I die, then this is not valid. And the reason for that is, since after he dies, all the other children also inherit, so this son cannot be the only one to take. Because since he wrote in the שטר that this should happen after he dies, after he dies, it's too late already. But if he writes in a שטר that I give it away to my son מהיום ולאחר מיתה, from today and after I die, so we understand that really he wants to give it to him today. And today he is still alive, so he has a right to give it to whoever he wants. So, therefore, his son is קונה. I, why did he write לאחר מיתה also, after he dies? Because Till he dies, he still wants to be the one that will take the profit, eat the fruit from his property. And therefore he wrote, from today and after I die. Meaning that from today, the property itself belongs to this son. And after he dies, then even the פירות, even the fruit, the profit will go to his son. But if he doesn't write מהיום ולאחר מיתה, he just writes that all this belongs to this son after I die, so then the דין is that his son would not take it all, but all the children would inherit equally. רבי יוסי says that if he wrote the date in this document, so then even if he didn't write the words מהיום, also it goes to this son. And the reason he gives is because זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו. If he would mean that that son should take all his possessions only after he dies, then why did he write a date? Why is it important to know when that שטר was written? Since he wrote a date, that proves that he meant that it should start from today. That today he should get the גוף, the property itself, and after he dies, that's when he will get the פירות. Because if he only meant to give it to him after he dies, why did he mention the date in the שטר? So just like רבי יוסי says concerning the שטר, concerning that דין, the same applies also to the גט. Since he wrote a date in the גט, and he gave it to her, and he said to her, this should be your גט if I don't come back after 12 months, so the reason he wrote the date was to show that if he doesn't come back, the גט should be valid from today. And the reason he wrote that if he doesn't come back after 12 months, that is only a condition. What he meant was that the גט should be valid today, on condition if I don't come back by 12 months. So if he didn't come back after 12 months, because he died in the middle, so then the condition was fulfilled, and since we assume that what he meant was the גט should be חל, should be valid from that day on, and then he was still alive, so therefore she is divorced with that גט. That is the opinion of רבי יוסי, and that was also the opinion of רבי יהודה הנשיא who was the בית דין that was מתיר the oil, and was also מתיר this. אמר רב אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא, and רב אבא, the son of רבי חייא בר אבא said, רבי יהודה הנשיא הורה, רבי יהודה הנשיא פסקנ'ט this דין, that this woman is allowed to marry without חליצה, because we consider it as if he meant that the גט should be valid from today. ולא הודו לו כל שעתיה, and all his days, all his lifetime, the other חכמים did not admit to him. ואמרי לה, some say, כל סיעתיה, all his colleagues did not admit to him. It was his opinion that it's מותר, but the others did not agree to him. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר ליה רבי אלעזר לההוא סבא, רבי אלעזר said to this חכם, this was one of the חכמים that was part of the בית דין that was מתיר this woman to get married. So he said to him, כי שריתוה, when you were מתיר, when you permitted this woman to get married, לאלתר שריתוה, did you permit it right away, דלא אתי, because we know for sure he won't come, או דילמא, or maybe, לאחר שנים עשר חודש, only after 12 months, דהא איקיים ליה תנאי, because that's when their condition is fulfilled? The case that we're speaking about here, when he gave her the גט and said that this should be your גט if I don't come back after 12 months, and he died in the middle, so even though he died before the 12 months were up, but we know for sure that he's not going to come back. So when they were מתיר her to get married, could she get married right away, because even though the condition wasn't fulfilled yet, because the 12 months weren't up yet, but since we know for sure that he's not going to come, she is already מותרת, or must she wait for 12 months that the condition should actually be fulfilled? And as תוספות says, that לכאורה what kind of question is it? Since we know for sure he's not going to come, so the condition was fulfilled already, so why should there be a סברא to say that she shouldn't be able to get married right away? And תוספות said that באמת טאקע ממידת הדין she could get married right away. The question what he asked was whether חכמים made a גזירה that she shouldn't get married right away, גזירה מת אטו לא מת. If we're going to allow her to get married right away in this case, so in the case where he wouldn't have died, but he wouldn't have come back till after 12 months, people would also allow her to get married before the 12 months are up, and there for sure you're not allowed. So therefore he asked him, was there a גזירה made that she shouldn't get married till after 12 months, or do we say since לפועל he died and we know for sure he's not going to come, there is no גזירה made and she could get married right away? So he said to him, why do you ask the question concerning this דין? ותיבעי לך אמתניתין, why don't you ask the same question on the other part of the משנה? דתנן, and it says in the משנה there, הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חודש, if he gives her a גט and he says, let this be your גט from now if I don't come back till after 12 months, ומת בתוך שנים עשר חודש, and he died within the twelve months, הוה גט, it is a גט. Why? דהא איקיים ליה תנאיה, because the condition was fulfilled. In the case before where he didn't say מעכשיו, that's where we have the מחלוקת. The חכמים hold that the גט is not a גט, because since he didn't say from now, the גט is not valid till after twelve months, and then it's already לאחר מיתה and אין גט לאחר מיתה. But in this case the משנה says, since he said מעכשיו, so then everyone agrees that the גט is a good גט, because he said that if he doesn't come back, the גט should be from now, and now he is alive, that's why the גט is a good גט. So that's what that חכם said to רבי אלעזר, ותיבעי לך, why can't you ask the קשיא on this משנה itself? לאלתר הוה גיטא, when this משנה says that in the case where he said מעכשיו, the גט is a גט if he died in the middle, is the גט a גט right away, דהא לא אתי, because we know for sure he's not going to come, so the condition was already fulfilled, או דילמא, maybe, לאחר י"ב חודש, you have to wait till after twelve months, דהא איקיים ליה תנאיה, because that's when the condition will be fulfilled? So why did you ask the question concerning the case where only we were מתיר, why didn't you ask the question concerning the case where everyone agrees? So he says, אין הכי נמי, you're right, the question applies also to that משנה. אלא משום דהוית באהו מנינא, because you were one of those people that were included in the count, in the vote, and you were מתיר that woman to get married, that's why I'm asking you concerning that דין. And when I will hear an answer from you concerning that דין, I will understand that the same thing applies to this משנה. If you will tell me that in your case she's allowed to get married right away, so I'll understand that in the case of the משנה where he said מעכשיו, she's also allowed to get married right away. If you'll tell me that in your case she has to wait twelve months, I'm going to understand that in the case of the משנה where it's מעכשיו, she also have to wait twelve months. Then the גמרא continues, אמר אביי, אביי said, הכל מודים, everyone agrees, even רבי יוסי will agree that if he gives her a גט and he says to her these words: לכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה, that this should be your גט when the sun will come out of its cover, which means when it'll become light and it'll become day, so then, לכי נפקא קאמר לה, he's actually saying when the sun will come out, and not before. וכי מיית בליליא, so therefore if he dies during the night before the sun came out, גט לאחר מיתה הוא, it is considered a גט after מיתה, and a גט after מיתה is not a valid גט. And this is according to everybody, אביי says. Even according to רבי יוסי, who says that if we have a date in the שטר, that is as if he wrote מעכשיו, as if he wrote that this should be valid from now, nevertheless, in this case we don't say that. Look, we only say that in the case where he said, אם לא באתי. For instance, the case before where he said this should be your גט if I don't come from now till after twelve months. So we say since he wrote the date in the שטר, so it's as if he said that this גט should be a גט from today if I don't come after twelve months, which means that the coming after twelve months is a condition. He's giving the גט now, on condition that if he doesn't come within twelve months, the גט should be a גט. But in this case here, he didn't make it as a condition. He didn't say, אם תצא חמה מנרתיקה. He said, לכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה, when the sun will come out of its cover. So he meant to say that when the sun will come out of its cover, that's when the גט will be a גט, but not before that. And even though one might ask, but after all, according to רבי יוסי, since it has a date, so the date of the שטר should prove that it's as if he wrote מהיום. So even though he didn't say אם, but he said לכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה, but still it's as if he wrote the word מהיום, since it does have a date. So the פשט is, as רש"י explains, that it's as if he wrote both. Since it has a date, and a date is as if it said היום, so it's as if he wrote that the גט should be מהיום ולכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה, from today and when the sun will come out of its נרתיק. When you write like that, we have a ספק what he meant. On one hand, we could say that when he said it should be from today, and then he added the words when this and this will happen, so the first thing, the words from today, is the time he wants the גט to be חל, on condition that that thing will happen. Or maybe, since he didn't write it in a form of condition, he didn't even write it in a form of אם, if this will happen, but he said when this will happen, so the second expression is a חרטה, he changed his mind from the first expression. And since it's a ספק, we don't know which one it is, and by a גט, since it's a ספק, it is a ספק גט. So therefore, she cannot get married on that גט, even according to רבי יוסי. Even though we do assume that it's as if he wrote מהיום, but it's a ספק what he meant with that. Did he mean the גט should be from today on condition when the sun will come out, or we assume that he changed his mind from the word that he wrote מהיום, and what he meant to say is, when the sun will come out and before that not. And therefore it is not a גט even according to רבי יוסי. הגם as גמרא says in בבא בתרא that in the case of a מתנה, when the father writes all his property away to a son, and he writes the words מהיום ולאחר מיתה, from today and after I die, he didn't write from today if I die, but from today and

when I die, so לכאורה it's the same לשון as here, and nevertheless over there רבי יוסי says that the son does get it, so רש״י says there it's different, because there we have a way to explain both expressions. What he meant was, that from today you get the גוף of the property, the property itself, but the profit, the פירות, still goes to the father. After I die, that's when you will get the פירות also. So there is no contradiction between the first and the second statements. Therefore, we say that that's what he meant. In a case where there is a contradiction between the two statements, when he says from today, and then he says when the sun will come out or any other thing he says, so there is a contradiction between the two statements, so there we say we don't know whether he meant that the second thing should be a condition in the first, or he changed his mind from the first and he meant only the second. Therefore, in a case of a גט where we cannot say that he meant both, one for the גוף and one for the פירות, and it's a ספק what he meant, so there, even according to רבי יוסי she cannot get married. And that's what אביי meant to say, that if he says the לשון, when the sun will come out of its cover, then everyone agrees, even רבי יוסי, that the גט is not valid till after the sun comes out, and by then he already died, the גט is no גט. On the other hand, everyone agrees that if he says על מנת שתצא חמה מנרתיקה, on condition that the sun will come out of its cover, then everyone agrees מעכשיו קאמר לה, he means the גט should be now, but on condition that the sun will come out. Therefore, וכי מיית בליליא, if he dies during the night, הוה תנאה, certainly this was only a condition, the גט מקוים הוא, and the גט is a good גט because the גט is valid from the time he was still alive, כי דרב הונא, like רב הונא said, דאמר רב הונא, because רב הונא said, כל האומר על מנת, anybody who says the expression על מנת, on condition, כאומר מעכשיו דמי, it is as if he said from now. If you say the expression that this גט should be from now if this happens, then certainly it means the גט is valid now if that happens. What he says is, even if he didn't use the word מעכשיו, from now, but he said the גט should be a גט on condition that happens, it also means that the גט should be a גט now on condition if that thing happens. So there is no מחלוקת concerning that either. לא נחלקו, where they didn't argue, which means רבי יהודה הנשיא who was מתיר this woman to get married, and the other חכמים who didn't accept his פסק דין, their מחלוקת is only אלא באם תצא. If he gives a גט and he says באם תצא חמה מנרתיקה, if the sun will come out from its cover, so רבי יהודה הנשיא סבר לה כי רבי יוסי, רבי יהודה הנשיא holds like רבי יוסי that said, דאמר, who says, זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו, that the time, the date of the שטר proved that it's as if he said from now, והוה ליה, so this has the same דין as if he would have said כי מהיום אם מתי, if he would have said, here I give you a גט from today if I will die, or כי מעכשיו אם מתי, or if he would have written in the גט from now if I die. And in a case like that, for sure the דין is that the גט is a גט, because the גט is valid while he was still alive. So the same is in the case where he writes אם תצא חמה מנרתיקה, and it has a date, so it's as if he wrote מהיום אם תצא חמה מנרתיקה, which means that the גט is חל right away, and therefore the גט is a good גט. This is the opinion of רבי יהודה הנשיא. ורבנן, the רבנן who argue against רבי יהודה הנשיא, לית להו דרבי יוסי, they don't accept the סברא of רבי יוסי that the date is as if he wrote מעכשיו, והוה ליה, so this is like כי זה גיטך אם מתי גרידא, it's only as if he would have said, this is your גט if I die, without adding the words from now. So since it is not a גט from now, the גט is only a גט after he dies, and since couldn't be אין גט לאחר מיתה, so the גט is no good גט. Then the

גמרא continues, גופא, now we'll discuss the גוף of what we brought before, it says העיד יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה, that יוסי בן יועזר, the person from צרידה testified על איל קמצא דכן, on this special kind of locust that it's טהור, you're allowed to eat it, ועל משקא בית מטבחיא דדכן, and on the liquid from the slaughterhouse of the בית המקדש that it doesn't become טמא, ודיקרב במיתא מסאב, and also that somebody who touches a dead body becomes טמא. וקרו ליה, and they called him יוסי שריא, יוסי who allowed, who permitted. גמרא asks: מאי איל קמצא? So what is this איל קמצא? רב פפא אמר שושביבא. רב פפא says this means the שושביבא. סוזביל. ורב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר, רב חייא בר אמי in the name of עולא said that what is it? סוזביל. שושיבא is a kind of locust that has a long head, and סוזביל is a kind of locust that has a short head. And the גמרא explains that רב פפא אמר שושיבא, according to רב פפא who says that what is this איל קמצא? שושיבא. קמיפלגי, so the מחלוקת is between יוסי בן יועזר and the other ones who did not accept this היתר. בראשו ארוך, concerning the locust that has a long head, whether this is a סימן of it being טהור or not. מר סבר ראשו ארוך אסור, one of them holds that if it has a long head it's אסור, ומר סבר, and יוסי בן יועזר holds, that ראשו ארוך מותר, that if it has a long head it's מותר. And as רש״י explains, this is a מחלוקת of תנאים in the גמרא חולין. Because it says in the חומש concerning the סימנים of כשר grasshoppers, it says there that it is ארבה and סלעם and חרגול and חגב. And the גמרא there has a מחלוקת based on this, if it is with a long head, if it's כשר or not. Some there דרשנן a כלל ופרט. And the

דין by a כלל ופרט is אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט. The כלל is that when the תורה mentions a general rule and then the תורה mentions details, so we say that this is a כלל and then comes a פרט, and the הלכה is אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט. That the only thing that's included in this rule are only those things which are actually mentioned in detail. And therefore, in this case also, we say that which grasshoppers are מותר? Only those that are mentioned by name in the תורה, which is ארבה, סלעם, and חרגול, and חגב. But any other kind is אסור. And these kinds mentioned here don't have long heads, so according to this opinion, if it has a long head, it is not included in these that are mentioned in the תורה, and therefore it is אסור. But the other opinion holds that the way to דרש it is not a כלל ופרט, but it is a כלל ופרט וכלל. And the דין by a כלל ופרט וכלל is that it doesn't include everything, but on the other hand, it includes more than the פרט, but it has to be something which is similar to the פרט. So we say that which grasshoppers are מותר? Those that have the same סימנים as the ones that are mentioned. And what are they? It has to have four feet, four wings, it has to have קרסולין, and it has to have the wings should cover the majority of the body. But if it has a long head, that doesn't make it אסור. And therefore, according to that opinion, the long head is still מותר. And that's what the גמרא says here, that the מחלוקת between יוסי בן יועזר and the other חכמים was that the other חכמים held like the first opinion, that it's a כלל ופרט, and only those things mentioned in the תורה are מותר. And therefore, the שושיבא, since it has a long head, it is not one of those four, it is אסור. While יוסי בן יועזר held that we don't דרש it with a כלל ופרט, but a כלל ופרט וכלל, so it doesn't have to be exactly like those מינים. It has to be similar to them, similar in the four סימנים that the גמרא gives, so therefore, even if it has a long head, it is still מותר. This is the way it is according to רב פפא. ורב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר, but רב חייא בר אמי in the name of עולא said that what is it? סוזביל. Because שושיבא, he said, everyone holds is אסור, because בראשו ארוך כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור. Concerning the long head, everyone holds it's אסור. והכא בכנפיו חופות את רובו על ידי הדחק קמיפלגי. The

מחלוקת concerning סוזביל is: סוזביל has all four סימנים that we said before, but one of the four סימנים was that the wings have to cover the majority of the body. But by סוזביל, it covers the majority of the body, but you can't see it outright, it's not obvious. If you measure it, you will see that it covers the majority of the body. So the מחלוקת is, whether if it covers the majority of the body על ידי הדחק, not obvious, but through הדחק, is it considered that it covers the majority of the body or not? מר סבר, one holds, רובא כל דהוא בעינן, that in order to be מותר it's enough as long as it's the majority, even if you can't tell, and therefore סוזביל is מותר. ומר סבר, those that argued against יוסי בן יועזר, they hold, רובא דמינכר בעינן. You have to have the majority that you could tell, it should be obvious, and therefore by סוזביל, since it is not obvious, it is אסור. And that's why they didn't agree to יוסי בן יועזר when he פסק׳נט that איל קמצא is כשר. This is the פשט in the גמרא according to our גירסא, that the reason why רב חייא בר אמי in the name of עולא said that the מחלוקת it is by סוזביל and not by שושיבא, is because concerning שושיבא everyone agrees that it's אסור, because בראשו ארוך everyone agrees it's אסור. But

תוספות asks a קשיא on that, because in גמרא in חולין פרק אלו טרפות דף ס״ו it says there, תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל they learned, ראשו ארוך מותר, that if it has a long head it's מותר. So we see that not everyone agrees that if it has a long head it's אסור. And in the משנה there it's also משמע like that, that if it has a long head it's מותר. And there in the משנה also it's משמע that a long head is מותר, because there in the משנה it mentions what are the סימנים of a כשר grasshopper, and it doesn't mention one of the סימנים it shouldn't have a long head. And also in the end of פרק רבי עקיבא, in גמרא שבת דף צ׳ עמוד ב׳, it says there that רב saw רב כהנא that he was carrying and holding a שושיבא by his mouth. So he said to him, "Take it away, you might come to eat from it while it's alive, and you'll be עובר on the איסור of בל תשקצו. You're not allowed to eat things which are disgusting, and since to eat it alive is disgusting, so take it away from your mouth, you shouldn't come to eat it and be עובר on בל תשקצו." Is משמע that only if he would have eaten it alive he would be עובר on the איסור of בל תשקצו, but if it would be dead, then he wouldn't be עובר. אי שושיבא with a long head, is משמע that he holds שושיבא is מותר. So how could he say here that concerning שושיבא, since it had a long head, everyone agrees that it's אסור? Therefore, the רבנו תם is גורס different here, that the reason he says the מחלוקת is by סוזביל, not by שושיבא, because concerning שושיבא, which has a long head, כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמותר, everyone holds it's מותר. And this is also the גירסא of the ר״ח. And that makes sense, that this fits to the גמרא's there where we see that a long head is מותר. Then the גמרא continues, we also said before that what did יוסי בן יועזר also say is מותר? ומשקין בית מטבחיא דכן, the liquid of the slaughterhouse of the בית המקדש is טהור, that the liquid is not מטמא. The גמרא asks, מאי דכן? What do we mean it's טהור? The גמרא says, רב אמר רב says, דכן ממש, it is ממש טהור, it itself is also טהור. ושמואל אמר, and שמואל says, דכן מלטמא אחרים, it's טהור from making other things טמא, אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן, but its own טומאה it does have. And the גמרא explains what the base of the מחלוקת is. רב אמר דכן ממש, רב said that what he meant was that it's completely טהור. קסבר, he holds טומאת משקין דרבנן, that משקין should become טמא בכלל is only a דין דרבנן, but מדאורייתא, משקין doesn't become טמא. וכי גזרו רבנן טומאה במשקין דעלמא, when did the רבנן make their גזירה that משקין does become טמא? Only by other משקין, other liquid, אבל משקין בית מטבחיא, by the liquid of the slaughterhouse of the בית המקדש, לא גזרו רבנן, the רבנן did not make a גזירה. ושמואל אמר, but שמואל says, דכן מלטמא אחרים, that it's only טהור from making other things טמא, אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן, but its own טומאה it has. Why? קסבר, because he holds טומאת משקין דאורייתא, that משקין become טמא is a דין מדאורייתא. The only thing is לטמא אחרים דרבנן, only the fact that משקין could make other things טמא, that is a דין דרבנן. וכי גזרו רבנן במשקין דעלמא, when did the רבנן make this גזירה that משקין should make other things טמא? Only by other משקין, אבל משקין בית מטבחיא לא גזרו, but by liquid of the slaughterhouse of the בית המקדש they didn't make a גזירה. They couldn't make a דין that the משקין בית מטבחיא should be טהור בכלל and not be טמא at all, because this is a דין דאורייתא. All the רבנן could do, that their דין that they made, they could limit it that it shouldn't apply to the בית המקדש, but a thing which is מדאורייתא, that they can't change. So therefore, since מדאורייתא משקין becomes טמא, so also the משקין of the בית מטבחיא also becomes טמא according to שמואל. The only thing the רבנן could do, that the גזירה דרבנן that משקין should not make other things טמא, that they could limit, shouldn't apply to the בית המקדש. But the fact that משקין is טמא itself, that is a דין דאורייתא, and therefore that applies also to the בית המקדש. And the רא״ש brings that the גמרא in פסחים asks a קשיא on רב, who says that משקין doesn't become טמא מדאורייתא, from a פסוק where it says, וכל משקה אשר ישתה וגו׳, where it's משמע that it does become טמא, and the גמרא answers that there it doesn't speak about טומאה, but about הכשר טומאה. We know that food cannot become טמא, even if it touches a שרץ or anything else that's טמא, unless it first becomes מוכשר לקבל טומאה, first it becomes ready to accept טומאה. What makes food ready to accept טומאה? If it gets wet. And that's what the פסוק there means, that if liquid falls on food, then the food becomes ready, that now if a שרץ or any other טומאה will touch it, it'll become טמא. But משקה itself doesn't become טמא מדאורייתא according to רב, and therefore he holds that the משקין of בית מטבחיא doesn't become טמא even מדרבנן. And according to שמואל, it becomes טמא, but it can't make other things טמא, because that is only a דין דרבנן. Then the גמרא continues, the third thing that he said was, ודיקרב למיתא מסאב, that if you get close to a dead body, you become טמא. And because he made these three things מותר, וקרו ליה יוסי שריא, so they called יוסי בן יועזר, they called him יוסי who permits. But the גמרא asks, יוסי אסרא מבעי ליה, the יוסי who makes things אסרא they should have said, because the last thing wasn't a היתר, but it was an איסור. The last thing was that if you touch a dead body, you become טמא, so that's not a היתר, that's an איסור. So if they would call him anything because of that, they should call him יוסף אסרא, but not יוסף שריא. ועוד, another קושיא, דאורייתא היא! How can you say that he made a דין that if you touch a dead body, you become טמא? This is a דין דאורייתא! דכתיב, because the פסוק says, וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, anything it will touch on the field, בחלל חרב, in a dead body who was killed through a sword, או במת, or in a dead body וגומר, and the פסוק continues that you become טמא. So we see that the דין that if you touch a dead body, you become טמא is a דין דאורייתא. So how can we say that יוסף בן יועזר was the one that made that דין? The גמרא answers, דאורייתא, מדאורייתא, דיקרב טמא. If you get close to it, you become טמא. If you touch yourself the dead body, you become טמא. But דיקרב בדיקרב, if you touch, you get close to the one that got close, that touched the dead body, you are still טהור. Only if you touch the dead body itself, but if you touch the person who touched the dead body, you don't become טמא. ואתו אינהו, then came the רבנן, וגזרו, they made a גזירה, אפילו דיקרב בדיקרב, even if you get close, you touch the one that got close, the one that touched a dead body, you should also be טמא. ואתא איהו, so came יוסף בן יועזר, ואוקמה אדאורייתא, and he put it back to the way it's the דין דאורייתא. And that's what we mean when he said that if you get close to a dead body, you become טמא, what he meant was that only if you get close to a dead body, you become טמא, but not if you get close to the one that got close to the dead body. And this is already a היתר, and that's why they called him יוסף שריא. But then the גמרא asks, דיקרב בדיקרב נמי דאורייתא היא! This דין that if you get close to the one that got close to the dead body is טמא, this is also a דין מדאורייתא! דכתיב, because the פסוק says, וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, that anything that the טמא will touch will become טמא. So we see clearly that the person who became טמא by touching a dead body, if he touches something else, that something else becomes טמא. And this is a פסוק in the תורה! So we see מדאורייתא the דין is that if you touch the person who touched the dead body, you become טמא! The גמרא says, אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבא, the רבנן said this in front of רבא, משמיה דמר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן, in the name of מר זוטרא, the son of רב נחמן, דאמר משמיה דרב נחמן, that said in the name of רב נחמן, that דאורייתא, מדאורייתא, דיקרב בדיקרב בחיבורין טומאת שבעה, that if you get close, that means that if you touch the one that touched the dead body while he is still connected, still touching the body, then you are טמא for seven days. The דין is that if a person touches a dead body, then he is טמא for seven days. Other types of טומאה, as soon as you become טמא you could go to the מקוה, and then you wait for הערב שמש, you wait till the sun sets of that day that you went to the מקוה, and you are טהור. But if you become a טמא מת, if you touch a dead body and you become טמא, then you have a טומאה for seven days, and you have to be sprinkled with the אפר פרה, with the ashes from the פרה אדומה, on the third and on the seventh day, and then you become טהור afterwards. So the פסוק is saying here that if you touch the person who touched the dead body while he's still touching the dead body, so then you also become טומאת שבעה, you also become טמא the same טומאה as the other person for seven days. But שלא בחיבורין טומאת ערב. But if you touched the person who touched the dead body, but not while he is connected still to the dead body, after he took his hand away from the dead body, then you touch him, then you become טומאת ערב, you only become טמא till the evening. That's the דין מדאורייתא. ואתו אינהו, came the רבנן, וגזרו, and they made a גזירה, אפילו שלא בחיבורין טומאת שבעה, that even if you touched the person who touched the dead body not while he is still touching the dead body, you are also טמא for seven days. ואתא איהו, so came יוסף בן יועזר, ואוקמה אדאורייתא, and he brought it back to the דאורייתא, that if you touched the person who touched the dead body after he let go of the dead body, then you are not טמא for seven days, but you are only טמא till the evening. Then the גמרא says, דאורייתא מאי היא? Where do we see in the תורה this דין that if you touch the person who is still touching the dead body, you have to be טמא for seven days? דכתיב, because the פסוק says, one פסוק says, הנוגע במת לכל נפש אדם וטמא שבעת ימים, that if you touch a dead body, you are טמא for seven days. וכתיב, another פסוק says, וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, that whatever this טמא will touch will become טמא. And since the פסוק doesn't give any limits, is משמע that whatever he touches becomes טמא like he. Just like he is טמא for seven days, so the thing he will touch or the person he will touch will also become טמא for seven days. וכתיב, but there's another פסוק that says, והנפש הנגעת תטמא עד הערב, that the person that will touch will become טמא till the evening. הא כיצד? How is it possible? From the first פסוק is משמע that if this טמא who touched that dead body, who himself is טמא for seven days, will touch something else, that something else will have to be טמא for seven days too. On the other hand, the other פסוק says that it will only become טמא till the evening. How do we put these two פסוקים together? כאן בחיבורין כאן שלא בחיבורין. That teaches us that here, where it says that the second person also becomes טמא for seven days, that's if he touched the first person when he was still

connected to the dead body. And the other פסוק, where it says he's only טמא till the evening, that's when he touched him שלא בחיבורין, that's when he was not connected to the dead body, after he let go. So then he also becomes טמא, but he doesn't become טמא for seven days. And the גמרא says, אמר להו רבא, רבא said to them, לאו אמינא לכו, didn't I tell you, לא תיתלו בי בוקי סריקי ברב נחמן, you shouldn't hang on empty jars of רב נחמן. In other words, don't say things which are not true in the name of רב נחמן. Because they said in the name of רב נחמן that what was the third thing that רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה was מתיר, was this דין, that if you touch a person who touched a dead body, you are not טמא for seven days if it was not בחיבורין. So he said, this is not what רב נחמן said. הכי אמר רב נחמן, this is what רב נחמן said was the third thing that רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה was מתיר: ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים התיר להם. He was מתיר them if there is a ספק טומאה in the רשות הרבים. If a person has a ספק whether he became טמא or not, and the ספק arose in the רשות הרבים, in the public place, so then he said it is מותר. And that's what he meant when he said that if you touch a dead body you are טמא, that only if you are ודאי that you touched the dead body you are טמא, but if it's a ספק whether you touched the dead body, then you are not טמא. But then the גמרא asks, והא הלכה מסוטה גמירינן לה, how can you say this was a דין that he said? This is a דין that we learn out from סוטה. מה סוטה רשות היחיד אף טומאה רשות היחיד. Just like סוטה happens in a רשות היחיד, so too when is it טמא, if it's a רשות היחיד. The דין of a סוטה is, if a person warns his wife not to hide with a certain man, and she goes along and she does hide with him, she becomes a סוטה, and you have to take her to the בית המקדש, and she has to drink the מים המאררים, etc. Now

there, it is not ודאי that she became טמאה, that she did the עבירה. The פסוק says, ונסתרה והיא נטמאה. She hid, and she is considered that she did an עבירה and she became טמאה, and therefore, to be sure, you have to take her to the בית המקדש and go through the whole thing of a סוטה. So from there we learn out, that when is טומאה considered a טומאה in a case where it's a ספק, only if it's in a hidden place, because the פסוק says, ונסתרה והיא נטמאה, she hid and she became טמאה, that if it's in a hidden place, in a private place, like by the case of סוטה, that's when we assume that it is טמא. But if it's in a place where it's open, not hidden, a רשות הרבים, then it is not טמא. So from there we know that ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד, if it's a doubtful טומאה, but it's in the private place, it is טמא. But if it is ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, if it's a doubtful טומאה but it's in a public place, it is טהור. So the גמרא's קשיא is, how can you say that this was a דין said by רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה when we learn this out from סוטה? And the גמרא answers, והא אמר רבי יוחנן, didn't רבי יוחנן say, הלכה ואין מורין כן. This is טאקע the הלכה, but you shouldn't פסקן like that, because people, when they'll hear that in a case like this it is טהור, then they will come to be מתיר also if it's done in the רשות היחיד, and there it's אסור. ואתא איהו, so he came, ואורי לה עירויי, and he did פסקן it in public. Till then they wouldn't פסקן it in public, and he came and פסקנ'ד that everyone should know about it. תנינא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn like that in the ברייתא, that says, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, קורות נחת להם, beams he stuck into them, ואמר, and he said, עד כאן רשות הרבים, עד כאן רשות היחיד, that till here is the רשות הרבים, till here is the רשות היחיד. In other words, רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה took beams, and he made signs in the floors, and he made סימנים to know where the רשות היחיד ends, and where the רשות הרבים ends. And why did he do that? So people should know that in case a ספק טומאה happens to them in these areas, they should know whether it's טהור or טמא. If it'll be within the border of the רשות הרבים it'll be טהור, if it'll be in the in the border of רשות היחיד, it'll be טמא. So we see that what he did was not that he made the דין, but he publicized this דין, even though before it wasn't known, and he publicized it so much till he actually made signs that people should know where the רשות היחיד and the רשות הרבים ends. And רש"י explains why he had to put these signs up, even though usually we know where a רשות היחיד and where a רשות הרבים is, so רש"י says because concerning the דין of טומאה, when we say that ברשות הרבים it's טהור and ברשות היחיד it's טמא, it is different than concerning שבת. Here the דין is that if it's a valley, it is a רשות היחיד לגבי טומאה, because any area where the owner of the field is not מקפיד, doesn't want people to walk there, that has a דין of a רשות היחיד. So therefore he had to put up signs to show which places have a דין of a רשות היחיד לגבי the דין of טומאה and which places have a דין of a רשות הרבים לגבי טומאה. And also רש״י says, because it says in בבא בתרא that there are, for instance, four אמות which are close to the רשות הרבים, an empty space close to the רשות הרבים, which לגבי טומאה has a דין like a רשות הרבים, so these things which are not clear, he made the signs so they should know, because he publicized this דין that if it's a ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, it is טהור. And then the גמרא says, כי אתו לקמיה דרבי ינאי, when they came to רבי ינאי, people who were טמא מספק, who were in doubt whether they became טמא or not, and it happened in the רשות הרבים, when they came to רבי ינאי to ask him whether they are טמא or not, אמר להו, he said to them, חמימי בשיקצא דנהרא, there's plenty of water in the depth of the river, זילו טבולו, go טובל yourself. In other words, he told them not to rely on the היתר that this was ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, but they should go and טובל themselves. Concerning what we said before, that originally they said in the name of רב נחמן that what was the היתר of רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרדה, it was concerning the טומאה בחיבורין, that מדאורייתא there is a טומאה בחיבורין, but if it is not בחיבורין, then you don't become טמא טומאה משיבה, the רבנן made a גזירה you should become טמא טומאה משיבה, and he made it back to the way it was originally, that you are not טמא טומאה משיבה. And then רבא said to them, "Do not say things in the name of רב נחמן which is not true." So תוספות says that doesn't mean that רבא argues that מדאורייתא there is a דין of טומאה בחיבורין, that's what he meant. What he meant was it's טאקע true, מדאורייתא there is a טומאה בחיבורין, and the רבנן came and added that even if it's not בחיבורין, there is a טומאה משיבה. What רבא said was that רב נחמן didn't say that this was what רבי יוסי בן יועזר was talking about. When רבי יוסי בן יועזר was מתיר something, this third thing was something else, was concerning ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, but not that he argues on the דין, he just says that this is not what רב נחמן had said that רבי יוסי בן יועזר meant when he made the third היתר. Also תוספות says, when the גמרא says that we learn out from סוטה this דין that ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים is טהור, so תוספות says, this דין we don't learn out from סוטה, because this דין would be, even if not for the דין of סוטה, because if you have a ספק טומאה, and there is a חזקת טהרה, then automatically it is טהור. If something is טהור, so it has a חזקת טהרה, then there is a ספק if it became טמא or not, so the דין is that we follow the חזקה and it stays טהור. So therefore, it's self-understood that if you're in the street and you are טהור, and it's a ספק maybe you touched טומאה or not, since you have the חזקת טהרה, you are טהור. For that, we don't have to have a special דין to learn out from סוטה that it's טהור. What we really learn out from סוטה is the other half, that ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד is טמא, that if the same ספק came up in a private place, so even though you have a חזקת טהרה, nevertheless you are טמא. So when the גמרא says we learn out from סוטה, the גמרא mainly means this second half, the ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד, but the גמרא refers to the general דין that there's a difference between a רשות היחיד and a רשות הרבים, that's what we learn out from סוטה. And then the גמרא continues, it quotes from the משנה, והשלקות, one of those things which are of גוים that are אסור to eat is שלקות, cooked food of גוים. The גמרא asks, מנא הני מילי, where do we know that from? אמר רב חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן, רב חייא בר אבא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, אוכל בכסף תשבירני ואכלתי, food for money I will buy and I will eat, ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי, and water with silver, with money you will give me and I will drink. So we see the תורה compares the food to the water, and this was said to the גוים, that when they wanted to cross the place of the גוים of אדום, they said to him that we will buy food for money, and we will buy water for money, but the תורה we see compares the food to the water, so we דרשן, כמים, it has to be like water. Which food of גוים could you eat if it's like water? מה מים שלא נשתנו, just like water that didn't change, אף אוכל שלא נשתנה, also food that didn't change. And therefore food that was cooked by גוים, was changed by the גוים, you are not allowed to eat. So the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה, if so, חיטין ועשאן כליות, if it was wheat, and the גוי made it into כליות, he dried it in the oven, didn't cook it, just dried it in the oven, הכא נמי דאסורי, will you tell me also it's אסור? If you're saying that the reason it's אסור because as long as it was changed by the גוי, it is אסור, so this should also be אסור. וכי תימא, and if you're going to say הכא נמי, it is true that it is also אסור, והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, חיטין ועשאן כליות, if it was wheat, and the גוי made it into כליות, dried it up in the oven, מותר, and it is מותר. So obviously it is not because we compare it to water and we say that just like water wasn't changed through the גוים, so too, which food can you eat? Only food that wasn't changed. אלא, what do we דרשנ'ן? We say different: כמים, it has to be like water. מה מים שלא נשתנו מברייתן, just like water wasn't changed from its original stage, the way it was created, אף אוכל שלא נשתנה מברייתו. Also, which food could you eat of גוים? If it wasn't changed from the way it was originally, from the way it was created. And therefore, you're allowed to eat קליות, because that isn't changed from the way it was originally. It's just dried, but it still has the same shape. But if it's cooked, and it changed its shape, it changed its מצב, that's what you're not allowed to eat. אלא מעתה, the גמרא says, if so, חיטין וטחנן, if he had wheat and he ground them, הכא נמי דאסורין? Would you also say it's אסור, since it's also changed, the shape is different than it was the way it was created originally? וכי תימא, and if you will tell me הכא נמי, that this is also true that you are not allowed to buy from גוים wheat that they ground, והתניא, didn't we learn: חיטין ועשאן קליות, if they had wheat and they turned it into קליות, or הקימחין והסולת, the different kinds of flour שלהם, of theirs, מותרין, is מותר? So obviously, this is not what we דרשנ'ן in the comparison of water. אלא, we דרשנ'ן like this: כמים, it should be like water. מה מים שלא נשתנו מברייתן על ידי האור, just like water was not changed from their original shape through fire, אף אוכל שלא נשתנה מברייתו על ידי האור. So too, which food of גוים could you eat? If it wasn't changed from its original stage through fire. And therefore, only if it was cooked, it's אסור, because then it was changed through fire, but any other change is מותר. But the גמרא asks, מידי אור כתיב? Does the פסוק say fire? We learn out from the פסוק where we compare food to water, but it doesn't mention a word about fire! So, where do we take this דין that it has to be like water that wasn't changed through fire? Who mentioned fire here? אלא therefore the גמרא says, מדרבנן. This whole דין that you're not allowed to eat food that was cooked by a גוי is מדרבנן, וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא. This פסוק that we're quoting here is only an אסמכתא. A lot of times we find that the רבנן made דינים, and then they found a פסוק that is a hint to their דין. That is called an אסמכתא. It's only they rely, they're סומך on the פסוק, but not that this is what the פסוק meant. And the same here, too. באמת the רבנן made this דין. This פסוק is only an אסמכתא. Now, what was the reason for the רבנן to make this דין? So, רש''י says, in order for יידן to stay away from the גוים. If you're going to be able to eat the cooked food of גוים, a ייד is going to be amongst גוים. And this could bring the גוי to give the ייד non-כשר food to eat. So, therefore, the חכמים said, you're בכלל not allowed to eat cooked food of גוים. So, therefore, the גוי won't come to give you טרפה food. That's the פשט that רש''י says. But תוספות learns that it's not because of that, but because it's חתנות. That the חכמים didn't want the יידן to socialize with the גוים in order not to intermarry. So, therefore, they said that we can't בכלל eat cooked food of גוים. And תוספות says that רש''י, in the משנה, himself said this פשט. And then תוספות says that רבינו אברהם ברבי דוד says that when did the חכמים אסר food that was cooked by a גוי? Only if the גוי cooked it in his house. But if the גוי cooks in the ייד's house, then there's nothing to be afraid of. We're not afraid of intermarriage, because it's in the ייד's house. Only if you are in the גוי's house, so then you come to socialize with the גוים, we're afraid you'll intermarry. But if it's in the ייד's house, then there is no חשש of חתנות. And there's also no חשש that he might feed you non-כשר food, because it's in your house. That's the opinion of רבינו אברהם ברבי דוד. But the רבינו תם argued against him, and he said that since the גוי cooked it, it makes no difference whether it's in the house of the ייד or in the house of the גוי. Because if the ייד is not going to be careful if the גוי cooks it in his house, he's also not going to be careful if the גוי cooks it in the גוי's house. And that could lead to חתנות or to eat non-כשר food. And therefore, this דין applies no matter where wherever a גוי cooks food, a ייד is not allowed to eat it. Another thing that תוספות says, that since the גמרא had a הוה אמינא that it's a דין דאורייתא that you're not allowed to eat food that was cooked by a גוי, and לפועל the מסקנא is that it's דרבנן, but one thing is for sure: that this must have been a גזירה much before the גזירה of פת. The דין of not eating גויישה bread, that is one of the י''ח דבר, one of the 18 things that the שמאי and בית הלל made during that day. Now, if the גזירה of not eating cooked food by גוים is also from that time, how did the גמרא have a הוה אמינא that this is a דאורייתא? So, since the גמרא has a הוה אמינא this is דאורייתא, obviously this is a גזירה from much before. So, even though the מסקנא is that it's דרבנן, but definitely it was an original גזירה from years before the גזירה of פת. In other words, many, many years before they made a גזירה on eating cooked food of גוים, but they didn't make a גזירה on not eating גויישה bread. And years later, that day when they אסר'ד the י''ח דבר, they אסר'ד also eating bread of גוים. Now the question is, why, when Eating bread of a גוי should lead to intermarriage is a further חשש than if you eat food cooked by a גוי. And therefore לכתחילה they only made the גזירה concerning food, because that is more חשש it should lead to חתנות, but concerning bread they didn't make the גזירה. Then came שמאי and הלל, and they made the גזירה also on bread. They felt that even though bread is not that much חשש, but still some חשש is there, and they made the גזירה on bread also. And even though in the משנה, שלוק- פת is mentioned before שלוקות, and according to this שלוקות was a גזירה much earlier and פת was a גזירה later, nevertheless the משנה טאקע mentions it in this way, but still לפועל the גזירה of food was before the גזירה of פת. And therefore, when later they were מתיר to eat bread of גוים, if it's from a baker, a גוי, as the גמרא says earlier, they did not allow to eat בישולי- טאקע cooked food of גוים, because they're two separate גזירות. And therefore, when they were מתיר one, it doesn't mean that they were מתיר the other also. And in connection to this, where תוספות says that food and bread are two separate things because this is cooked and this is baked, the רבינו תם says that when you make an עירוב תבשילין, which is that through this you are allowed to cook on יום טוב for שבת, you also must use two things: bread and cooked food. And he brings a ראיה from the גמרא in ביצה, where it says that רבי אלעזר says that you are not allowed to bake on יום טוב for שבת unless you have something baked before, and you're not allowed to cook on יום טוב to שבת unless you have something cooked before, because the פסוק says, ״את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו״, and that's what the בה״ג says also. In other words, in order to be able to bake on יום טוב for שבת, you must make an עירוב תבשילין with bread which is baked. In order to be able to cook food on יום טוב for שבת, you must have the עירוב תבשילין of cooked food. And that's why you must have both. But the ר״י says that in עירוב תבשילין it's enough if you have one of the two: or פת or תבשיל, or bread or other food. אי the גמרא says there that רבי אלעזר said that you can't bake unless you have a baked food and you can't cook unless you have cooked food, the הלכה is not like רבי אלעזר, because we know that רבי אלעזר שמותי הוא, and we don't פסקן like רבי אלעזר. And also, he goes in the שיטה of חנניה according to בית שמאי, and בית שמאי טאקע need פת ותבשיל, and also חמין טמונין, hidden hot food, but בית הלל was מתיר. And therefore, since it follows בית שמאי, we don't פסקן like that. And also in ירושלמי in ביצה, רבי יהושע clearly argues against רבי אלעזר. And we have a כלל, בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל, and when it comes to a דין דרבנן you could follow the one that's מיקל. Since עירוב תבשילין is a דין דרבנן, you could follow the opinion of רבי יהושע, who is מיקל and says you don't need to. And also תוספות says, in our גמרא, חנניה according to בית הלל does not need both, but one. Nevertheless, the מנהג of the people is that when you make an עירוב תבשילין you do have both: you have bread and you have a תבשיל, other food. And the reason is, since the הלכות גדולות and the רבינו תם said like that, so the people accepted it, and when you make an עירוב תבשילין you have both: you have פת and you have תבשיל.