Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף ל"ח. We will start from the end of the first line of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא of the דין of בישול עכו"ם, that food that was cooked by a גוי, a ייד is not allowed to eat. And the reason was because, according to רש"י the way he explains it here in the גמרא, is because we're afraid he might mix in non-kosher food in it. And according to תוספות, and also according to the way רש"י explained it in the משנה, it is because of חתנות, we're afraid of intermarriage, that if we're going to be allowed to eat food cooked by a גוי, it'll bring יידן to socialize with the גוים, and this might bring to intermarriage. The גמרא says here, אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב, רב שמואל בר רב יצחק said in the name of רב, כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי, any food that could be eaten raw, אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, then there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם, which means even if it was cooked by a גוי, but since it could have been eaten raw, the דין of בישול עכו"ם doesn't apply there. בסורא מתנו הכי, this is how they learned it in סורא. בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי, in פומבדיתא they learned it different: אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב, that רב שמואל בר רב יצחק said in the name of רב, כל שאינו נאכל על שולחן מלכים ללפת בו את הפת, that any food which is not eaten on the table of kings to eat together with the bread, אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם, which means if food is not important enough that it would be served on the table of a king, that food, if a גוי cooked it, you're still allowed to eat it and there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם. The גמרא asks, מאי בינייהו, what would be the difference? Which food would there be a difference according to these two opinions that according to one you would be able to eat it and according to the other there would be a דין of בישול עכו"ם and you couldn't eat it? And the

גמרא answers, איכא בינייהו, the difference would be דגים קטנים, small fish, וארדי ודאיכי, and mushrooms and pounded grain. These are things that are not served על שולחן מלכים, on the other hand, they're also not eaten raw. According to the סברא that when is there no דין of בישול עכו"ם, if it is eaten raw, now these things, since they are not eaten raw, you wouldn't be able to eat it if a גוי cooked it. According to the other סברא that it depends whether it is עולה על שולחן מלכים or not, so since these things are not עולה על שולחן מלכים, the דין would be you would be able to eat it if a גוי cooked it. Now, from this גמרא it comes out that there is a מחלוקת between these two סברות: whether it depends on it whether it could be eaten raw or not, or it depends on whether it is put on the table of a king or not. But תוספות says that לפועל we accept both סברות. In other words, if one of the two conditions are there, then we are allowed to eat it: if it is eaten raw even if it would be put on שולחן מלכים, or if it wouldn't be put on שולחן מלכים and it would not be eaten raw, still there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם, that's how we פסק'ן. And the ראיה from that is, תוספות says, because here when the גמרא looks for a difference between the two opinions, the גמרא found a difference in things which cannot be eaten raw and are not put on שולחן מלכים. Why didn't the גמרא give a difference of things which are put on שולחן מלכים and are eaten raw? לכאורה it would be the same difference: that since it is put on שולחן מלכים, according to the סברא that it depends on that, it should be אסור; according to the סברא that it depends on whether it's eaten raw or not, since it could be eaten raw, it should be מותר, for instance, honey, or cheese, etc. And since the גמרא doesn't bring that difference, is a ראיה that the גמרא wants to mention things that would follow the last, the second opinion that the גמרא brings. In other words, the second opinion comes to add on the first and say that not only things which can be eaten raw is מותר, but even things which cannot be eaten raw, if it is not put on שולחן מלכים, it is מותר. And therefore, the difference the גמרא could bring are only concerning those things which cannot be eaten raw, but will also not be put on שולחן מלכים. In other words, what it comes out is that the מחלוקת between the two לשונות is not whether we only accept the סברא of being eaten raw or we only accept the סברא of being put on שולחן מלכים, but the מחלוקת is different: according to the first סברא, it only depends on whether it could be eaten raw or not; according to the second סברא, it depends on either of the two, not only on the סברא of whether it could be eaten raw or not, but it also depends whether are put on שולחן מלכים. So according to the first one, if it would be not put on שולחן מלכים, but it's not eaten raw, it still would be אסור, but according to the second one, either of the two is okay, whether it is not put on the שולחן מלכים, even if it's not eaten raw, or if it's not eaten raw and is put on שולחן מלכים, it is מותר. And the רבינו תם says that we פסקן like the second לשון, which means that we accept both סברות. And therefore the דין is that if one of the two conditions are there, that it could be eaten raw, or even if it can't be eaten raw, but if it's not put on the שולחן מלכים, so then the דין is that there is no בישול עכו״ם. And the reason we פסקן like that is because since it's a דין דרבנן, and the כלל is בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל, that when we have a שאלה in a דין דרבנן, we go according to the one that is מיקל. And he brings a ראיה, since the גמרא says this later on concerning oil that was cooked, and also concerning honey we find in the גמרא that there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. And the reason is because it could be eaten when it's raw. Even though this is עולה על שולחן מלכים, nevertheless because it could be eaten raw, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. So we see there that the גמרא accepts this סברא that if it could be eaten raw, there is no בישול עכו״ם. On the other hand, we find later on on דף מ״ט, that רבי יוחנן said that something which is not עולה על שולחן מלכים there is no בישול עכו״ם. And this he said concerning תורמוסין, even though תורמוסין are not eaten raw. So from these two גמרות we see that we פסקן like both opinions. Because in one גמרא we see it says that if it could be eaten raw there is no בישול עכו״ם, in the other גמרא it says that if it's not עולה על שולחן מלכים there is no בישול עכו״ם, so we see that we פסקן like both of these סברות, that if there is one of the two conditions there already, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. Then we'll continue with the גמרא: אמר רב אסי אמר רב, רב אסי said in the name of רב, דגים קטנים מלוחים, small fish that are salted, and after they are salted they could be eaten without being cooked, אין בהם משום בישולי עכו״ם, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם there. And the reason is, since they could be eaten the way they are without being cooked, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. And as תוספות explains, obviously the salting was done through a ייד. And then after it's salted, even if a גוי cooked it, there is still no דין of בישול עכו״ם because it could have been eaten already before the גוי cooked it. And that is the difference between these fish that are salted and the fish that the גמרא will say later on. We find later on in the גמרא that רבי יוחנן said that the small salted fish are אסור because of בישול עכו״ם. לכאורה in this גמרא we see here that the small salted fish are not אסור because of בישול עכו״ם. And the difference is, as תוספות says, very simple. In the גמרא here where it says that it's not אסור because of בישול עכו״ם, is speaking in a case where the ייד salted it. So after it is salted, it is already able to be eaten, so then if a גוי cooked it, there is no בישול עכו״ם. But the reason is because the ייד salted it. Later on where it says that these small fish that are salted are אסור because of בישול עכו״ם, there was speaking where the גוי salted it. And therefore there is בישול עכו״ם because the salting of this fish is similar to cooking of other foods. And since you can't eat it before you salt it, so it's considered that it cannot be eaten raw, therefore, if a ייד salts it, it's okay, even if the גוי cooks it later it doesn't matter, but if the גוי will salt it, then there is a דין of בישול עכו״ם. But לכאורה there's another question that we could ask here. Just a moment ago in the גמרא it said the difference between the two opinions that we said before whether it depends on the סברא if it could be eaten raw or not, or it depends on the סברא whether it is עולה על שולחן מלכים, the גמרא said the difference is דגים קטנים. And according to the סברא that it depends on עולה על שולחן מלכים, then there is no בישול עכו״ם. According to this סברא, whether it could be eaten raw or not, so since it can't be eaten raw, there is בישול עכו״ם. But לכאורה, based on what we said before, that the הלכה is like both of them, in other words, even if it has only one of the two conditions, there is no בישול עכו״ם, that's the הלכה, so it should come out that since the small fish are not עולה על שולחן מלכים, so there should be no דין of בישול עכו״ם by this fish. So לכאורה the קשיא is, why did he say here that the small fish that are salted, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם because it could be eaten already after it's salted, is משמע that if it wouldn't be salted, it would be ממש raw, there would be a דין of בישול עכו״ם. But didn't we say before that the small fish are not עולה על שולחן מלכים, so there shouldn't be a דין of בישול עכו״ם even if it's not salted? And we said before that if it's not salted, and it was salted by a גוי, there is a דין of בישול עכו״ם, or if it wasn't salted and a גוי cooked it, there would be a דין of בישול עכו״ם. But according to the הלכה that we פסקן that if it's not עולה על שולחן מלכים there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, so concerning these small fish, even if they are not salted, and a גוי salted it or a גוי cooked it, there still should not be a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And from this גמרא it comes out that only if they were salted by a איד as we said before, so then we don't care if a גוי cooked it. But otherwise, there would be a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And תוספות answers we must say that the small fish we are talking about here are not the same small fish that we mentioned before. These are bigger fish. They're still considered small, but they're bigger than the ones that we spoke about before. So the ones we spoke about before are very small. They are טאקע not עולה על שלחן מלכים. Therefore, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם there. The small fish we're talking about here are a little bit bigger, so sometimes they would be עולה על שלחן מלכים. So therefore, as far as that is concerned, there should be a דין of בישול עכו״ם. But that's what the גמרא says, the only reason there is no בישול עכו״ם is because they are already salted by a איד, and therefore there is no בישול עכו״ם now if the גוי will cook it. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, אם צלאן עובד כוכבים, if a גוי later on broiled it, סומך ישראל עליהם משום עירובי תבשילין, a איד could rely on it and make an עירוב תבשילין with it. An עירוב תבשילין is the food that a person has to make when יום טוב comes out ערב שבת. The דין is that you are not allowed to cook from יום טוב to the next day, whether the next day is יום טוב or the next day is a weekday. You are also מדרבנן not allowed to cook on יום טוב if the next day is שבת. The only way the חכמים allowed it was if you start cooking on ערב יום טוב for the sake of שבת. And this is the idea of an עירוב תבשילין. You take a תבשיל, you take a dish, any kind of food that's cooked, and you make it, you put it aside on ערב יום טוב, and you say, you make a ברכה and you say that this is going to be the beginning of your cooking for שבת, and when you do that, you're allowed to cook on יום טוב for the next day, which is שבת. But it says here, and if you take the salted fish and then you broil it, even if a גוי did it, you're allowed to use it for the עירוב תבשילין. ואי עבדינהו עובד כוכבים כסא דהרסנא, אסור. But if the גוי made it into כסא דהרסנא, which is a pie of fish hash, then it's אסור. If he fried it in the fats of fish with a mixture of flour, then it is אסור, because here he cooked the flour also, and the flour is not eaten raw. So therefore, concerning the flour, there's a דין of בישול עכו״ם, and therefore you can't eat the whole thing. And the גמרא asks, פשיטא, simple. Since there is flour in it, and the flour cannot be eaten raw, so we understand ourselves it's אסור, because concerning the flour there is a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would think הרסנא עיקר, that the main part is not the flour, the main part is the fats of the fish, and that could be eaten raw, קא משמע לן קימחא עיקר, that's why he tells us that you should know the flour is the main, and therefore there is a דין of בישול עכו״ם. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב ברונא אמר רב, רב ברונא said in the name of רב, עובד כוכבים שהצית את האור באגם, a גוי put the אגם, the field, on fire. And the reason he put the field on fire was because he wanted to clean it from the dirt that's there in order to be able to cultivate this field. כל חגבים שבאגם אסורין, so all the locusts that's in this field is אסור, because there's a certain kind of locusts which could be eaten, and this is the kind of locusts which is called חגב. So all the חגבים which are in this field are אסור to be eaten, even though they are כשר חגבים, כשר locusts. Nevertheless, since the גוי put this field on fire, so you are not allowed to eat the cooked locusts that are there. And the גמרא asks, היכי דמי, what is the case? אילימא, if you're going to say דלא ידע הי טהור והי טמא, that he cannot tell which of the locusts is כשר and which is the not-כשר one, and that's why you can't eat any, because you don't know whether it is כשר or not, מאי איריא עובד כוכבים, why do you say the דין that if a גוי put the fire in this field it's אסור? אפילו ישראל נמי, even if a איד did it, it also should be אסור, because לפועל you cannot tell whether it is a כשר חגב or not. אלא משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, the reason is because the גוי cooked it. Since the גוי put the field on fire, so the גוי was the one that cooked the חגבים. So you can't eat it because of בישול עכו״ם. But the גמרא asks, כי האי גוונא מי אסיר, in a case like this, is it אסור? והאמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר רב דוסא אמר רב יוחנן, didn't רב חנן בר אמי say in the name of רב דוסא who said it in the name of רב יוחנן, האי עובד כוכבים דחריך רישא, that if a גוי burned the head of an animal that was געשאכטן by a איד, but he made the fire to get rid of the hair, שרי למיכל מיניה, you're allowed to eat that head, אפילו מריש אוניה, even from the tip of the ear, even though the ear gets cooked very fast, so by the fire that the גוי put on, it actually cooked the ear, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, he says, and you're allowed to eat it. אלמא, we see, לאבורי שערא קא מיכוין, he intended just to get rid of the hair, so therefore, even though though, actually it got cooked, but since his intentions were not to cook it, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. הכא נמי so here too, in the case where the גוי put the fire in the field, לגלויי אגמא קא מכוין, all he wants to do is to clean the field. And therefore, even though in the meantime certain things got cooked, there still should be no דין of בישול עכו״ם. So how can you say the reason the איד can't eat the חגבים is because of בישול עכו״ם? And the גמרא says לעולם באמת I'll tell you, the reason why you can't eat it is דלא ידע היי טהור והיי טמא, because we cannot tell which is the כשר חגב and which is an unkosher one. אי, the קשיא asks, if so, why was the דין said that if a גוי put the field on fire a איד can't eat it, the same דין should apply even if a איד put the field on fire? So he says the truth is it applies also if a איד did it, ומעשה שהיה בעובד כוכבים היה. The story that happened was with a גוי. This דין was said in connection to a story that happened, and that story was concerning a גוי, a גוי happened to put the field on fire. And that's when חכמים said that if a גוי put the field on fire you can't eat the חגבים, but not because the דין only applies to a גוי, but because the way it happened then was with a גוי. From this גמרא we see that if we would be able to tell which is the כשר חגב and which is an unkosher חגב, we would be able to eat it because חגבים are כשר. But the question is, but there was no שחיטה done, he didn't שחט the חגב, it was just killed! So תוספות says that from here this גמרא we see that a חגב does not need any שחיטה, and you don't have to שחט it. If it just dies, like a fish, the דין is you're allowed to eat it. And another ראיה that תוספות brings is because the גמרא says in חולין, that באמת even a bird would not need any שחיטה. And the reason that does need שחיטה is because in certain פסוקים the תורה, the תורה mentions the birds after the בהמות, before the fish. So therefore, since it comes after the בהמות and בהמות need שחיטה, so the birds also need שחיטה. Is משמע that if not for that, if the תורה would have mentioned the birds after the fish, then the birds also would not need שחיטה. Now חגבים, locusts, is טאקע mentioned after fish, as it says in תוספתא concerning the פסוק where it says וכל נפש חיה הרמשת במים וכל הנפש השרצת על הארץ, that וכל נפש חיה הרמשת במים, that's fish, וכל הנפש השרצת על הארץ, those are the locusts. So we see that the תורה mentions the locusts after the fish, so just like fish doesn't need שחיטה, so locusts also doesn't need שחיטה. Another thing it says in תוספתא that a person is allowed to eat חגבים בין חיים בין מתים ואין חושש, whether they're alive or they're dead and you shouldn't care. So we see that even if they're alive you're allowed to eat it, which means even though it wasn't געשחטן, so that proves that חגבים do not need שחיטה. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, but how could you eat anyway live חגבים? There should be an איסור of בל תשקצו! The דין is that you're not allowed to eat anything which is disgusting, and that's what the פסוק means with בל תשקצו את נפשתיכם, do not disgust yourself. And we see that if you eat a live animal, that is in the category of בל תשקצו, as it says in גמרא שבת in סוף פרק רבי עקיבא, that רב saw that רב כהנא held a שיבושא next to his mouth, so he told him, take it away because you might come to eat it and you will be עובר on בל תשקצו. So we see that if you eat a live חגב, you're עובר on בל תשקצו. So how could it say there in the תוספתא that you're allowed to eat the חגבים בין חיים בין מתים, whether it's alive or dead? So תוספות answers that in תוספתא when it says you're allowed to eat it alive, that means not if the whole thing is alive. If you took a piece off and you washed it, then there is no בל תשקצו. But in the meantime we do see from there that a חגב does not need שחיטה. Now we will continue with the גמרא. גופא, now the גמרא is going to explain the גוף of the ענין that we had mentioned before. We said before, אמר רב חנן בר אבא אמר רב דוסא אמר רב יוחנן, רב חנן בר אבא said in the name of רב דוסא, in the name of רב יוחנן, האי עובד כוכבים דחרך רישא, that if a גוי burnt a fire by the head of the animal, שרי למיכל מיניה, you're allowed to eat from it, אפילו מריש אוניה, even from the tip of the ear. And it's not considered בישול עכו״ם, the reason is because he didn't intend to cook it, he intended to get rid of the hair. אמר רבינא, so רבינא said, הלכך therefore, האי עובד כוכבים דשדא סיכתא לאתונא, that if a גוי threw a knife into the oven, he wanted the knife to get hard in order for the knife to be a good knife, וקבר בה ישראל קרא מקמי הכי, and a איד had previously put in a pumpkin in it, and the pumpkin was cooked, שפיר דמי, it is okay, you're allowed to eat the pumpkin, because the גוי didn't intend to cook, the גוי just intended that the כלי should get hard. So therefore, even though in the meantime the pumpkin was cooked, it is not considered בישול עכו״ם. And this we see from the דין that we

mentioned before, that since the גוי just intended to get rid of the hair, even though he cooked part of the head, nevertheless you're allowed to eat it. So the גמרא says, פשיטא, it's simple, Since the גוי didn't intend to cook, so certainly the דין is that you're allowed to eat that pumpkin. And the גמרא says no, מהו דתימא, I would think לבישולא מנא קא מכוין, that the גוי intends to cook the כלי, to cook the blade. So therefore we could consider it as if the גוי intended to cook, and if that would be true, then we wouldn't be able to eat the pumpkin, because the גוי did make the fire in order to cook, קא משמע לן, that's why he has to tell us that it's okay, because לשירויי מאנא קא מכוין, we say that he didn't intend to cook, he intended to harden the כלי, to harden the blade. And therefore it is not considered cooking, so if a איד puts food in there and it got cooked, it is allowed to be eaten. But תוספות asks a קשיא, it says in the גמרא in פרק כלל גדול in שבת דף ע"ד that if a person puts a knife into the oven on שבת, he is חייב for the מלאכה of מבשל, of cooking. Here we say that when a person puts a knife into the oven, we don't consider that he intends to cook, we say he intends to harden it, and over there we say that if he puts the knife in, it is considered that he intended to cook and he is חייב for the מלאכה of מבשל. And תוספות answers that באמת it cooks a little bit, and the person who puts the knife in does intend for that little bit of cooking. So therefore concerning שבת, since it is חמור, שבת is more strict, that little bit of cooking that the person intends is also considered a מלאכה and therefore he's חייב. But concerning בישול עכו"ם, since it's only an איסור דרבנן, so there when is it considered בישול עכו"ם? If he intends completely to cook it, but if most of his intentions are not the cooking, just a little bit, that is not considered בישול עכו"ם and therefore in the דין here in the גמרא it is allowed. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, הניח ישראל בשר על גבי גחלים, if a איד left meat on the coals, ובא עובד כוכבים והפך בו, and a גוי came and turned it around, מותר, you're still allowed to eat that piece of meat. And the גמרא asks, היכי דמי, what is the case here? אילימא, if you're going to say, דאי לא הפך בה, if the גוי wouldn't have turned it over, הוה בשיל, it still would have cooked, פשיטא, so certainly you're allowed to eat it, it's simple, you wouldn't have to tell us that, it's obvious, since it would have been cooked anyway, so the גוי really didn't add anything, so why do you have to tell us that you're allowed to eat it? אלא לאו, therefore we must say, דאי לא הפך, if the גוי wouldn't have turned it over, לא הוה בשיל, it wouldn't have been cooked. So the question is the opposite: אמאי מותר? Why should it be allowed? בישולי דעובד כוכבים נינהו, isn't that food cooked by a גוי? Because if not for the גוי, it wouldn't have been cooked. And the גמרא says, לא, no, צריכא, it has to tell us, the case is דאי לא הפך הוה בשיל בתרתי שעי, if the גוי wouldn't have turned it over, it would have been cooked in two hours, והשתא קא בשיל בחדא שעתא, and now since the גוי turned it over, it'll get cooked in one hour. מהו דתימא, I would have thought, קירובי בישולא מילתא היא, that making it cook faster is something and therefore it would be considered בישול עכו"ם, קא משמע לן, so he tells us that it's not בישול עכו"ם, that since it only makes it faster, but it doesn't actually cook it because without it it would have been cooked anyway, it doesn't matter and it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו"ם. But then the גמרא asks,

והא אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, and didn't רב אסי say in the name of רבי יוחנן, כל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי, any food that was already cooked as the food of בן דרוסאי, בן דרוסאי was a bandit and he used to eat his food before it was completely cooked. There is an opinion it was half cooked, there's an opinion it was a third cooked, but whatever it is, it wasn't completely cooked. So if a person has food which is already cooked as much as the מאכל of בן דרוסאי is and then the גוי continues and finishes the cooking, אין בו משום בישולי עכו"ם, then there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם. הא, so we learn from there, that if אינו כמאכל בן דרוסאי, that if it wasn't cooked yet as מאכל בן דרוסאי, יש בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, and a גוי finishes it, there is a דין of בישול עכו"ם. So we see that if the גוי finishes the cooking, there is a דין of בישול עכו"ם. So how do we say now that if you put the meat on the fire and it would have been cooked anyway, but if not for the גוי it would have been cooked in two hours, and now he makes it cooked in one hour and we say that's allowed, but didn't we just say that if לכתחילה it wasn't cooked כמאכל בן דרוסאי when the גוי got to it, it is אסור? And here it comes out that even if it wasn't cooked כמאכל בן דרוסאי, but as long as it's there and it would have gotten cooked, then we don't care if the גוי turned it over and made it cook faster? And the גמרא answers, התם, over there, כגון דאנח בישרא אסיכתא, the case is where the איד just put the meat in the pot, דשקליה עובד כוכבים ואותביה בתנורא, and the גוי took it and put it into the oven. So there we say the דין that if it wasn't cooked yet כמאכל בן דרוסאי, there is a דין of בישול עכו"ם. But in our גמרא, where we said that if the גוי turns it around, it is מותר, the case is not that the איד put it into to the pot. The ייד also put it into the oven. The ייד put it on top of the coal. So there we say that as long as it would have been cooked anyway, so even if the גוי makes it that it should be cooked faster, it is still not a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And even if the way it was cooked before the גוי got to it, it wasn't כמאכל בן דרוסאי, still there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, because it's on the fire already, and if not for the גוי, it would have got cooked anyway. And the גמרא says תנינא נמי הכי, we תאקע learned like that in a ברייתא, דמניח ישראל בשר על גבי גחלים, a ייד is allowed to leave the meat on the coal, ובא עובד כוכבים ומהפך בו, and a גוי could come and turn it over, עד שיבוא ישראל מבית הכנסת או מבית המדרש, till the ייד will come from the שול or from the ישיבה, ואינו חושש, and he shouldn't care, because since he put it on the coal already, so then it doesn't matter if the גוי turns it over to make it cook faster while the ייד is out of the house, because it would have gotten cooked anyway. And the same thing, שפותת אשה קדירה על גבי כירה, a woman is allowed to put a pot on top of the כירה, which is in the oven, ובאה עובדת כוכבים, and a גויישע woman could come, ומגיסה, she's allowed to mix it, עד שתבא מבית המרחץ, till the Jewish woman will come from the bath house, או מבית הכנסת, or from the שול, ואינה חוששת, and she doesn't care. Because as long as the pot was on the fire already, and even if the גויה mixed it and made it cook faster, it doesn't matter, because it would have gotten cooked anyway. Then the גמרא says, איבעיא להו, there was a question that was asked, הניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל, מהו? If a גוי put the meat on the fire and the ייד was the one that turned it over, what is the דין then?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said, קל וחומר, we have a קל וחומר here. אי גמריה ביד עכו״ם מותר, if it was finished by the גוי, it is allowed, as we said before, if the ייד puts it on the coal, and the גוי turns it around and finishes the cooking, it is allowed, גמריה ביד ישראל לא כל שכן, if it was finished by a ייד, certainly it should be allowed. In other words, the finishing of the cooking is more important than the beginning, and therefore, if we say that if it was finished by a גוי it's allowed as long as it was started by a ייד, certainly if the ייד was the one that finished it, it's certainly allowed. And therefore, they פסק'נט the דין that it's allowed. Then the גמרא says, איתמר נמי, we תאקע also learned that אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, that רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן, ואמרי לה, and some say it was אמר רב אחא בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, it was רב אחא בר בר חנה who said it in the name of רבי יוחנן, בין שהניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל, whether the גוי put down the meat on the coal and the ייד turned it over, בין שהניח ישראל והפך עובד כוכבים, or if the ייד put it down and the גוי turned it over, מותר, it is מותר. ואינו אסור, it would not be אסור, עד שתהא תחלתו וסופו ביד עובד כוכבים, only if it's started and finished in the hands of a גוי. But if one of the two, or the beginning or the end, was done by a ייד, it is מותר.

אמר רבינא, רבינא said, הלכתא, the הלכה is, האי ריפתא דשגר עובד כוכבים, that this bread that a גוי lit the oven, ואפה ישראל, and the ייד baked it, אי נמי, or, שגר ישראל, the ייד lit the oven, ואפה עובד כוכבים, and the גוי baked it, אי נמי, or, שגר עובד כוכבים ואפה עובד כוכבים, the גוי lit the oven and the גוי baked it, ואתא ישראל וחתה בחתויי, but a ייד came and he moved around the coal, שפיר דמי, it is okay, that is permitted. Because as long as a ייד did some of the מלאכות of the cooking, that is okay and there is no בישול עכו״ם there. And even though it seems from here that when is it מותר only if the ייד did a מלאכה which makes the cooking faster, nevertheless the הלכה is that even if a ייד just threw in one piece of wood into the fire, still it is not בישול עכו״ם. And תוספות says the reason for that is that even though from the גמרא is משמע that when is it not בישול עכו״ם only if a ייד did something which was מקרב בישולו, hastened the cooking, nevertheless the throwing in of the piece of wood is enough, because we find where it says the difference between the מנהגים of the בני בבל and the בני מערבא, the דינים, the customs, the way it was by the people of בבל and the way it was by the people of ארץ ישראל, so it says that in the people of בבל, they just throw in a קיסם, the piece of wood, and that's enough. In ארץ ישראל they said that this piece of wood makes no difference and therefore this is not enough. But לפועל we see that the בני בבל were מתיר by just throwing in the קיסם, and since we follow the בני בבל, so therefore we פסק'ן that by just throwing in a קיסם, that is enough and it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. Then the גמרא

continues: דג מליח, a salted fish, if a גוי salted the fish, and by salting the fish it is able to be eaten without being cooked afterwards, חזקיה שרי, חזקיה says it's allowed. If a גוי salted the fish, it's still allowed. And the reason is because this is not considered cooking, it's only salting, so definitely it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. ורבי יוחנן אסר, but רבי יוחנן said it's אסור, because this is the way you prepare it to eat, so the salting And רבי יוחנן said it's אסור, because this is the way you prepare it to be eaten, so the salting is the cooking. So, just like if you cook raw food, it is called בישול עכו״ם, so too if you salt this fish and this makes it ready to be eaten, this is called בישול עכו״ם and it's אסור. ביצה צלויה, a roasted egg, בר קפרא שרי, בר קפרא says you're allowed, since the גוי doesn't touch the food itself, so, therefore, you are allowed to eat it. רבי יוחנן אסר, but רבי יוחנן says you're not allowed. כי אתא רב דימי, when רב דימי came, אמר, he said, אחד דג מליח ואחד ביצה צלויה, whether it is a fish that was salted by a גוי or a egg roasted by a גוי, חזקיה ובר קפרא שרי, חזקיה and בר קפרא said it's allowed, ורבי יוחנן אסר, רבי יוחנן and said it's not allowed. Then the גמרא tells a story,

רב חייא בר ווא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא, רב חייא בר ווא happened to be in the house of the ריש גלותא. The ריש גלותא was the head of the יידן in the exile. He was like the prince who was the head of the יידן in בבל. אמרו ליה, so, the people there, the servants in the house, asked him a question. They said to him, ביצה צלויה מאי, what is the דין? Is a roasted egg considered בישול עכו״ם? אמר להו, so he said to them, חזקיה ובר קפרא שרי, חזקיה and בר קפרא allowed it, ורבי יוחנן אסר, רבי יוחנן prohibited, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים, and the words of one have no value against two. So, since two said that you're allowed and one said that you're not allowed, the הלכה is that you are allowed. אמר להו רב זביד, so, רב זביד said to them, to the servants, לא תציתו ליה, do not listen to him, הכי אמר אביי, this is what אביי said, הלכתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן, the הלכה is like רבי יוחנן, that it is not allowed. And they were very upset, and they weren't such good people, אשקיוהו נגוטא דחלא, they gave רב זביד to drink a drink made of very sharp spice vinegar, ונח נפשיה, and he died. They were upset that he פסק'נד that you're not allowed to eat it, so they gave this to him to drink, and that's how he died. Then the גמרא says,

תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, הקפריסין, the caper flower, והקפלוטות, and the leeks, והמטליא, and the liverwort, והחמין, or hot water, והקליות, and ears of corn, שלהן, of them, all these that were cooked by גוים, מותרין, are מותר. And the reason it's מותר is the first three, קפריסין, הקפלוטות, המטליא, they are מותר because they could be eaten raw. The חמין and the קליות, they are מותר because they are not changed through the fire that the גוי made. That's why there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. ביצה צלויה, a roasted egg, אסורה, is אסור. And even though the גמרא before brought a מחלוקת whether it is אסור or not, and here we have a often a clear ברייתא that it says it's אסור, it is no קשיא because the ones that said before that it's not אסור were also תנאים, and they could argue on the ברייתא. But this ברייתא hold that it's אסור. שמן, oil of גוים, רבי יהודה הנשיא ובית דינו נמנו עליו והתירוהו, רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין voted on it, and they were מתיר it. And the גמרא says, תניא we learned, היא מיטליא, היא בישליא, היא שיאתא, that we mentioned before, מיטליא, that is בישליא or has another name, שיאתא. מאי שיאתא, what is this שיאתא? אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, said רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן, הארבעין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים, it's 40 years already since they started importing it from מצרים. ורבא בר בר חנה דידיה אמר, and רבא בר בר חנה himself said what he said before was in the name of רבי יוחנן. On his own, he said that השתין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים, it's already 60 years since it's been imported from מצרים, from Egypt. ולא פליגי, and there's no מחלוקת, מר בשניה ומר בשניה. One said it in his year, and one said it in his year. In other words, when he said it in the name of רבי יוחנן, he said it 20 years earlier, and that's why he said it's 40 years since they started importing it. When he said it on his own, it was 20 years later, so, by then, it was already 60 years since they started importing it. And the גמרא says, היכי עבדי, how do you do it? How do you prepare this food? And the גמרא says, מייתי ביזרא דכרפסא, you bring seeds of seeds of parsley, וביזרא דכיתנא, and seeds of flax, וביזרא דשחליא, and seeds of fenugreek, וטרלי בהדא הדדי בפישורי, and you soak them together in lukewarm water, ושבקו ליה עד דמקבל, and you leave them there till they begin to sprout, ומייתי חצבי חדתא, and then you take new earthenware pots, ומלו להו מיא, and you fill them with water, וטרו בהו גרגשתא, and you soak therein red clay, ומדבקו בהו, and there you plant the seeds in, ואזלו לבי בוני, and then you go to the bathhouse, עד דנפקא, by the time you come out, מלבלבי, they will have blossomed. ואכלה מנייהו, and you eat from them, וקרירא מבינצא דרישייהו עד טיפרא דכרעייהו, and you will feel cool from the hair of the head down to the toenails. אמר רב אשי, said רב אשי, אמר לי רב חנינא, רב חנינא told me, מילי, these are just simple words, empty words. This is not true, this doesn't happen. ואמרי לה, and some say what did he say? דמילי, that the way they do it is through words, which means through magic spells that they did, and that's how they made this happen. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, כוספן של עובדי כוכבים שחוחמו חמין ביורה גדולה אסור, that the date husks that belonged to גוים and it was boiled in a big pot, then it is forbidden to be eaten. ביורה קטנה, if it was boiled in a small pot, מותר, it is allowed. ואיזו היא יורה קטנה? What is considered a small pot? אמר רבי ינאי, רבי ינאי said, כל שאין ציפור דרור יכולה להכנס לתוכה, as long as a swallow cannot enter. And the reason is because since the opening is very narrow, so we assume that he didn't put any non-kosher food in it. Because the whole שאלה here would be that maybe they cook non-kosher food in that pot, so now when they cooked the date husks in the same pot, it would absorb the taste that was absorbed in the כלי, and that is a non-kosher taste, and that would go into the date husks, and it would make it אסור. But if it is small and it has a very narrow opening, then we assume that he did not put any non-kosher food in it because since the opening is small, he couldn't put anything in, so then you are allowed to eat it. But then the גמרא asks, ודילמא, but maybe, אדמויי אדמוע ועיילוה? Maybe he cut up the non-kosher food into pieces and put it in even if it has a very narrow opening? אלא, therefore, the גמרא says, what is considered a small pot that we do not suspect that he put non-kosher food in? כל שאין ראש ציפור דרור יכול להכנס לתוכה, as long as a head of a swallow cannot enter. That is very small, so here we don't assume that he cut up the pieces so small that it should be able to go through this very small hole where even the head of a swallow cannot go through. And therefore, we do not suspect that he put non-kosher food in it before, and therefore, you're allowed to eat it. But then the גמרא asks, והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, אחת יורה גדולה ואחת יורה קטנה מותר, that whether it was cooked in a large pot or in a small pot, it is allowed? And the גמרא says, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. הא, this is כמאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם אסור, where it says that you are not allowed if it is a big pot, follows the מאן דאמר that says that נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, והא כמאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם מותר, and where it says that you're allowed to eat it even if it was cooked in a big pot, follows the opinion of the מאן דאמר that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. Now, נותן טעם לפגם means that if the taste of the non-kosher food that was put into the kosher food doesn't give a good taste, but it gives a bad taste, so there there is a מחלוקת whether it is מותר or it is אסור. Now, we know that a taste of food that was absorbed into the walls of the pot, if it stays there more than 24 hours, and then something else is cooked in the pot and gets that taste, that taste is definitely נותן טעם לפגם, it doesn't give a good taste. If you cooked in it before 24 hours passed since it absorbed the first taste, so then the taste that goes into the food that was cooked later is still called נותן טעם לשבח, it still gives a good taste. But if the taste stayed in the walls of the pot for 24 hours, then when that taste comes out and enters the other food that's cooked now is נותן טעם לפגם. So, if we hold נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, so still you cannot use the food that was cooked in this pot even if it was cooked after 24 hours. But if you hold נותן טעם לפגם מותר, so then if a כלי absorbed non-kosher food, and it stayed in it for 24 hours, and then you cooked something else in it, and that something else absorbed the taste of the non-kosher food that's in the pot, it's still allowed because נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. Now, concerning כלים of גוים, we always assume that it's נותן טעם לפגם. We always assume that it stayed in it for more than 24 hours. The הלכה is that סתם כלים of גוים is considered אינו בן יומו. It's considered that it wasn't used within that day, within that 24 hours. And therefore, the case here concerning the date husks, that the whole שאלה is that maybe it was cooked in a כלי that previously was used for non-kosher food, but since we assume that most of the כלים of גוים are not בני יומן, were not used within 24 hours, so therefore, the taste that entered the date husks from the non-kosher food that was previously cooked in that כלי is נותן טעם לפגם. And

therefore, if you hold נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, even if the כלי had a big opening, which means that the גוי could have used it for non-kosher food, nevertheless the date husks are מותר. But if you hold נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, so if it's a big כלי with a big opening, and it's possible that it was used for non-kosher food, so even though we assume it was used for non-kosher food before 24 hours, and therefore the taste of the non-kosher food that's going to enter the date husks will be נותן טעם לפגם, nevertheless you cannot eat these date husks, because he holds נותן טעם לפגם is אסור. And the גמרא continues, אמר רב ששת, רב ששת said, האי משחא שליקא דארמאי, cooked oil of a גוי, אסור, is אסור. אמר רב ספרא, so רב ספרא said, למאי ניחוש לה? What should we be afraid of? Why is it אסור? אי משום עירובי, if we're afraid because they mixed in non-kosher wine, יין נסך into it, that can't be, because if they would have mixed it in, מסרח סרי, it would start smelling. And since it doesn't smell, it is fresh, that proves that no wine was mixed into it. אי משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, if we're afraid because the גוי cooked it, so there is an איסור of בישול עכו״ם, the דין of בישול עכו״ם doesn't apply here, because נאכל הוא כמות שהוא חי, because oil could be eaten raw, and we said before that if it could be eaten raw, the דין of בישול עכו״ם doesn't apply. אי משום גיעולי עובדי כוכבים, if because it was cooked in a כלי that absorbed non-kosher food, since the גוי cooked in his כלי, and his כלי absorbed before non-kosher food that was cooked into it, and therefore you cannot eat the oil either, so that doesn't apply either, because נותן טעם לפגם הוא ומותר, because this is נותן טעם לפגם, because we assume that the כלי of the גוי was used for the non-kosher food earlier than 24 hours, so the taste of the non-kosher food that will enter the oil is a נותן טעם לפגם, a taste which is not good, and נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. So therefore there is no reason for it to be אסור. And

תוספות comments on this that since he said בפשיטות, he said very simple that since it's נותן טעם לפגם it should be מותר, that proves that the הלכה is that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. Even though we said before that there is a מחלוקת whether נותן טעם לפגם is מותר or אסור, but since we see here that he said בפשיטות that this is נותן טעם לפגם and it's מותר, it is a ראיה that the הלכה is that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. And also, as we see from the fact that רבי יהודה הנשיא was מתיר to eat the oil of גוים, and the גמרא said earlier that the reason is because he holds נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, that also shows that the הלכה is that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. And also, even בית שמאי ובית הלל that did make the גזירה that you should not eat oil of גוים, nevertheless תוספות had explained before that it is not because they hold נותן טעם לפגם is אסור, but the reason is because of חתנות, they felt that this could bring to intermarriage, and therefore they made it אסור. And even though the חשש that this should bring to intermarriage is not so strong חשש, but after all, since it's cooked also in non-kosher כלים, so they used that also as a reason to combine it to the איסור, to the חשש of חתנות. In other words, they also hold that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, but after all, it did absorb a taste of איסור, so combine that with חתנות, they made it אסור. And רבי יהודה הנשיא said that after all, since it's נותן טעם לפגם, and he didn't think the חשש of חתנות was so strong, therefore he made it מותר. So even the תלמידים of בית שמאי ובית הלל that did make the שמן אסור, they also hold that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, as תוספות has explained in a few דף earlier. But then

תוספות says, לכאורה, we have another ראיה that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. דף ל״ט עמוד ב, the גמרא says that דבש, to buy honey from a גוי is מותר. And the גמרא explains why, because there's nothing to be afraid of. אי, let's be afraid that it was cooked in כלים of גוים, which is non-kosher? The גמרא says that it's נותן טעם לפגם, and it's מותר. So we see clearly from that גמרא, לכאורה, that the הלכה is that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. But תוספות says that is no ראיה, because over there, anything that you will put into the honey will be נותן טעם לפגם, not only if it absorbs what was absorbed in the walls of the כלי, but anything else that you will put in will make it נותן טעם לפגם. So there, definitely we say נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. But here, when we're speaking about oil, if you will put other things into the oil, it won't spoil the oil. The only thing is, if it absorbs from the thing that was absorbed in the walls of the כלי, that's when it's נותן טעם לפגם. So concerning that, we have a ראיה from this גמרא that נותן טעם לפגם, even in a case like that, is also מותר. And also תוספות says, from what רבא says in the last פרק, that הלכתא נותן טעם לפגם מותר, רבא says clearly the הלכה is that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, also is no ראיה to our דין. Because there the case is of עכברא בשיכרא, if a mouse fell into beer, and concerning that רבא said the הלכה is נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, because over there it is פוגם בעין, which means it is פוגם the way it fell in, And it's open that way, not just a taste that came in from the walls of the כלי. There, we say it's נותן טעם לפגם is מותר, but there's no ראיה from there that we also say the same thing concerning the taste that goes into the food from the כלי. But nevertheless, our גמרא is a ראיה that in a case like that we also say that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. Then

we'll continue with the גמרא: בעו מיניה מרב אסי, they asked a question of רב אסי, הני אהיני שליקי דארמאי, what about dates that were cooked by a גוי, מאי, what is the דין? And he explained, חולי לא תיבעי לך דוודאי שרי. In regards to the sweet ones we don't ask, because that's definitely allowed, since it could be eaten raw. מרירי לא תיבעי לך, concerning the bitter ones we are also not asking, דוודאי אסירי, it's certainly אסור. Why? Because it cannot be eaten raw, and therefore it is בישול עכו״ם. כי תיבעי לך, where is our question? מציעי, the middle ones. In other words, it is not very sweet and not very bitter. So you do have to cook it in order to eat it, but on the other hand, בשעת הדחק, if you wouldn't cook it, you'd also be able to eat it. So what is the דין? אמר להו, so he said to them, מאי תיבעי לכו, why are you asking, דרבי אסר, my teacher, my רבי said it was אסור. ומנו, who is that? לוי, that was לוי. Then the

גמרא says שיסוי, a drink that was called שיסוי, it was made from roasted flour, and sometimes they used to make it from flour of lentils. And since it was very sweet, they had to add some vinegar in it. Now vinegar of גוים is אסור, since vinegar comes from wine, which is יין נסך, so if vinegar was added to it, it would be אסור. But the גמרא says here that this drink, רב שרי, רב said it was allowed, אבוה דשמואל ולוי אסרי, the father of שמואל and לוי said it was not allowed. And the גמרא explains: בחיטי ושערי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי. If it was made of flour from wheat or barley, no one argues, everyone agrees it's allowed. And the reason is, because those made of wheat or barley wasn't so sweet, so they didn't have to add vinegar to it. בטלפחי דחלא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסיר. If it's from lentils and vinegar, everyone agrees that it's אסור. And the reason is, because it was made with vinegar, and vinegar is אסור. כי פליגי, where do they argue? בטלפחי דמיא. It's when it was made from lentils with water. מר סבר, one holds, גזרינן הא אטו הא, that we make a גזירה one after over the other, and the reason we can't drink this either, because if we're going to drink if it's made of lentils with water, other people will come to drink if it's made of lentils and vinegar. ומר סבר, and one holds, the one that said that it is allowed, לא גזרינן, that we do not make the גזירה. We do not suspect that if we're going to allow them to drink it if it's made from lentils and water, they will also come to drink it if it's made from lentils and vinegar. And the גמרא says ואיכא דאמרי, some said that the מחלוקת was different, that בטלפחי דמיא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסר, that even if it's made with lentils and water, also everyone agreed that it is אסור. Why? Because this is definitely similar to being made with lentils and vinegar, and therefore this is also אסור. כי פליגי, where is the מחלוקת? בחיטי ושערי, if it's made of wheat and barley. מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא, one holds that we make a גזירה this for that, that if we're going to allow them to drink it if it's made with wheat and barley, then other people will come to drink if it's made with lentils, and there sometimes it's made with vinegar which is אסור. ומר סבר, the one that said it's allowed says that לא גזרינן, we don't make this גזירה, and therefore if it's made with wheat and barley, it is allowed. אמר רב, רב said, תרי מיני שיסוי שדר ברזילי הגלעדי לדוד. Two kinds of this drink שיסוי did ברזילי הגלעדי send to דוד. דכתיב, because the פסוק says, and this is a פסוק in שמואל ב, קפיטל י״ז פסוק כ״ח, it says he sent, משכב וספות, bed and basins, וכלי יוצר, and earthen vessels, וחיטים ושעורים, and wheat and barley, וקמח וקלי, and flour and parched corn, ופול ועדשים וקלי, and beans and lentils and parched pulse. So we see here that he mentions twice the ענין of קלי. So what was that? It was two kinds of this drink שיסוי that he sent. והשתא the גמרא says, and now, הוא דקא מסקי צני צני לשוקא דנהרדעא, and nowadays people carry out basketfuls of this into the street in נהרדעא, of נהרדעא, ולית דחייש להא דאבוה דשמואל ולוי, and nobody pays any attention to what father of שמואל and לוי said that you're not allowed to drink it, because the הלכה is that you are allowed to drink. Then the גמרא continues, it's said in the משנה that among the things that you're not allowed to eat of גוים, but you are allowed to have הנאה, is כבשים שדרכן לתת לתוכן יין. and pressed food, preserved food that the custom is that they put wine in. So that, you're not allowed to eat because we're afraid maybe they put wine in. אמר חזקיה, חזקיה said, לא שנו אלא שדרכן, this דין is only said if it is something that the custom is to put wine in. We're not sure whether they did or not, it is just the custom. Now

being it's only the custom, that's why to eat it, the חכמים said you shouldn't, but to have הנאה you're allowed, because we are not sure that wine actually was put in. אבל בידוע, but if we know for sure that wine was put in, and the wine is יין נסך, which is אסור בהנאה, which is forbidden to have any use from, is אסור אפילו בהנאה. So then this כבשים, these preserved food, also would be אסור בהנאה because it has wine in it. But then the גמרא asks, ומאי שנא ממורייס דשרו רבנן בהנאה? Why is this different than מורייס that the רבנן said it's מותר בהנאה? מורייס was the fat of the fish that everybody used to put wine in it. So it's as if it's known that wine was put in. And nevertheless we learn in the other משנה that the חכמים said it's מותר בהנאה. We find there a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. רבי מאיר said it's also אסור בהנאה, but the חכמים said that this מורייס is מותר בהנאה. Now if we say that when we know for sure that wine was put in, it is also אסור בהנאה, so why do the חכמים hold that the מורייס is מותר בהנאה? And the גמרא answers, there's a difference. התם in the case of the מורייס, לעבורי זוהמא, the reason they put wine in is only to overcome the bad smell. הכא, but in the case here by the כבשים, למסוקי טעמא, it is to give it a good taste. So in the case where it's just to overcome the smell, then we consider as if the wine is not there. After the wine is put in and does what it's supposed to, it is as if it got lost, it went לאיבוד. But here, since it's made to give it a good taste, so the wine is always considered being there, and therefore it has a דין of the wine. So these כבשים are אסור בהנאה like the wine is אסור בהנאה. רבי יוחנן אמר, רבי יוחנן says no, אפילו בידוע נמי מותר, that even if we know for sure that wine was put in these preserves, in these pressed food, still it's מותר. He argues against חזקיה who said that if we know for sure, then it's even אסור בהנאה. But he says that even if you know for sure, it is still מותר בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks, ומאי שנא ממורייס לרבי מאיר דאסר בהנאה? Why is this different than מורייס that according to רבי מאיר it's אסור בהנאה? מורייס, as we said before, is considered that we know for sure wine was put in, and the חכמים in fact hold that it's מותר בהנאה, but רבי מאיר holds that it's אסור בהנאה. So why don't we find in this משנה that רבי מאיר should also hold that it's אסור בהנאה, that if we know for sure that wine was put into the כבשים it should be אסור בהנאה, and we don't find that רבי מאיר should hold it's אסור בהנאה? And the גמרא answers, התם ידיע ממשיה, הכא לא ידיע ממשיה. Over there, its ממשות, its substance, is actually known, while here it is not known. In the case of the מורייס, what people would do is they would dip bread into it and eat it. So when you dip the bread into it, you get actually the taste of the wine. So there we actually have ממשות, the actual substance of the wine, therefore it is אסור בהנאה according to רבי מאיר. But here, we do not actually feel the taste of the wine, and therefore it is not אסור בהנאה, even according to רבי מאיר. But

תוספות asks a קשיא, we learned in the משנה that קנקנים, רבי מאיר that it's אסור בהנאה. The jars made of earthenware is אסור בהנאה since it absorbed the taste of the wine from the גוים. לכאורה, based on what he says here, that if we don't know about the ממשות, we don't have the substance, it is מותר בהנאה, so why should the קנקנים be אסור בהנאה? And תוספות says the difference between here and there is that in the case of the קנקנים, when the ייד will put his wine in, the taste of the wine from the גוים will enter into his wine. So that is considered that he knows the ממשות because the ממשות of the taste of the גויישה wine will enter into the wine that he put in. In the case over here concerning the כבשים, we buy the כבשים לכתחילה from the גוים. When we... so the taste of the wine that entered into the כבשים entered it before it came to us. So by the time we get it, there is no ממשות from the taste of the wine that was put in. While in the case of the קנקנים, when does the taste of the גויישה wine go into the wine? When it's by us already. So it is as if we get the ממשות of the taste, while over here, when we get it, there is no more ממשות of the taste of the wine.

Concerning what we said before, that the כלים of the גוים are considered always אינם בני יומן, are considered as if they were not used for טרפה food within the 24 hours, and that's what the opinion of רש״י is and רבינו תם and the ר״י, as תוספות says. But לכאורה, why should we say that? Don't the גוים use their כלים every day? Why should we always say that the גוי probably didn't use his כלי for 24 hours? Since people cook constantly, so בפשטות he used this כלי today also. So why do we always say that the כלים of the גוים are considered אינם בני יומן? בן יומו. So תוספות says, and so do other ראשונים, because it is a ספק ספיקא. It is a double ספק. First, the ספק is maybe they used it today, maybe they used it yesterday. In other words, maybe they didn't use it within the 24 hours, which is possible. And even if they did use it today, maybe they used in it something which is לכתחילה a bad taste, or maybe they used it for something that doesn't give a taste at all. So since it is a ספק ספיקא, that's why we are not מחמיר and we say that we are allowed to use the כלים. But לכאורה, one might ask, why rely on the ספק ספיקא? Why don't we get a גויישע cook and let him taste the food that we cooked, and we'll see whether the taste of the טריפה food that was absorbed in the כלי is לפגם or לשבח? And the answer is, because since it's a ספק ספיקא, the חכמים were not מטריח people to do it. Since על פי דין if it's a ספק ספיקא you're allowed to have it, so we rely on the ספק ספיקא, and we are not מטריח the people to go and find a cook. But the

רא״ש asks a קשיא, how come the גמרא says in the first פרק of חולין דף ח׳, that if you שחט with a knife of a גוי, so רב says קולף, you must peel off the first layer of the food, and רב הונא בר חיננא says you must at least wash it off. But לכאורה, why? Why don't we assume that the כלי is an אינו בן יומו? It wasn't used within 24 hours, and therefore it is נותן טעם לפגם and it's מותר. So the רא״ש says, because there we're speaking in a case where we know for sure that it is a בן יומו, it was used within the 24 hours. Or, there we're talking about לכתחילה. The דין that נותן טעם לפגם is מותר is only בדיעבד. If it already absorbed the taste of non-kosher food which is לפגם, we say it's מותר. But לכתחילה, you're not allowed to put a taste of איסור which is לפגם into kosher food. And over there, when we're talking about a person going to שחט, that is לכתחילה. So therefore we tell him before he שחט's that you should know that if you're going to שחט with this knife, you're going to have to or peel off the first layer, or you're going to have to wash it off.