Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Second line from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it said, טרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה וכולי. The משנה mentioned these things of גוים that you are not allowed to eat, but they are מותר בהנאה, you're allowed to derive benefit from. And amongst the things that the משנה mentioned was טרית טרופה, means pickled herring, and brine of fish that has no fish in it. And then it continued and said, והחילק, that חילק you cannot buy from גוים, but you are allowed to have הנאה from it. And the גמרא asks, מאי חילק? What is חילק? אמר רב נחמן בר אבא אמר רב, said רב נחמן בר אבא said in the name of רב, זו סולתנית, this is a name of a fish which is called סולתנית, which is a כשר fish. ומפני מה אסורה? Why is it forbidden? מפני שערבונה עולה עמו, because a fish called ערבונה, which is a non-כשר fish, comes up with it. They look similar, and therefore the גוים are not careful to take out the ערבונה, and therefore we're not allowed to even buy the חילק. And even though it's easy to tell the difference between a כשר fish and a non-כשר fish, because a כשר fish has two סימנים, סנפיר וקשקשת, it has the fins and the scales, while the non-כשר fish doesn't have fins and scales. But this fish, סולתנית, is different because this fish doesn't have the fins and scales לכתחילה, only when it grows, that's when it grows fins and scales. So therefore it looks very similar to the other fish, ערבונה, which is non-כשר, and that's why you're not allowed to buy the חילק from the גוים, because it has ערבונה mixed into it. And we

טאקע learned earlier in the גמרא that if it's חילק of an אומן, if it's of an expert, you're allowed to buy the חילק, because an expert could tell the difference. And he definitely would take it out, because the ערבונה spoils the taste of the חילק. And therefore, if he only could tell the difference, he would take it out. So by an expert you're allowed to buy the חילק, but not from an expert you're not allowed to buy, because it's hard to tell the difference. So therefore we assume that probably some of the non-כשר fish is mixed in, and therefore you cannot buy חילק from a regular גוי. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן, if a fish doesn't have fins and scales now, but at a time later it will grow fins and scales, כגון for instance, the fish called הסולתנית והאפיץ, הרי זה מותר, it is allowed. יש לו עכשיו ועתיד להשיר בשעה שעולה מן הים, if it's a fish that has fins and scales now, but will fall off when you take it out of the water, כגון for instance, a fish called אקונס, which is the colias, ואפונס, and a fish called אפונס, which is the scomber, וכטספיטיאס, which is the swordfish, ואכספיטיאס, the anthias, ואוטנס, and the tunny, מותר, they are מותר because they have fins and scales now, so they are מותר even though it'll fall off later. And the reason for this תוספות explains, because concerning fish it says that if a fish אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, if it doesn't have the fins and scales, it is not כשר. So the לשון the פסוק is אין לו, and we find in the גמרא in other places where where it says אין לו, we דרשן עיין לו, עיין עליו, you should look into it. So therefore, we have to look into it. It means to say that if we look into it, and we will find that at some point it does have fins and scales, it is מותר. As we find in the גמרא in יבמות, where it says ובן אין לו, if a person dies and has no son, so the גמרא דרשנ's there עיין לו, look into it, that if he has some kind of son in some way, it is already considered that he has a son, as the גמרא explains there. The same thing here, we דרשן from the word אין לו, עיין לו, that we have to look into it and investigate to see if it has no fins and scales. In other words, if after our investigation we will find that it does have, then it is a כשר fish. Then the גמרא

continues, אכריז רב אבהו בקיסרי, רב אבהו made an announcement in קיסרי: קרבי דגים, that the insides of the fish, the fish entrails, ועוברן, and the fish roe, נלקחין מכל אדם, they may be bought from all people. Why? חזקתן אינם באין אלא מפלוסא ומאספמיא, because the חזקה is, we assume, that it only came from these two places, from פלוסא and from אספמיא. And in these two rivers there were no non-כשר fish, and therefore we're allowed to buy these from the גוים. כי הא דאמר אביי, like אביי says, האי צחנתא דבב נהרא, that this צחנתא, which is another name for the fish חילק that we mentioned before, if it comes from the river דבב, שרי, you're allowed to buy it. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? אילימא if you'll say משום דרדיפי מיא, because the flow of the water is very strong there, very fast, והאי דג טמא, and the non-kosher fish, כיון דלית ליה חוט השדרה, since it doesn't have a spine, a backbone, בדוכתא דרדיפי מיא לא מצי קאי, it can't exist in a place where there's a rapid flow of water. And therefore, we know for sure that there is no non-kosher fish in this river called דבב, and therefore you are allowed to buy the חילק there. והא קא חזינן, but don't we see דקאי, that it could exist? So that is no ראיה that there is no non-kosher fish there. אלא therefore, what reason can there be that we are so sure that there is no non-kosher fish there? משום דמליחי מיא, because the water is salty. והאי דג טמא, and the non-kosher fish, כיון דלית ליה קלפי, since it doesn't have the scale, בדוכתא דמליחי מיא לא מצי קאי, so it can't exist in a place where the water is salty. And that is the reason why we are so sure that there is no non-kosher fish there. והא קא חזינן דקאי, but don't we see that they do exist there? אלא therefore we must say that the reason is משום דלא מרבי טינא דג טמא, because the riverbed is such a riverbed that does not permit the breeding of unclean fish in that river. אמר רבינא, רבינא said, והאידנא, but now, דקא שפכי בי נהר גוזא ונהר גמדא, that now that the river גוזא and the river גמדא flow into this river of דבב נהרא, אסירא, so this fish is אסור. Why? Because together with the flow of the water from the other rivers, it also could bring in non-kosher fish.

אמר אביי, אביי said, האי חמרא דימא, this donkey of the water, because we know the כלל that כל מה שיש בים יש ביבשה, whatever we have in the river, we also have in the dry land. In other words, all the animals that we have in the dry land, we have a similar kind in the water, in the fish. So we have a fish which is similar to a donkey, and we have a fish which is similar to an ox, etc. So אביי said, this חמרא דימא, this donkey of the ים, which means a fish which is similar to a donkey, שרי, it is מותר. תורא דימא, but the ox of the river, אסר, is אסור. וסימנך, and the סימן to remember it, is טמא טהור, טהור טמא, that the טמא animal, the animal which on the dry land is not kosher, in the ים it would be טהור, it would be kosher, and טהור, the animal which in the dry land is טהור, is kosher, which is the ox, is טמא in the river. And תוספות explains that this does not mean that all the animals that are kosher in the יבשה, dry land, the similar ones will be non-kosher in the water, or the opposite, all those that are not kosher on the dry land will be kosher, those that are similar in the water, because we find in the גמרא in קידושין דף מ"א it says that רבא מלח שיבוטא, that רבא salted a שיבוטא and ate it. A שיבוטא is the goat of the ים, which is similar to the goat on the dry land, and we see that nevertheless it is kosher. So that proves that not in everything the כלל is that whatever is טמא in dry land is טהור in the ים, and whatever is טהור in the יבשה is טמא in the ים. He just said it concerning these two kinds. If you want to remember that which of the two from the חמרא דימא and תורא דימא is the kosher and which one is the not kosher, so concerning these two, we have the סימן טמא טהור and טהור טמא.

אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, שוור נונא שרי, the fish called שוור נונא is מותר, is allowed. קדש נונא, the fish that is called קדש נונא, אסיר, is אסור. And he says, וסימנך, to give a סימן to remember which one is אסור and which one is not אסור, so he quoted the פסוק, קדש לה', which means holy to ה'. Now the word קדש is similar to the word קדש נונא, and since it says it's קדש לה', it is holy to ה', that means that only for ה', but not for people, that people can't eat it. So that is a way to remember that קדש נונא is אסור. איכא דאמרי, some say it different, כוור נונא אסר, there's another fish that was called כוור נונא, that is אסור. וסימנך, the סימן to remember that, is קברי עובדי כוכבים, the graves of גוים. The word כוור is from the same שורש, the same root as the word קברי, which is graves, so to remember it is קברי עובדי כוכבים, the graves of גוים, so that reminds us that it's אסור, because it mentions the word גוים with it. So we remember that the fish called כוור נונא is אסור. This is the גירסא the way we have it in our ש״ס. But תוספות brings that רבינו חננאל has the גירסא which is the opposite, that שוור נונא was אסור and קדש נונא was מותר. And the סימן he gave was a different פסוק, not the פסוק קדש לה', but the פסוק קדש ישראל לה'. And the סימן in it was that the פסוק is saying that ה' allowed the קדש to the ישראל. That shows that קדש נונא is מותר. And then when the גמרא said the איכא דאמרי, that it was concerning כוור נונא, so it also said that not כוור נונא is אסור, but כוור נונא is מותר. Just like according to our גירסא, כוור נונא came instead of קדש נונא, so in our גירסא קדש נונא was אסור, so כוור נונא was also אסור. According to רבינו חננאל's גירסא, קריש נונא was מותר, so כיבי נונא, according to the second opinion, is also מותר. And the סימן was קברי עובדי כוכבים אינם מטמאין באהל. By us the סימן was קברי עובדי כוכבים, just the words the graves of גוים. So since it mentioned the word גוים together with קבר, that was a סימן that it's אסור. But according to רבינו חננאל's גירסא, it's supposed to say the סימן קברי עובדי כוכבים אינם מטמאין באהל, that the graves of גוים are not מטמא באהל. Like there's a דין that a מת or a קבר is מטמא באהל. A dead body, if it's found under one roof with a person, the person becomes טמא. Not only if you touch the body, but also if you are under one roof with the body. But the קברים of גוים, a גוישע dead body or a גוישע grave, is not מטמא באהל. If it's under one roof with a person, it is not מטמא באהל. So the סימן here, according to רבינו חננאל's גירסא was, to remind us that כיברי נונא is מותר, was קברי עובדי כוכבים אינם מטמאין באהל, that it's not טמא, and it is מותר to eat. Then the גמרא continues:

רב עקיבא איקלע לגינזק, רב עקיבא visited גינזק. אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא, they brought to him this fish, דהוה דמי לחיפושא, that was similar to the fish called חיפושא, which was a mudfish. כפיה בדקולא, he covered it over with a basket. חזא בי קלפי, so he saw, he noticed scales there, ושריה, and he allowed it. Because when he took it and put it into the basket, it struggled in the basket, so it hit against the wall of the basket, so then some of the scales fell off, so that's when he noticed the scales and he said it's מותר. That's the way רש''י learns. But the רבינו חננאל learns that the פשט in the גמרא is that he scrubbed it, he rubbed it with a new basket, and that's when he noticed some scales fall off, and that's why he allowed it. רב אשי איקלע לתמדורייא. רב אשי happened to visit תמדורייא. אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לצלופחא, they brought to him a fish that resembled an eel. נקטיה להדי יומא, he held it up against the day, which means against the sun. חזא דהוה ביה צימחי, so he noticed that it had little growths that looked like scales, ושריה, so he allowed it. רב אשי איקלע לההוא אתרא, רב אשי happened to visit a certain place. אייתו לקמיה נונא דהוה דמי לשפרנונא, they brought to him a fish that resembled שפרנונא that we mentioned before. כפיה במסכילא חיורא, so he covered it with white basins. חזא בי קלפי, so he noticed that it had scales, ושריה, and he allowed it. The way he noticed this it was, since the scales were black and he covered it with white basins, so the black showed up over the white, and that's how he noticed there were scales there, and that's why he allowed it. Then the גמרא continues:

רבה בר בר חנה איקלע לאקרא דאגמא, רבה בר בר חנה happened to visit the fort of אגמא. קריבו ליה צחנתא, so they set forth before him the fish called צחנתא, as we said before, that this is חיליק. שמע ליה לההוא גברא דהוה קרי ליה בטי, he heard a person call it 'roach'. אמר, he said, מידי דקרו ליה בטי, since they call it בטי, שמע מינה דבר טמא איכא ביה. That proves there is something wrong with it, there's something not כשר in it. Since they call it 'roach', that means that there is something not כשר in it. לא אכל מיניה, he didn't eat from it. ולצפרא, the next morning, עיין בה, he looked into it, אשכח בה דבר טמא. He found in it a non-כשר thing. קרי אנפשיה, so he called upon himself, he referred a certain פסוק to himself, the פסוק: לא יאונה לצדיק כל און, that no mischief should ever happen to the righteous. Which means, as the גמרא says in other places, that a צדיק, השם watches over him that he shouldn't come to eat non-כשר food. So in this case, על פי דין he was allowed to eat that food, just he heard the person call it 'roach', he decided not to eat it. So he said, this was a sign from heaven that he should not eat it, so מן השמים they watched over him to make sure that no mischief should happen to him since he was a צדיק. Then the גמרא continues: it

said in the משנה that one of the things which of a גוי is אסור באכילה you can't eat is a קורט של חלתית, a drop of חלתית. חלתית is a kind of fruit that רש''י says in the משנה they called לאזרא, which is translated as asafetida. So a drop of חלתית you are not allowed to take of גוים. And the גמרא says, מאי טעמא, what is the reason? משום דמפסקי לה בסכינא, because they cut it with a knife. And the knife of a גוי is used to cut non-כשר food, so the non-כשר taste that's absorbed into the knife will go into the חלתית. And the גמרא explains: אף על גב דאמר מר, even though the דין is that נותן טעם לפגם מותר, that since the taste is not a good taste, it is מותר, that if the taste of the non-כשר food that is absorbed in the כשר food doesn't add to the taste, it just spoils the taste, then it is מותר. And in this case also, the taste that was absorbed in the knife, which now goes into the חלתית, is נותן טעם לפגם, because vessels of גוים are usually, except hours ago. And therefore, it became נותן טעם לפגם. So now even if it goes into the חלתית, it's still נותן טעם לפגם, so it shouldn't be אסור. But אגב חורפיה דחלתיתא, because of the sharpness of the חלתית, מחליא ליה שמנוניתא, it sweetens the fats that was absorbed in the knife. The איסור is because the knife, when it cut fats of גוים, it absorbed the טריפה fats, and that is going to go into the חלתית. And that's what we said was נותן טעם לפגם. But since the חלתית is very sharp, so then the taste of the חלתית sweetens the taste of the fats that's absorbed in the knife, והוה ליה כנותן טעם לשבח. So now it becomes that it gives in a taste which adds a good taste, ואסור, therefore it's אסור. תוספות asks a קושיא, that even if it is נותן טעם לשבח, still it shouldn't be אסור. There should be enough if you will just peel off the first layer. Because because the גמרא says in חולין that if you שחט with a knife which is טריף, then all you have to do is קליפה. You have to peel off the first layer of the meat, and the rest is מותר. Because even though it gives in a good taste, but the taste that it gives in only penetrates up to the first layer. And therefore, if you peel off the first layer, it's מותר. So here too, even though we're saying that the taste of the חלתית makes the fats absorbed in the knife to become לשבח, and therefore it should be אסור, but it only should be אסור כדי קליפה. And תוספות answers that it depends. When it is not sharp, then we say it only penetrates the first layer, and therefore if you peel off the first layer, it's מותר. But since חלתית is very sharp, so that makes it penetrate even deeper. And תוספות has a שאלה, a question, whether this applies to all sharp things or דוקא חלתית, which happens to be very, very sharp. But other things like an onion, etc., which is also sharp, but not as sharp as חלתית, whether there too we say that it penetrates deeper than just the first layer, or it only goes up to the first layer. And the גמרא continues,

עבדיה דרב לוי, the servant of רב לוי, הוה קמזבין חלתיתא, he used to sell חלתית. And they used to buy from him. They trusted him since he was the servant of רב לוי, so they knew that definitely this was כשר חלתית. כי נח נפשיה דרב לוי, but after רב לוי died, אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, the people came to רבי יוחנן, ואמרו ליה, they said to him, מהו למיזבן מיניה? What is the דין, can we still buy from him? Since his master רב לוי is not alive, can we still trust him? אמר להו, he said to them, עבדו של חבר, הרי הוא כחבר. The servant of a חבר has a דין like a חבר. We know in the time of the גמרא they had two kinds of people. Some were called חברים and some were called עמי הארצים. The עמי הארץ they were people who were not careful with certain מצות, they were not careful with certain דינים of טומאה וטהרה, certain דינים of when you become טמא or when you are not טמא, and they were also not careful with certain מצות. And therefore you couldn't trust an עם הארץ. On the other hand, the other people who were called חברים, they were people who were trusted. Now, in order to become a חבר the דין was you had to be מקבל upon yourself דברי חברות. In front of a few חברים, a few people who have the status of being חברים, the person had to accept upon himself that he will also act like a חבר. And then this person would get the status of חבר, and then he was trusted. So this is what he said to them, that the servant of a חבר has the same דין like a חבר. As long as we have no reason to suspect that he changed, we are able to trust him even after his master died. רב הונא בר מניומי, רב הונא the son of מניומי, זבן תכלתא מאינשי דביתו דרב עמרם חסידא, he bought תכלת, the blue wool for ציצית, which had to be made specifically with a certain type of blood from a certain type of fish called חלזון. And anything else was only considered imitation תכלת, and you couldn't use it for ציצית. So therefore, you had to be sure that this was כשר תכלת. So he bought תכלת from the people of the household of רב עמרם חסידא, which means, as רש״י says, that it was bought from the wife of רב עמרם חסידא. אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף, he came to רב יוסף to ask him whether he could use it or not. Since many people would sell imitation תכלת, which was called קלא אילן, so he came to ask a שאלה, can he trust the wife of רב עמרם חסידא? לא הוה בידיה, he didn't have the answer. פגע בחנון חייטא. חנון חייטא, חנון the tailor, met רב יוסף. אמר ליה, he said to him, יוסף עניא מנא ליה, the poor יוסף, from where should he know this דין? בדידי הוה עובדא, there was a story with me, דזביני תכלתא מאינשי דביתו דרב עינא, that I bought תכלת from the wife of רב עינא אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא, the brother of רבי חייא בר אבא. ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנה, and I came to רב מתנה to ask him whether I could use it. לא הוה בידיה, he also didn't know the answer. אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה מדמן אגרוניא, so I came to רב יהודה דמן אגרוניא. אמר לי, he said to me, נפלת ליד, you fell into my hand. Now you must ask me for my instructions. הכי אמר שמואל, this is what שמואל said, אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר, that the wife of a חבר has a same din like a חבר, and therefore you are able to trust her. Then the גמרא says, דתנו רבנן, as the רבנן learned, אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר, the wife of a חבר has the same din as the חבר. You could trust her like you could trust her husband. עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר, the servant of a חבר has the same din like a חבר. חבר שמת, when a חבר dies, אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן, his wife and his children and his household still stay with the same חזקה. Since before he died you were able to trust his family too, so even after he dies you still continue trusting them, עד שיחשדו, unless there is a reason to suspect that they changed. But otherwise you could still

trust them. וכן, the same din, חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת, a yard, a place, a store where they sell תכלת, הרי הן בחזקתן עד שתפסל. So the חזקה is that it's כשר until you find a reason to make it פסול. That since you trusted it before, there is no reason to suspect that now you shouldn't trust it. So as long as there is no reason to suspect, the חזקה of trusting it continues. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אשת עם הארץ שניסת לחבר, the wife of an עם הארץ that married a חבר, which means first she was married to an עם הארץ, and then her husband died or divorced her, and she now married a חבר, וכן בתו של עם הארץ שניסת לחבר, or the daughter of an עם הארץ that married a חבר, וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר, or the servant of an עם הארץ that was sold to a חבר, כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות. They all have to accept upon themselves דברי חבירות. That even though now she is a wife of a חבר, now the daughter of the עם הארץ is a wife of a חבר, and now he is a servant of a חבר, nevertheless we still can't trust them. Since before that they were by the עם הארץ, she was a wife of an עם הארץ, or the other one was a daughter of an עם הארץ and was raised in the house of the עם הארץ, or the עבד was the עבד of an עם הארץ, so therefore we can't trust them now either unless they accept upon themselves דברי חבירות. Like any עם הארץ who wants to enter the status of a חבר must accept upon himself דברי חבירות. אבל, but if it was just the

opposite, אשת חבר שניסת לעם הארץ, the wife of a חבר that got married to an עם הארץ, וכן בתו של חבר שניסת לעם הארץ, or a daughter of a חבר that got married to an עם הארץ, וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ, or the servant of a חבר that got sold to an עם הארץ, אינן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות לכתחילה. So they don't have to accept upon themselves לכתחילה דברי חבירות. Since they were considered in the status of a חבר before, so even though now they married an עם הארץ or the עבד became an עבד of an עם הארץ, still we don't suspect that they changed, and therefore as long as there is no reason to suspect, they keep their status of חבר and they are trusted. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אף הן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות לכתחילה, that they too must accept upon themselves דברי חבירות לכתחילה. Because since they became now the wife of an עם הארץ or the עבד of an עם הארץ, so they are not trusted anymore unless they accept upon themselves דברי חבירות. וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, and so did רבי שמעון בן אלעזר also say that מעשה באשה אחת, there was a story of this one woman, שניסת לחבר, she was first married to a חבר, והיתה קושרת לו תפילין על ידו, she used to tie the תפילין on his hand, she used to help him put on תפילין. ניסת למוכס, when she got married to a tax collector, and the tax collectors were known to be גזלנים, they would steal money from the people, והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו. So then she started tying the knots of the receipts for the tax collection on his hand. So that shows that when a woman gets married, she follows the custom of her husband. So therefore he holds that even though she was a wife of a חבר before, or he was an עבד of a חבר before, or she was a daughter of a חבר before, if she is now married to an עם הארץ or he becomes an עבד of an עם הארץ, they follow the ways of the husband or of the master, and therefore in order to be trusted now, they have to accept upon themselves דברי חבירות. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רב, רב said, חבי"ת אסור בחותם אחד, the four things which are included in the abbreviation of ח' ב' י' ת', you're not allowed to keep them by a גוי if they only have one seal. חמפ"ג, which is ח' מ' פ' ג', the four things which are in the abbreviation ח' מ' פ' ג', מותר בחותם אחד, you are allowed to use them if they were by a גוי with one seal. And he explains what they are. The first one, which was חבי"ת, is חלב - milk, בשר - meat, יין - wine, תכלת - and the blue wool which they had to make with the special ink. Those are אסורין בחותם אחד, are forbidden if they only have one seal. Then the other things which we said which are permitted with one seal is חלתית, it's that fruit called חלתית, מורייס, which is the brine of the fish, פת - bread, and גבינה - and cheese. These things, מותרין בחותם אחד, are allowed with one seal. The reason why the other things are not allowed with one seal, because meat and תכלת are very expensive. So we're afraid that even if it has one seal, a גוי might exchange it because they're expensive. Things which are not expensive, like the other things: the חלתית, the מורייס, the bread, and the cheese, so that we don't suspect he'll change. If it doesn't have any seal at all, maybe he'll change it, but if it has one seal, he wouldn't go through the trouble of breaking the seal and falsifying and change it. But something which is expensive, we are afraid that even with one seal he's going to falsify it and change it. So therefore, meat and תכלת, we're afraid that he might change. Concerning the wine, we're afraid that he might pour it for עבודה זרה. The only question remains why is milk not allowed with one seal? And that the גמרא will ask. This is the way רש״י learns it. But תוספות brings another פשט from רבינו אפרים בר דוד that he gave the reason that the difference is whether the איסור is בעין or the איסור is not בעין. That these four things, חלב, בשר, יין, תכלת, if he exchanged it the איסור is בעין, the איסור is here, these things themselves are אסור. While the other things that are the חלתית, מורייס, פת, and גבינה, the איסור is not בעין, the things themselves are not אסור. They are only אסור because of a certain mixture that got mixed in. So there we say that with one seal is enough. We're not מחמיר that much to have two seals there. Then the גמרא continues, פת, we said before that bread is allowed with one seal, למאי ניחוש לה? What should we be afraid? Why do we even need one seal? אי משום חלופי, if we're afraid he'll exchange it, קרירא בחמימא מידע ידיע, he exchanges a cold one for a hot one, which means a fresh one for a stale one, then we could recognize it. So we'll see if he exchanged it or not. דחיטי בדיסערי נמי מידע ידיע, or if he looks to change a wheat one for a barley one, a loaf of bread made of wheat for a loaf of bread made of barley, we will also recognize it. ואי כהדדי, if we're afraid he's going to exchange it for a similar one, and then we won't be able to recognize it, and that's why we say כיון דאיכא חותם אחד לא טרח ומזייף, he could exchange it, but since there is one seal, he will not go through the trouble to falsify it. But the question is ורב מאי שנא גבינה דלא טרח ומזייף, חלב נמי לא טרח ומזייף? Now that we said the whole reason why with one seal it's enough, because since it's not expensive, so he will not go through the trouble to falsify it, and that is the reason why bread doesn't need two seals, with one seal is enough, and that would also be the reason why cheese doesn't need two seals, because he will not go through the trouble to falsify it. And that's why רב said that cheese is מותר with one seal, חלב נמי לא טרח ומזייף, milk also he will not go through the trouble to be מזייף, why is the

דין that milk needs two seals? אמר רב כהנא, so רב כהנא said, אפיק חלב, take out milk, ועייל חתיכה דדג שאין בה סימן, and put in instead a piece of fish that has no סימן. We said before that four things רב said need two seals. The abbreviation was חבי״ת, and we said the abbreviation meant חלב, בשר, יין, תכלת. So the ח' meant חלב, milk. But now that we have a קשיא that there is no reason why to say that milk should need two seals, so he said that the ח' doesn't mean milk, the ח' means חתיכה דדג שאין בה סימן, and a piece of fish that has no סימן needs two seals. And the reason is because fish is also expensive, so we're afraid that he will go through the trouble of falsifying the seal, and therefore the only way you're allowed to have it in the hands of the גוים if it has two seals. But the גמרא asks היינו בשר, isn't it the same thing as meat? Amongst the four things was בשר, and the reason for that was because it is expensive and we're afraid he'll exchange it even if it has a seal. So fish is self-understood that would have the same דין because it's also expensive. So why would they have to tell us fish and meat? And the גמרא answers, תרי גווני בשר, he tells us two kinds of meat: one is a more expensive one, one is a less expensive one. But there are two kinds, that's why he mentions them separately: חתיכה דדג separately and

בשר separately. Then the גמרא continues, שמואל אמר, and שמואל says, בי״ת, which is ב' י' ת', אסור בחותם אחד, is forbidden with one seal. מח״ג, מ' ח' ג', מותר בחותם אחד, is permitted with one seal. And he explains what the abbreviations mean. בשר, יין, תכלת, meat, wine, or תכלת, אסורין בחותם אחד, are forbidden with one seal. בשר, יין, תכלת אסורין בחותם אחד, meat, wine, and תכלת are forbidden with one seal. And מורייס, this fish brine, חלתית, the fruit called חלתית, גבינה, and cheese, מותרין בחותם אחד, are allowed with one חותם. And as we see, שמואל mentioned the same ones as רב concerning those that need two seals, he just skipped the ח', which we said before means חתיכה דדג שאין בה סימן, a piece of fish that has no סימן. And the reason he doesn't mention it, the גמרא says, is because לשמואל חתיכה דדג שאין בה סימן היינו בשר, that a piece of fish that has no סימן is the same as meat. אי, we said before that nevertheless he should mention it because there are two kinds of meat, תרי גוונא דבשרא לא אמרינן, and שמואל holds that we don't accept that סברא that there are two kinds of meat and he has to tell us that. Therefore, he doesn't have to tell us חתיכת דג, so he just says ב', י', צ', which is בשר, יין, and ציר. And what about the bread? Before when רב mentioned those things that are allowed with one seal, he mentioned פת as one of them, and שמואל does not mention פת, because he holds that you don't have to mention bread because there is nothing to be afraid of as the גמרא says before. If you're afraid he's going to change a cold one for a hot one, which means a fresh one for a stale one, you could tell. If he's going to change a barley one for a wheat one, you could tell that too. אלא מאי, what are we afraid he'll change for an equal one? Then with one seal it's obvious it's enough, because since it's not expensive, there is no reason to say that he is going to go through the trouble and falsify the seal. And that's why there is no reason to tell us, because it's obvious. And it seems like according to רש"י, that piece in the גמרא that we had before, פת למאי ניחוש, from those words till the words לא טרח ומזייף, that piece of גמרא, according to רש"י, doesn't belong there, but belongs here. And after the גמרא explains why he doesn't mention חתיכת דג, then the גמרא goes on to explain פת, why doesn't he mention that bread is enough one seal? And the גמרא goes through the whole thing that there is nothing to be afraid of, and the only thing is he might change it for the same one, it's obvious, it's very פשוט, that then one seal is enough, and he doesn't have to tell us that. But in our גירסא in the גמרא, we have those words earlier, and that is the beginning of the קשיא in רב. But according to רש"י's גירסא, this is an explanation on why שמואל doesn't mention among the things that don't need two seals,

also פת. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: אין לוקחין ימ"ח מח"ג בסוריא, in סוריא. What are they? לא יין, not wine, ולא מורייס, not the brine for fish, ולא חלב, not milk, ולא מלח סלקונדרית, not the salt called מלח סלקונדרית, ולא חילתית, not this fruit called חילתית, ולא גבינה, and not cheese, אלא מן המומחה, only from an expert, only from a person that you could trust. But otherwise, just to buy it from a plain person, you're not allowed. Why? Because these people were not careful that it should be only כשר. וכולן, but all these things, אם נתארח אצל בעל הבית, but if a person was a guest in someone's house, מותר, you're allowed to eat it because the people in their homes were careful only to have these things כשר. Because the people in סוריא themselves did not eat non-כשר food. They were careful that everything that they eat should be כשר. But they weren't careful not to sell these things which are not כשר. In other words, they weren't careful with the איסור of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. The דין is that a person not only is not allowed to do an עבירה himself, but he's not allowed to help someone else do an עבירה, or cause someone else to do an עבירה. And that is the איסור of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. In front of a blind person, you're not allowed to put a stumbling block. Which means that in front of a person who doesn't know it's אסור, you're not allowed to put an איסור in front of him and make him do the איסור. So these people in סוריא were not careful with לפני עור, so therefore, they used to sell in the stores these things that came from גוים which were not allowed to use. But in their own homes, they were careful to eat only the כשר ones. And therefore, if you are a guest in someone's home, you are allowed to eat these things. ומסייע ליה לרבי יהושע בן לוי, and this is a proof to what רבי יהושע בן לוי said. דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said: שגר לו בעל הבית לביתו מותר, that if the person sent in these things to his house, they are allowed. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? בעל הבית לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא. A בעל הבית would not leave things which are permitted and eat things which are forbidden. וכי משגר ליה, and when he sends it to him, ממי דאכיל משגר ליה, he sends to him what he eats himself. And therefore, since we don't suspect that he himself would eat the non-כשר ones, so when he sends it to you, you're allowed to eat it too, because he sent you probably what he himself eats. תוספות asks a קשיא: Why does he have to mention milk and cheese? Amongst the things he said here you shouldn't buy in סוריא, the ח' is חלב, and the ג' is גבינה. And לכאורה, if you can't buy milk, you can't buy cheese. Why does it have to tell us both? And תוספות says, because the reasons for these two things are different. Not for the same reason that we can't drink milk of גוים, can't we eat cheese of גוים. The reason we can't drink milk of גוים is because we're afraid that he's going to milk, mix in milk of a non-כשר animal. The reason we can't eat cheese, the גמרא said before, is משום גילוי, because the milk they leave uncovered, and we're not allowed to drink liquid that was left uncovered, as the גמרא said before. And since they are because of two separate איסורים, he mentions them both. But תוספות says this is only good according to the סברא that the גמרא said before that why can't you eat cheese of גוים, because of גילוי, because they might have left it uncovered. But according to רבי ירמיה that said in the גמרא before that the reason why we can't eat cheese of גוים is because of צחצוחי חלב, we're afraid that there is is non-kosher milk mixed in. איי, we know that non-kosher milk will not become cheese, maybe between the holes there is חלב טמא, there were left over the little bit of non-kosher milk that was mixed in. Now, according to that, לכאורה, the reason for the איסור of milk and the איסור of cheese is the same, so why does he have to mention them both? תוספות says in תוספתא it says this ברייתא, and there, instead of חלב, it says חתיכת דג שאין בו סימן, that the חתיכה is not milk, but a piece of fish that has no סימן. And then we understand why he mentions both איסורים. Then the גמרא says, it said in the משנה that one of the things you're not allowed to eat of גוים, ומלח סלקונדרית, the salt of סלקונדרית. And the גמרא asks, מאי מלח סלקונדרית? What is this מלח סלקונדרית? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, so רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, מלח, it's a kind of salt, שכל סלקונדרי רומי, all the nobles of רומי, אוכל אותה, eat it. It's a special kind of salt that they used to mix in pieces of the insides of non-kosher fish. And therefore, we are not allowed to eat it if it came

from גוים. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מלח סלקונדרית שחורה אסורה, the black מלח סלקונדרית is forbidden. לבנה, the white one, מותרת, is מותר, is permitted. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, לבנה אסורה, the white is forbidden, שחורה מותרת, the black one is permitted. רבי יהודה בן גמליאל משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר, רבי יהודה בן גמליאל in the name of רבי חנינא בן גמליאל says, זו וזו אסורה, they're both forbidden, the black and the white. אמר רבה בר בר חנה, רבה בר בר חנה said, אמר רבי יוחנן, in the name of רבי יוחנן, לדברי האומר לבנה אסורה, according to the one that says that the white one is forbidden, the reason is because קרבי דגים לבנים טמאים מעורבים בה, because they used to mix in the insides of white non-kosher fish. And therefore, the white ones is forbidden. לדברי האומר שחורה אסורה, the one that holds that the black is forbidden because he holds that קרבי דגים שחורים טמאים מעורבים בה, that they used to mix in the insides of black non-kosher fish, and that's why only the black one is forbidden. לדברי האומר זו וזו אסורה, according to the one that says that they're both forbidden, the black and the white, because he holds זה וזה מעורב בהן, that they used to mix in both, the insides of black non-kosher fish and the insides of white non-kosher fish, and therefore, the black and the white of this מלח סלקונדרית is אסור. אמר רב אבהו משום רבי שמעון בן גמליאל, רב אבהו said in the name of רבי שמעון בן גמליאל, זקן אחד היה בשכונתנו, there was this old man in our neighborhood, שהיה מחליק פניו בשומן חזיר, that he used to smear his face with fat of a חזיר, of a pig. So that is another reason why it should be אסור, because they used to smear it with fat of a חזיר. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, after it mentioned all the things that we are not allowed to eat of גוים, it said, הרי אלו אסורין, these are the things which are אסור. And the משנה continued, ואין איסורן

איסור הנאה, but it is not אסור בהנאה, there is no איסור to derive benefit from it. So the גמרא asks, למעוטי מאי? What do these words come to exclude? Since the משנה says, הרי אלו אסורין, these are the things which are אסור, and not אסור בהנאה, obviously he's trying to tell us that only these things are אסור and not אסור בהנאה, but other things are not included. Which means that there is a סברא that certain things should be included, and nevertheless, he's telling us that only this is included in the דין, but not others. So obviously he's coming to exclude something, so the question is, what does he come to exclude? But the גמרא says, לחזקיה, according to חזקיה, למעוטי בידוע, it comes to exclude if it's known. Because we learned earlier, in the earlier דף, concerning כבשים שדרכן לתת בתוכן יין, that the preserves, the pressed food, that the דרך is, the custom is that they would mix wine in. So that is אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה. So חזקיה said that this is only if דרכן לתת בתוכן יין, if it's only a custom that they put wine in. But if it's בידוע, if we know for sure that they put wine in, so then, not only is it אסור באכילה, but it is also אסור בהנאה. רבי יוחנן said that even if we know for sure they mixed wine in, still it is only אסור באכילה, but מותר בהנאה. But according to חזקיה, it is then אסור בהנאה. So according to חזקיה, we know what the משנה comes to exclude when it says, הרי אלו אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה, that these are the things which are אסור, but not אסור בהנאה, it comes to exclude if we know for sure that wine was mixed in. So then, it is not only אסור באכילה, it is also אסור בהנאה. So only these things in the משנה are not אסור בהנאה, but if it's known that wine was mixed in, it's also אסור בהנאה. But רבי יוחנן, according to רבי יוחנן, who holds that even if it's known that wine is mixed in, it is still not אסור בהנאה, so we can't say that according to him, the words הרי אלו אסורין come to exclude בידוע, so what does it come to exclude? למעוטי,

it comes to exclude מורייס וגבינת בית אונייקי, וסתמא כרבי מאיר. That comes to exclude מורייס, which we said in the previous משנה that there is a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים, that according to חכמים, מורייס is מותר בהנאה, and according to רבי מאיר, מורייס is also אסור בהנאה. And also גבינת בית אונייקי, according to מאיר, it is אסור בהנאה, and according to the חכמים it is not אסור בהנאה. This משנה, this סתם משנה goes according to רבי מאיר. Now, according to רבי מאיר, these things are also אסור בהנאה. And that's what the משנה means with the words הרי אלו אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה. Only the things mentioned in this משנה are אסור but not אסור בהנאה. There are other things which are also אסור בהנאה, and that is מורייס and the cheese of בית אונייקי. And this משנה is trying to tell us that the סתם משנה is like רבי מאיר, that these things are not אסור בהנאה. And now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says: ואלו מותרין באכילה, these are the things which are even allowed to be eaten, even though they are from גוים, but they're allowed to be eaten: חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים וישראל רואהו, milk that was milked by a גוי, but a איד watched him. והדבש, and honey that came from a גוי. והדבדבניות, and grape clusters. And the משנה continues

and says: אף על פי שמנטפין, even if it's dripping, אין בהם משום הכשר משקה, it doesn't have the דין of הכשר משקה. The דין is that liquid has a quality that it makes food מוכשר לקבל טומאה. If something which is טמא, whether if it's a שרץ or any other type of טומאה, will touch food, it will not become טמא unless the food first came in contact with water, with any liquid, any one of the seven liquids which is יין, דבש, שמן, חלב, טל, דם, מים. So, what he's saying here is that even if these are dripping with liquids, they don't have the דין of הכשר משקה. They will not make food מוכשר לקבל טומאה even if it'll come in contact with that food. And also he continues, other things which are מותר to be eaten even though they come from גוים: וכבשים שאין דרכן לתת לתוכן יין וחומץ, and preserved food that there is no custom to put inside wine or vinegar. וטרית שאינה טרופה, pickled herring which has not been chopped up. וציר שיש בה דגה, and if you have the juice of fish that has a fish inside. ועלה של חילתית, and a leaf of this fruit called חילתית. וזיתי גלוסקאות המגולגלין, and rolled olive cakes. As רש״י explains, they used to take olives and put them together in a round כלי, and they used to warm it up, and they used to stick together, and it became like a cake, it looked like a loaf, and that is permitted to be eaten. And the משנה

continues: רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says: השלחין אסורין, if the olives have stones ready to drop out are prohibited, these are not allowed. החגבים הבאים מן הסלולה אסורין, these locusts that come from the basket that's in the store are prohibited. And the גמרא will explain because they used to spray wine over it. מן ההפתק, if they come from the place where they are gathered, from the stock, then they are מותרין, they're allowed, because they would not sprinkle the wine on them. They don't sprinkle the wine until they're ready to sell. So, if you take it from the stock, then it is מותר. וכן לתרומה, the same דין applies to תרומה, and the גמרא will explain what we mean with that דין. The גמרא says: תנינא להא דתנו רבנן, in our משנה we learned the same דין as the רבנן learned in a ברייתא. דתנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: יושב ישראל בצד עדרו של עובד כוכבים, a איד could sit on the side of the herd of a גוי, ועובד כוכבים חולב לו, and the גוי could milk for him, ומביא לו, and he could bring it to him, ואינו חושש, he has nothing to be afraid of. And he could drink the milk even if he doesn't see the גוי milking the cow. היכי דמי, the גמרא asks, what is the case? אי דליכא דבר טמא בעדרו, if there is no non-kosher animal in his herd, פשיטא, simple. For sure he could drink it, there's no חידוש in this, because there is no דבר טמא, so we are sure that he didn't mix in any non-kosher milk. ואי דאיכא דבר טמא בעדרו, if there is a non-kosher animal in his herd, אמאי, so why is the דין that if he didn't see him milk it that he's allowed to drink it? Maybe the גוי mixed in non-kosher milk! And the גמרא says: לעולם, באמת I could tell you, דאיכא דבר טמא. The case is where there is a non-kosher animal amongst his herd. איי, the question is, if so, why is he allowed to drink it? Because the case is: דכי קאי, when the איד would be standing, חזי ליה, he could see what the גוי is doing while he's milking, וכי יתיב, while he's sitting, לא חזי ליה, he can't see him. מהו דתימא, I would think, כיון דיתיב, since he is sitting, לא חזי ליה, he can't see, ניחוש, I should be afraid, דילמא מייתי, maybe he brought milk from a non-kosher animal ומערב ביה, mixed into it, and therefore he shouldn't be able to drink it. קא משמע לן, that's why it lets us know, that כיון דכי קאי, since if he would stand up, חזי ליה, he would see what the גוי is doing, אירתותי מירתת, the גוי is afraid, ולא מערב, he wouldn't mix in. And that's the חידוש of the ברייתא, that even though the איד actually didn't see what the גוי is doing, but since if he would get up he would be able to see, we assume that the גוי is afraid to mix anything in, and Therefore, he is allowed to drink that milk. But תוספות ask the קשיא, what does the גמרא mean that we learn in the ברייתא the same thing we learn in the משנה? Usually that is said in a case where we see that the ברייתא says the exact same thing as the משנה. Here it seems to be just the opposite. The משנה says which milk are we allowed to drink? Milk that a גוי milked, but a איד saw him milk it. In the ברייתא it says that even if the איד didn't see, he's still allowed to drink it. So it seems to be contradicting the משנה, not a ראיה to the משנה. And תוספות says we learned the פשט in the משנה not that a איד sees it, which means a איד has to be watching it to see him milk it, but it means a איד should be able to see it. If that is the פשט in the משנה, then it fits exactly to what the ברייתא said, because the ברייתא said that even if the איד didn't see it, but he's sitting there and he's able to see it, if he would stand up he would see it, then he's allowed to drink it. Another thing that תוספות says, the גמרא said that if he is sitting on the side of the herd and there is no דבר טמא in the herd, there is no non-kosher animal in the herd, then the גמרא says פשיטא that you are allowed to drink it. לכאורה, why is it a פשיטא? We said there are two reasons why you shouldn't be able to drink milk from a גוי. One is because maybe he mixed in milk from a non-kosher animal, and another reason was משום גילוי, because he would leave the milk uncovered, and the חכמים אסר to eat and drink anything which is left uncovered because maybe a snake drank from it and it left some poison in it. So לכאורה if the reason is because we are afraid maybe he mixed non-kosher milk in it, so since he is sitting there, and it's a herd that has no non-kosher animals, so we know for sure he didn't mix it in. But still let us be afraid that maybe he left it uncovered, then we shouldn't be able to drink it for that reason. And תוספות says since the גוי is milking it and the איד sees that he is there, and the גוי is holding it the whole time in his hand, so we're not afraid of גילוי. But on the other hand, if it is a case where we are afraid that maybe he left it uncovered, it טאקע would be אסור as תוספות said before. And even if we're going to try to sift it, תוספות said earlier that sifting doesn't help concerning the venom of a snake, and therefore if there is an איסור of גילוי, sifting doesn't help and it would be אסור. But it's self-understood this only applies in the time when there was an איסור of גילוי. But nowadays, as תוספות said earlier, that אין נחשים מצויין, it is not common to have snakes around, so the whole איסור of גילוי doesn't apply. So therefore now milk would not be אסור משום גילוי, but it would be אסור because he might mix in a דבר טמא, and that's the... And now

we'll continue with the גמרא. It said in the משנה והדבש, that what are those things that you're allowed to eat of גוים is honey. And the גמרא explains why: דבש, honey, למאי ניחוש לה? What should we be afraid, what should be the reason why it should be אסור? אי משום עירובי, if we're afraid maybe he mixed in wine, יין נסך which is not kosher, מיסר סרי, it would start smelling. And since this honey doesn't smell, so we know for sure he didn't mix any wine in. אי משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, if the reason it should be אסור is because it was cooked by גוים, נאכל כמו שהוא חי, honey could be eaten raw, and we learned earlier in the גמרא that any food that could be eaten raw, the דין of בישול עכו״ם doesn't apply to it. אי משום גיעולי עובדי כוכבים, if the reason should be אסור is because of the taste of the food of גוים that's in the pot, because since the גוים cooked the honey in their pots, and their pots were previously used for non-kosher food, so it absorbed the taste of the non-kosher food, and now when they cook the honey, so then that taste goes into the honey, and that's the reason the honey should be אסור, נותן טעם לפגם הוא ומותר. The taste that it gives is a taste לפגם, it gives a bad taste not a good taste, and that is מותר. Since we assume that all כלים of גוים are 24 hours old, which means that it wasn't used for the last 24 hours, so the taste of the non-kosher food that was absorbed was there for more than 24 hours, and the כלל is that any taste that is absorbed inside the walls of a כלי after 24 hours becomes לפגם, the taste is not a good taste. And the דין is that any taste that goes into food which is לפגם doesn't אסר it. And therefore, the honey cannot be אסור because of the taste that it took out from the כלי, because that is נותן טעם לפגם and that is מותר. Therefore, there is no reason to אסר the honey of גוים, and that's why the משנה says that honey of גוים is מותר. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, והדבדבניות, and the cluster of grapes, and the משנה said that אף על פי שמנטפות, even if it runs, there's liquid coming out of it, אין בהם משום הכשר משקה, still this liquid would not

make food מוכשר לקבל טומאה. The גמרא says ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned הבוצר לגת, if one gleans grapes for the wine press, שמאי אומר, שמאי says הוכשר, that these grapes become מוכשר לקבל טומאה, that the wine that comes out from the grapes and gets the grapes wet makes it מוכשר לקבל טומאה, and the grapes, if it'll touch anything which is טמא, will become טמא. הלל אומר, but הלל says לא הוכשר, that these grapes do not become מוכשר לקבל טומאה. והודה לו הלל לשמאי, and הלל admitted later to שמאי that they do become מוכשר לקבל טומאה. So we see there that the juice that comes out of the grapes is is considered liquid to be מכשיר לקבל טומאה. So how come it says in this משנה that the juice that comes out from the דבדבניות, which are grapes, cluster of grapes, is not מכשיר לקבל טומאה? And the גמרא answers, התם כבעי ליה למשקה. Over there, in the case of הבצר לגת, where he gleans the grapes for a wine press, so לכתחילה he is interested in the grapes to use them for liquid, to get the משקה out, to get the wine out. So then the משקה that comes out is considered liquid and therefore it has all the דינים of liquid, which is מכשיר לקבל טומאה. הכא, but in this case, לא קבעי ליה למשקה. He doesn't want the grapes for the juice, he wants the grapes for the food. So even if some liquid comes out, but since he wasn't interested in having the liquid come out, so then this doesn't have a דין of liquid which is מכשיר לקבל טומאה. תוספות asks a קושיא, לכאורה what was the קושיא לכתחילה? It says clearly, הבצר לגת, the מחלוקת between שמאי and הלל, and הלל later admitted to שמאי was in the case where he is בוצר לגת, which means he gleans the grapes for the wine press. So it says clearly that the case is where he is going to use it for the wine press to make wine. So it's self-understood that because he's interested in making wine, that's why the juice is considered liquid. So what kind of קושיא did the גמרא לכתחילה ask from there to our משנה where we're talking about grapes where he wants to eat? And תוספות says that the גמרא הוה אמינא was that when it says there הבצר לגת, it doesn't mean ממש only בוצר לגת, only if he gleans for the wine press. It means whichever way he does it, he just picks an example if it is for the wine press, but the same דין would apply if he gleans the grapes in order to eat the grapes. And that's why he asked, if that's the פשט, then it's a סתירה, a contradiction to our משנה. And the answer was no, that when it says there הבצר לגת, it means דווקא בוצר לגת. Only if he gleans them for the wine press, that's when we say that the juice that comes out has a דין of משקה and is מכשיר לקבל טומאה, but if he is interested in eating the grapes, then the juice that comes out doesn't have a דין of משקה, and

then is not מכשיר לקבל טומאה. Continuing with what we learned in the גמרא before, when the גמרא wanted to show that even if she was originally an אשת חבר, a wife of a חבר, when she marries an עם הארץ, there is an opinion that says that she has to accept upon herself again דברי חבירות, because otherwise she follows her husband, and since her husband now is an עם הארץ and is not trusted, she is also not trusted. But the גמרא brings what רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said that there was a story with this wife of a חבר, that while she was married to the חבר, she used to tie his תפילין for him, and later when she got married to the tax collector, she helped him tie his receipts for his ענין. So we see there that a woman follows her husband. But in the meantime, we see in this גמרא the לשון that his wife used to tie the תפילין for him. So it says in הגהות מיימוניות, in פרק א׳ מהלכות ציצית אות ט׳, it says like this, that it says in תוספות in גיטין, that כל מצוה שאין אשה חייבת, any מצוה a woman is not חייב, for instance, לולב and ציצית, she's not allowed to tie. She's not allowed to tie the לולב, she is not allowed to be מתקן the ציצית. So he asks a קושיא that here in the גמרא we see in עבודה זרה that the woman tied his תפילין for him. Now a woman is פטור from תפילין, so how was she allowed to tie the תפילין for her husband? And he writes that we must say that even though she is פסול to tie the תפילין for him, but to help him she is allowed. And he brings a ראיה, as we see, in פרה, מסכת פרה פרק י״ב משנה י׳, it says there הכל כשרים להזות, everybody is allowed to spray the ashes of the פרה אדומה on a טמא'דיק person except a טומטום and an אנדרוגינוס, and a woman and a child. And nevertheless it says there, the woman is allowed to help spray. So we see that even something that she is not allowed to do, but to help she is allowed.