Jewish audio on Chabad.org. The שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף מ', but we will start three lines from the bottom of דף ל"ט עמוד ב'. And the גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it said, וטרית שאינה טרופה. The משנה mentioned these things that you are allowed to eat of גוים, and one of the things was pickled herring which has not been minced. In the משנה before it said that if you have pickled herring and it was minced, it was chopped up, then you cannot eat it because we're afraid maybe it has some non-kosher fish in it. But if it was not minced, then this משנה says then you are allowed to eat it. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, איזו היא טרית שאינה טרופה, what is considered טרית, pickled herring, which is not minced? כל שראש ושדרה ניכר, as long as the head and the spine of every piece of fish is recognizable. Because then you could tell that this is a kosher fish and not a non-kosher fish, because a non-kosher fish has a pointy head and doesn't have a spine. So if you're able to see the head and the spine of every piece of fish, then you are allowed to eat it, and this is what the משנה means, that if it is not minced, you are allowed to eat it. Then we

also learned in the משנה that you're allowed to eat ציר שיש בה דגה, you're allowed to eat brine if it has fish in it. The גמרא asks, ואיזו ציר שיש בה דגה, what is considered ציר, brine of fish, that has fish in it that you're allowed to eat? כל שקילביס אחת או שתי קילביס שוטטות בו, as long as one קילביס or two קילביס float in it. As we learned before that if it is brine of kosher fish, then by itself קילביס will grow in it. But if it is ציר of non-kosher fish, then no קילביס will grow in it. So if you see one or two קילביס in it, then you know that this is juice of kosher fish, and you are allowed to eat this ציר. The גמרא asks a שאלה, השתא קילביס אחת אמרת שרי, if you said that if one קילביס floats in it it is allowed, שתי קילביס מבעיא, so certainly if you have two קילביס floating around. So why did it have to say that when are you allowed to eat it, if you have one or two קילביס floating around? If one is enough, then certainly two is enough. Then why does it have to say if you have two? And the גמרא answers, לא קשיא, it's no קשיא. כאן בפתוחות, כאן בסתומות. One is speaking if it is open, and the other one if it's closed. If the barrel is open, then if you have one קילביס floating around, it is not enough. Because since it's open, so we're afraid maybe it fell in from the outside. So it doesn't prove that this is kosher ציר, because maybe the קילביס did not grow from within the ציר, but maybe it came from the outside. So there you would need two. But if it is a closed barrel, so then one קילביס is enough. This is the way רש"י learns the פשט. But תוספות says that we see from the גמרא later just the opposite, because the גמרא later tells a story that there was a גוי that brought a little boat full of barrels of ציר, and they found קילביס in one of them. And the גמרא says if they were all open then they're all מותר, if they were closed, then only in the one that they found the קילביס is מותר, and the rest are אסור. So we see here that if it is open, there is more reason to go לקולא to say it's מותר. And according to רש"י here in the גמרא what we're saying is just the opposite, that in an open one we go לחומרא that we have to have two קילביס, while in the closed one, one is enough. And also תוספות asks that if we are afraid that it fell in from the outside and that is the reason why if it's open one is not enough and we have to have two, so why is two enough? Let's be afraid maybe the גוי put them in. So the גוי would put in two, and two also shouldn't be enough if we are afraid that since it's open, maybe it came in from the outside. Therefore, תוספות brings in the name of רבינו אפרים just the opposite, that when the גמרא says here that there is a difference between open ones and closed ones, the פשט is that if it's open, then one is enough. Because we could say that באמת it had two, and the reason there is only one in there now, someone took it out, it fell out, because it's open so maybe it just went away. And therefore we are תולה לקולא, we say לקולא, that since it's open, we go לקולא and say it's מותר. But if it is closed, then we are not תולה לקולא, so there we have to have two. And this would fit to what the גמרא says later on, that if it's open we're תולה לקולא, but if it's closed, we don't go לקולא. But then תוספות says really we could explain רש"י also, and show that there is no contradiction between the גמרא later and the גמרא here. Because in the גמרא later, they really found two קילביס, but they found it in one of the חביות. In our גמרא here, the case is where you לכתחילה found only one קילביס. So in the case where you found one קילביס, so there is more סברא to say that in an open one we should say לחומרא and be afraid maybe it fell in from the outside, but in a closed one where it couldn't fall in from the outside, we go לקולא and we say it's enough. But over there, where we found two קילביס, so there we could say, since they're all open and we found two קיל- So there, the one they found it in you're allowed, and the other ones you are not allowed. Then the גמרא continues,

איתמר we learned, רב הונא אמר, רב הונא said, עד שיהא ראש ושדרה ניכר. Like what we said before, that you have to recognize the fish by its head and by the spine, you have to have both. If you see the head and the spine, that's when you're allowed to eat the fish. רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן said, או ראש או שדרה. It is one of the two: or recognize the head or the spine, but you don't have to recognize both. Even if you only recognize one of the two, it is enough. The גמרא says מותיב רב עוקבא בר חמא, רב עוקבא בר חמא asked a קשיא, ובדגים we learned a משנה in חולין that in fish, כל שיש לו סנפיר וקשקשת, what is the סימן of a kosher fish? If it has fins and scales. So we see that the only סימן is fins and scales, and here we have other סימנים: the סימן of the head and the סימן of the spine. And it's a קשיא for both, whether we learned that you have to have the סימן of both, the head and the spine, or we learn that one of the two is enough, it is still a קשיא, because in that משנה it says that by fish, only fins and scales are the סימן and nothing else. אמר אביי, אביי said, כי תניא ההיא, when was that משנה said where it says that only fins and scales is the סימן? That is only בעירי ופולמודי, concerning the fish skate and pelamys, שדמי רישייהו לטמאים, that their head is similar to the non-kosher fish. So in those fish, the only סימן that we could have is fins and scales. But other fish, there are other סימנים also, and that is the סימן of the head or the סימן of the spine. But לכאורה one might ask a קשיא that what kind of answer is this? Since the answer is that we're talking about such fish that their head is the same as a non-kosher fish, but the spine definitely is different, because no non-kosher fish have a spine and all kosher fish do have a spine. So לכאורה we still should have said in the משנה there is another סימן checking it by the spine. Therefore תוספות learns that when the גמרא asked the קשיא, the גמרא's קשיא was not from the spine, because the reason it doesn't mention in the משנה the spine, because the משנה is only talking about סימנים that you could see from the outside and not from the inside. So from the outside there are only two סימנים, which is the fins and the scales, but the spine, which is a סימן from the inside, the משנה is not talking about. So therefore the גמרא's קשיא from the משנה was לכתחילה not from the spine. The קשיא was only from the head. And therefore the גמרא answered that we're talking about these kinds of fish that their head is the same like the non-kosher ones, and therefore by these fish the only סימן that we could have is the fins and the scales. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה משמיה דעולא, רב יהודה said in the name of עולא, מחלוקת, the מחלוקת between רב הונא and רב נחמן whether you have to have both סימנים, the head and the spine, or one of the two is enough, is only לטבול בצירן, only concerning dipping into the brine. You want to dip bread into the brine, so there there is a מחלוקת whether you could use the ציר of this fish that has one סימן of the two. אבל בגופן, but to eat the fish themselves, דברי הכל אסור, everyone agrees that you're not allowed, עד שיהא ראש ושדרה ניכר, unless you recognize both the head and the spine. And the reason for the difference would be even though we know that brine of a non-kosher fish is just as forbidden as a non-kosher fish itself, so what should be the difference? If we hold that by having one סימן you could eat the brine, then you should be able to eat the fish itself also. If we hold that you cannot eat the fish itself if it has one סימן, then you should also hold that you cannot eat the brine if it has only one סימן. So תוספות explains the difference is because the brine would be בטל, that since it's mixed with other things, so even if it's brine of non-kosher fish, it would be בטל in the other three things that it's mixed into. But concerning the fish itself, we cannot say it's בטל, because fish is a בריה, it is a creature in itself, and the דין is that when you have a בריה, since it is חשוב it is not בטל. So therefore, even though it's mixed with other things, it is not בטל. And that's what the גמרא says, that in the fish itself everyone agrees that since it's not בטל, the only way you're allowed to eat it if you know both סימנים, the head and the spine. But concerning the ציר, since it does become בטל, so there one opinion is that you still have to have both סימנים, the head and the spine, and the other opinion is that one of the two סימנים is enough. And the גמרא says,

אמר רב זירא, רב זירא said, מריש, in the beginning הוה מטבילנא בצירא, I used to dip in the ציר. In other words, he used to dip in the brine when there was only one סימן, because he thought that the מחלוקת is concerning the fish itself, but concerning the brine everyone agrees that with one סימן it's enough, and therefore he relied on that, and whenever there was one סימן he would dip use this the brine. כיוון דשמעינא להא דאמר רב יהודה משמיה דעולא, that since I heard what רב יהודה said in the name of עולא, that מחלוקת לטבול בצירה, that the whole מחלוקת is whether you're allowed to dip in the brine, אבל בגופן, but the fish itself, דברי הכל אסור, everyone holds אסור, עד שיהא ראש ושדרה ניכר, unless you have the head and the spine recognizable, so בצירה נמי לא מטבילנא, so I will not dip in the ציר either. Because he באמת held that you have to have both סימנים. But he thought that this דין that you have to have both סימנים is only concerning the fish itself. But when he heard that concerning the fish itself there is no מחלוקת, but the מחלוקת is concerning the ציר, in other words, the one that holds that you have to have both סימנים is talking about the ציר, and since he also held that you have to have both סימנים, so therefore, he holds that you can't even eat the ציר. So from then on, he stopped eating the ציר. Then the גמרא says, אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, הלכתא, the הלכה is, עד שיהא ראש ושדרה ניכר של כל אחת ואחת, that only time you're allowed to eat it is if you could recognize the head and the spine from each individual fish. The

גמרא asks a קשיא, מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא, we learned: חתיכות שיש בהן סימן, you have pieces, and they have a סימן, בין בכולן בין במקצתן, whether the סימן is in all the pieces, or you have a סימן only on some of the pieces, ואפילו באחת ממאה שבהן, even if you have a סימן on one out of a hundred, you have a hundred pieces, and only one of the hundred has a סימן, כולן מותרות, they are all מותר, because we say since this piece is from a כשר fish because it has the סימן, so מסתמא, all the other pieces are also from כשר fish, and you're allowed to eat them. ומעשה בערבי אחד, and there's a story with one גוי, שהביא גרב של חתיכות, he brought a barrel of pieces of fish, ונמצא סימן באחת מהן, and they found a סימן in one piece, והתיר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל את הגרב כולו, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל allowed the whole barrel. So we see here that you don't have to have a סימן on each piece. So this is a קשיא on רב פפא, who said that when can you eat it, only if each piece has a סימן. The גמרא says, תירגם רב פפא, רב פפא explained it, he answered, כשחתיכות שוות, when don't you need a סימן on each piece, if the pieces are equal, which means they fit one into another. You could see that when you put them together, it all makes up one big piece of fish. It's like a puzzle that it fits in. So then, if you have a סימן on one piece, and the rest fit together with this piece, you know that they came from this piece, from the same fish, and therefore you're allowed to eat them all. But otherwise, you're not allowed to eat the pieces unless each piece has the סימן. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, מאי למימרא, why does he have to tell us that? If the ברייתא there is talking in a case where the pieces fit together, then it's obvious that if one piece has a סימן, then you could eat the rest. Why did the ברייתא have to tell us that? And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would have thought, ניחוש, let's be afraid, דילמא איתרמי, maybe it happened that that really the different pieces are not from the same fish. Ah, you put them together and it fits, it just happened that it was cut in the same way, that when you put it together it fits, but really it is not from the same fish, and therefore you should not rely on the סימן that you found in one that you should be able to eat the rest, קא משמע לן, that's why it tells us that we don't suspect it, and we assume that it probably all came from the same piece, and therefore, if you find a סימן in one and the rest fit together, you're allowed to eat the rest. But otherwise, you're not allowed to eat the rest unless each piece has a סימן. Then the גמרא continues,

ההוא ארבא דצחנתא, there was this whole shipload of צחנתא, as we said before, it is חילק, which is a כשר fish, דאתא לסיכרא, came to סיכרא. נפק רב הונא בר חיננא, רב הונא בר חיננא went out, וחזא בקלפא, he saw, on the side of this boat, he saw scales, ושריא, so he allowed the whole boatload of fish. And as תוספות explains that this was a boatload of one kind of fish, because if it would have more than one kind, then it would be no ראיה that they're all the כשר fish. Maybe these scales fell off of the כשר ones, and the other מין is not כשר. But we're talking in a case where the whole boatload had the same מין. And since he saw a scale on the side of the boat, so he assumed that the scales came from this fish, and that's a ראיה that this is כשר fish, and he allowed them to buy all the fish. אמר ליה רבא, רבא said to him, ומי איכא דשרי כי האי גוונא, is there anybody that is מתיר in such a case, באתרא דשכיחי קלפי, in a place where you find the scales? Because maybe, after all, there are two kinds of fish in this boat. Maybe some are כשר, some are not כשר, even though they look alike, but maybe some are not כשר. And the scales that you found there are from the כשר ones, but there are also non-כשר there. נפיק שיפורא דרבא ואסר, so רבא went out and made an announcement that you are not allowed to eat the fish. שיפורא דרב הונא בר חיננא ושרי, an announcement came out from רב הונא בר חיננא that you're allowed. And the גמרא says,

אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי, רב ירמיה מדיפתי said, לדידי אמר לי רב פפא, רב פפא told me, כי שרא רב הונא בר חיננא, what did רב הונא בר חיננא allow? בצירן, only to use the brine, אבל בגופן, but to use the fish themselves, לא, he didn't allow. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, ודידי אמר לי רב פפא, that רב פפא said to me, כי שרא רב הונא בר חיננא, אפילו בגופן, that רב הונא בר חיננא allowed even the fish itself, not like you said in the name of רב פפא, that רב הונא בר חיננא only allowed the brine, but not the fish, that רב פפא told me that רב הונא בר חיננא allowed the fish itself also. And therefore, רב אשי is saying, ואנא, I, and so he's saying, לא מיסר אסרינא, I can't אסר it, I can't forbid it, because דקאמר לי רב פפא, because of what רב פפא told me. He said that רב הונא בר חיננא was מתיר even the fish itself, so how can I say that it's אסור? ולא מישרא שרינא, but I cannot allow it either, דהא אמר רב יהודה משמיה דעולא, because of what רב יהודה said in the name of עולא, that מחלוקת לתבל בצירן, the מחלוקת, as we said before, between רב הונא and רב נחמן, whether you have to have both סימנים or one סימן is enough, that is only concerning dipping your bread in the brine, אבל בגופן, but to eat the fish itself, דברי הכל, everyone agrees, עד שיהא ראש ושדרה ניכר של כל אחד ואחד, until you could recognize the head and the spine of each piece of fish. So how can I say that you're allowed to eat the fish when we said before that everyone agrees that the fish itself you cannot eat unless you recognize each piece with both סימנים? Therefore, he said, I can't allow it, but I can't אסר it either because of what רב פפא said. Then the גמרא continues, יתיב רב חיננא בריה דרב אידי קמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה, רב חיננא בריה דרב אידי that was sitting in front of רב אדא בר אהבה, ויתיב וקאמר, and sitting and saying, עובד כוכבים שהביא עריבה מליאה חביות, that if a גוי brought a boatload full of barrels, barrels of brine, meaning, והשתכח כילבית באחת מהן, and you found this כילבית, which is the סימן that this is כשר brine, in one of the barrels, פתוחות, if the barrels were open, כולן מותרות, you are allowed to eat them all, even though you found the כילבית in one of the barrels, but you are allowed to eat all the barrels, the brine of all the barrels, because this is a סימן that all of them are from the same kind and they're all כשר. סתומות, if they were closed, היא מותרת, the barrel itself in which one you found the כילבית is מותר, וכולן, but the rest of them, אסורות, are אסור. אמר ליה, so he said to him, מנא לך הא, where do you know this from? אמר ליה, he said to him, מתלתא קראי שמיע לי, I heard it from three great people. And he called the three great people קראי, because קראי comes from the word קרא, which means פסוקים, and he meant to say, these are three people that you could rely on what they said as much as you could rely on a פסוק. And who are these people? מירב, I heard it from רב, ושמואל, and שמואל, ורבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן. Then the גמרא says, אמר רב ברונא אמר רב, רב ברונא said in the name of רב, קרבי דגים ועוברן, the insides of the fish and their roe, and their children that are inside, really meaning their eggs, אין ניקחין, you cannot buy, אלא מן המומחה, only from an expert, only somebody that you could trust, but otherwise you can't buy it סתם from a גוי, because we are afraid, maybe it is from non-כשר fish. אמר ליה עולא לרב דוסתאי דמן בירי, עולא asked a question to רב דוסתאי of בירי, מכדי קאמר רב, since רב said, קרבי דגים ועוברן אין ניקחין אלא מן המומחה, that the insides of the fish and their עוברין, their eggs, cannot be bought only from a מומחה, מכלל, that proves, דדג טמא אית ליה עובר, that a non-כשר fish also has a עובר inside, also has the concept of eggs. Since you have to buy it from a מומחה, because otherwise we are not sure it came from a כשר fish, maybe it's from a non-כשר fish, this shows that non-כשר fish also have the עוברין, also have the eggs. ורמיניה, but I'll ask you a קשיא, we learned, דג טמא משריץ, דג טהור מטיל ביצים, that a non-כשר fish, the way it gives birth to other fish is משריץ, that the fish come out from this mother fish. By a כשר fish, it lays eggs, and then from the eggs come new fish. So we see that non-כשר fish don't lay eggs. So why is the דין that when you buy eggs of fish you must buy it from a מומחה, because otherwise we are not sure that these eggs came from a כשר fish, but it's impossible that it should come from a non-כשר fish, when we say that a non-כשר fish doesn't lay any eggs? So he said to him, סמי מכאן עובר, okay, take out, cross out the word עובר, that when we quoted in the name of רב that you should buy it only from a מומחה, so the way we

quoted it before was that קרבי דגים, the insides of the fish, ועוברן, and the עוברן, you must buy from a מומחה. So he says, cross out the word עוברן, and let the statement be just that he said the insides of fish you must buy from a מומחה, but not עוברן because there is no such thing as עוברן from a non-כשר fish and therefore you don't have to buy it only from a מומחה. אמר ליה רב זירא, so רב זירא said to him, לא תסמי, do not take it out, because תרווייהו מטילי ביצים נינהו, because both lay eggs, kosher fish and non-kosher fish. אלא זה משריץ מבחוץ וזה משריץ מבפנים. The only difference is how the eggs hatch. In a kosher fish, the eggs hatch on the outside. In a non-kosher fish, the eggs hatch in the inside, and when it comes out from the fish, it comes out already a fish. But really, inside there are eggs. So therefore, when you buy eggs of fish from a גוי or from somebody you can't trust, maybe he took it from a non-kosher fish from inside the stomach of the non-kosher fish, and they do have eggs inside. Then the גמרא asks, למה לי מומחה, why must you buy these eggs from a מומחה, from somebody that you trust, but otherwise you are not sure is this from a kosher fish, נבדוק בסימנים, why can't we check in the סימנים of these eggs? Cause there are סימנים that could tell you whether it is from a kosher fish or a non-kosher fish. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, כסימני ביצים כך סימני דגים. The

same סימנים we find concerning eggs of birds, the same סימנים are concerning fish whether it is kosher or not. So the גמרא asks right away, סימני דגים סלקא דעתך? How can you say that the סימנים of eggs are the same as the סימנים of fish? סימני דגים סנפיר וקשקשת כתיב בהו. The סימנים of fish is fins and scales, as it says in the תורה, but there is no such thing as fins and scales by eggs. So how can the ברייתא say that the סימנים of eggs are the same as the סימנים of fish? אלא, therefore we must say the פשט in the ברייתא is: כסימני ביצים, just like the סימנים of eggs of birds, כך סימני עוברי דגים. So too are the סימנים of the עוברי of fish, which means the סימנים of the eggs of fish are the same as the סימנים of the eggs of birds. ואלו הן סימני ביצים, and these are the סימנים of eggs of birds: כל שקוטרס ועגולגל, they are arched and rolling, means that if ראש אחד כד וראש אחד חד, if one end is round and one end is pointy, טהורה, that it's טהור, that shows that it came from a kosher bird. ושני ראשיה חדין, if both ends are pointy, ושני ראשיה כדין, or both ends are round, טמאה, you know it's a non-kosher egg, you know it came from a non-kosher bird. חלמון מבחוץ וחלבון מבפנים, if the yellow is on the outside and the white is on the inside, טמאה, you know this is a non-kosher egg. חלבון מבחוץ וחלמון מבפנים, if the white is on the outside and the yellow is on the inside, טהורה, you know it's a kosher egg. חלבון וחלמון מעורבין זה בזה, if the white and the yellow are mixed into each other, then זו היא ביצת השרץ, then you know this is an egg of a reptile. But in the meantime we see here that it says that the סימנים of the eggs of fish are the same as the סימנים of the eggs of birds. So why is the דין that when you buy eggs of fish you must buy them from a מומחה, and otherwise you cannot tell if it is from a kosher fish or not, when here we see clearly that there are סימנים to tell whether it is from a kosher fish or not?

אמר רבא, so רבא said: כשנימוחו, when they were pressed. That's when you have to buy it only from a מומחה. If it is whole, then you could tell by the סימנים, but if it is squashed, it's pressed, then you have to buy it from a מומחה because there is no other way you could tell whether it is from a kosher fish or a non-kosher fish. Then the גמרא asks, ולרב דוסתאי דמן בירי, according to what רב דוסתאי from בירי said before, דאמר, he said, סום מכאן עוברן, take away from here עוברן, he said before we should erase, we should cross out the words עוברן from the statement of רב. And the reason was, as we said before, because he said that there is no such things as eggs by fish, therefore he crossed it out. But והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, כסימני ביצים כך סימני עוברי דגים, that just like the סימנים of eggs of birds, the same סימנים apply to the eggs of fish. So we see that fish do have eggs? The גמרא says, לאו תירוצא קא מתרצת לה? Didn't you have to explain the ברייתא anyway? The way the ברייתא was written originally, it was completely different. It said that just like you have סימנים of eggs, you also have סימנים of fish. But we just asked, that couldn't be, so we had to change it and say that it means that just like the סימנים of eggs are the סימנים of the eggs of fish. But that's not what it said in the ברייתא originally, you just had to fix it up. Now if you're fixing it up anyway, according to him, you'll fix it up differently and say: כך סימני קרבי דגים, that just like you have סימנים of eggs, so too are the סימנים of the inside of the fish, not the fish entrails. But then the גמרא asks, והיכא משכחת בסימני קרבי דגים שיהא כד וחד? But where do we find that the סימנים of the fish entrails should be rounded and pointed? The גמרא answers: משכחת לה בשיפוחא, it is found with the fish bladder. Then the גמרא asks, ואין שם מומחה מאי, if there is no מומחה, what do we do? As we said before, that if we buy the eggs from the fish when it's not pressed, then we have סימנים how to check it out to see whether it's kosher or not. But if it's pressed, the only way we could know if the eggs are from a kosher fish or not is if we buy it from a מומחה, from a person that you trust, a person who is an expert, and he knows the difference between a כשר and non-כשר one, and you trust him. So that's when you could buy. So the question is, if you don't have a מומחה, what do you do then?

אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה said, כיון דאמר, if he says, אנא מלכתין, I salted them and he says, "I know this from a כשר fish," מותרין, you're allowed to eat it because you trust him. רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן says, עד שיאמר, אלו דגים ואלו קרביהן, should be able to show you, "These are the fish and these are the insides." In other words, it is not enough if he just says, "I salted them, and I tell you it's from a כשר fish." But he has to also show you the fish where these insides came from. גמרא concludes, אורי ליה רב יהודה לאדא דיילא, that רב יהודה instructed אדא, the servant, that כיון דאמר אני מלכתין, that as soon as he says, "I salted it," מותרין, it's מותר. He doesn't have to produce the fish where it came from. But if he says, "I salted it and I saw it originally before it was pressed and I saw that it was from a כשר fish," you could trust him and you could eat it. Then the גמרא continues. It also said in the משנה that you're allowed to eat ועלה של חילתית, the leaf of חילתית. חילתית itself, we said before, is not allowed to be eaten. Because they cut the חילתית and they use a knife which is non-כשר. And since the חילתית is sharp, the taste that it will absorb from the non-כשר knife will not be a נותן טעם לפגם, a bad taste, but a good taste. Therefore it's אסור. But the leaf of the חילתית, that is מותר. So the גמרא asks, פשיטא. Certainly it's מותר. Since the leaf was not cut, then why should it be אסור? And the גמרא says, לא נצרכא, it doesn't have to tell us, אלא לקרטין שבו, a drop. That if a drop of it is on the leaf, that also is allowed to be eaten. Because מהו דתימא, I would have thought למיחש, let's be afraid דלמא מייץ ומערב ליה, maybe he brought this from someplace else and mixed it in here. And באמת this drop came from another חילתית that was cut with a knife and that was brought here. And therefore you shouldn't be able to eat this leaf because of this drop. קא משמע לן, that's why he tells us, דההוא אשתרוקי הוא דאשתרוק ואתא בהדה. That the drop that was found on the leaf really detached itself and came here on the leaf, but was not cut. And therefore you are allowed to eat it. Then the גמרא continues. It

said in the משנה, ועיגולי רסק המגוגלין, you are allowed to eat the rolled olive cakes. The גמרא says, פשיטא, certainly. Why would you think that you shouldn't be able to eat it? Why does the משנה have to tell us that you're allowed to eat it? גמרא answers, לא נצרכא, it doesn't have to tell us, but the חידוש is that אף על גב דרפי טובי, even though it is very soft. It was rolled a lot and it's very soft, still you're allowed to eat it. Because מהו דתימא, I would have thought חמרא רמי בהו, that they put wine in it. Why is it so soft? Because probably they put wine in it and then you shouldn't be able to eat it. קא משמע לן, that's why he tells us, that האני דהא, this מחמת משחא הוא דרפי, the reason they are soft is because of the oil, but not because of wine and therefore you're allowed to eat it. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, ורבי יוסי, and רבי יוסי says, שלחין אסורין, that the שלחין are אסור. היכי דמי שלחין? What do we mean שלחין? אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא, so רבי יוסי בר חנינא said, כל שאוחזו בידו וגרעינתו נשמטת, that these are olives that you just hold in your hand and the pit falls out. The stones fall out. That's why it's called שלחין because it's comes from the word שלח, it sends, it sends it out. And the reason that it is אסור is because why is it so soft that the pit fall out? Because the גוי put wine on it and that's why רבי יוסי says it is אסור. Then the גמרא continues. It

said in the משנה, החגבים הבאין וכולי, that the locusts that come מן הסלולא אסורין, that the locusts that come from the shopkeeper's basket, they are forbidden. But if it comes from the stock, then they're allowed. That's what the משנה says. So the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, החגבים, the locusts, והקפריסין, and the capers, והקפלוטות, and the leeks, הבאים מן האוצר, that they come from the warehouse, או מן ההפתק, or from the stock, או מן הספינה, from the boat, מותרים, are מותר, are allowed. הנמכרים בקטלוזא לפני חנוני, and those that are sold in the counter in front of the shop, אסורים, they are אסור, מפני שמזלף יין עליהם, because they would pour, they would spray wine on them. But while it was in stock, they wouldn't spray the wine. That's why it's מותר. וכן יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים, the same דין applies וכן יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים, the same דין applies to apple cider of גוים. הבאים מן האוצר, those that come from the warehouse, מן ההפתק, and from the stock, ומן הסלולא, from the basket, מותרים, are מותר. הנמכר בקטלוזא, those that are sold by the counter, אסור, they are אסור. Why? מפני שמערבין בו יין, because in those they would mix in wine. But one might ask concerning the חגבים, the קפריסין and קפלוטות, that even though, since it was in stock, they don't mix any wine in it. They don't spray it with wine. It still should be אסור because of בישול עכו"ם, because it's cooked by the גוים. So רש"י explains, that would not make it אסור because these are things that could be eaten raw, and we learned before, anything that could be eaten raw, there is no דין of בישול עכו"ם. I, let's ask another question: why did it be אסור because they were cooked in the כלים of the גוים, so that it absorbed the taste of the non-kosher food that was absorbed originally in the כלים? So רש"י says, that that is נותן טעם לפגם, because the taste that will come out from that into these things will not be a good taste, and as we said before, נותן טעם לפגם is מותר. Another thing important to mention here is, that when the גמרא gives the three examples, that if it comes from the אוצר or from the הפתק, or from the ספינה, from the warehouse or from the storage or from the boat, the order is, as תוספות says, זו ואף זו. Because in an אוצר it lasts longer than in a הפתק, which means in the warehouse it lasts longer than in the stock, and in the stock it lasts longer than in the boat. And what the ברייתא is telling us, that not only if it is in the warehouse it is מותר, because there we are sure that no wine was mixed into it, but even if it was in stock we are also sure. And not only that, even it was in the boat, which is already closer of selling it, also we don't suspect that wine was mixed into it. Then the גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: פעם אחת, one time, חש רבי במיעיו, רבי had a disorder with his stomach. אמר, he said: כלום יש אדם שיודע, is there any person here that knows the דין, that יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים אסור או מותר, that if wine of apples, which means apple cider, of גוים, is it אסור or מותר? Because he knew that apple cider would help his sickness, so he asked if he's allowed to buy the apple cider from the גוים. אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי, so רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי said to him: פעם אחת חש אבא במיעיו, once my father had trouble with his stomach, והביאו לו יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים, and they brought to him the apple cider of גוים, של ע' שנה, which was 70 years old, ושתה, and he drank it, ונתרפא, and he was cured. So we see that you are allowed. אמר לו, so he said to him: כל כך היה בידך, so much was in your hand! In other words, you knew so much, you had so much information, ואתה מצערני, and you are מצער me, and you let me suffer? בדקו, they look into it, ומצאו, and they found, עובד כוכבים אחד, one גוי, שהיה לו שלש מאות גרבי יין של תפוחים, he had 300 barrels of apple cider, של ע' שנה, that were 70 years old, ושתה, and רבי drank from it, ונתרפא, and he was cured. אמר, he said: ברוך המקום, blessed should be השם, שמסר עולמו לשומרים, that He gave over His world to guards. In other words, השם had guarded these barrels of apple cider 70 years so that רבי should be able to have it in order to be cured. Then the

משנה said: וכן לתרומה, the same דין applies to תרומה. מאי וכן לתרומה, the גמרא asks, what does the משנה mean that the same דין applies to תרומה? אמר רב ששת, רב ששת said: וכן, the same דין applies, לכהן החשוד למכור תרומה לשם חולין, concerning a כהן who we suspect that maybe he will sell תרומה saying it is חולין. תרומה, we know, is not allowed to be eaten by anybody else but a כהן. So a כהן who sells תרומה and says it's חולין, has the same דין. Because these words וכן לתרומה follow what it said right before that, that חגבים הבאים מן הסלולא אסורין, that the חגבים, the locusts that come from the counter, they are אסור, but if they come from the stock, they are מותר. So then the משנה says וכן לתרומה, the same applies to תרומה, that if you're going to buy grain from a כהן and he is a כהן that we are not sure that he doesn't sell תרומה and tells that it's חולין, he would have the same דין. That what? That לפניו הוא דאסור, that if it's in front of him, it's on the counter and he's selling you grain, then it's אסור to buy from him because we're afraid maybe it's תרומה. אבל הבא מן האוצר, but if you bring it from the warehouse, מן ההפתק, or from the stock, מן הסלולא, or from the basket, מותר, that is מותר. And the reason for that is because אירוסי מירסס, he is afraid. סבר, he thinks, שמעי בי רבנן, the רבנן will hear it, ומפסדו לי מינאי, they will spoil it for me. So therefore, if he sells it from the counter, so then he doesn't have a big risk, because if they're going to hear about it, all they're going to deprive him of is of that little bit. But if he's going to take it from the warehouse and they're going to hear about it, then they're going to deprive him from the whole warehouse, so he wouldn't take a chance. And therefore, if he says that it's חולין, we could trust him that it's חולין. הדרן עלך אין מעמידין, הדרן עלך אין מעמידין, הדרן עלך אין מעמידין. כל הצלמים אסורין מפני שנ Tour, etc.

Since we finished this פרק now, and one of the things we learned about was concerning the דין of בישול עכו"ם, that you're not allowed to eat food that was cooked by a גוי, we will try to go through בקיצור, in short, some of the different opinions that we have in the ראשונים and the אחרונים concerning this דין of בישול עכו"ם. And some of the things we had mentioned all along while we were learning the גמרא, from the תוספות, etc., and some things we haven't mentioned yet, but we will go through them בקיצור. תוספות had brought down earlier in the name name of רב אברהם בן רב דוד, and so does the מרדכי say, and so does the רבינו ירוחם hold, and so does the טור בשם הרא״ש say, that this דין of בישול עכו״ם only applies if the גוי cooked the food in his own house. But if he cooked it in the איד's house, then it's allowed. Because then there is no reason to be חושש, because the only reason why we're not allowed to eat בישול עכו״ם, as we learned before was, or because we're afraid that the גוי is going to feed a איד a non-kosher food, or because this will lead to socializing and this will lead to intermarriage. Now, if it is cooked in the איד's house, both reasons don't apply. And therefore these ראשונים hold that if it's cooked in the איד's house, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. But תוספות in the name of the רבינו תם, and also the מרדכי in the name of the רבינו תם, and also the רמב״ם in the פירוש המשניות, and the מאירי and the כל בו, and the טור, they all argue and they say that the חכמים did not make a difference between whether it is cooked in the רשות of the ישראל or in the רשות of the גוי. Always we are afraid that maybe we'll not be careful, and therefore even if it was cooked in the house of the איד, you're not allowed to eat בישול עכו״ם. On the other hand, בדיעבד there are some אחרונים that say that בדיעבד is okay. And this is brought down in the דרכי משה and in the ב״ח and they quote the איסור והתר, that בדיעבד, if it was cooked in the house of the איד, you could allow it. Now, what about if the גוי that cooked it was an עבד or a שפחה of the איד? Not only was it done in the house of the איד, but this person is an עבד, the slave, or the maid of the איד. So here we have a מחלוקת in the ראשונים. Some ראשונים say that in a case like that there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. And the reason is, because since this עבד is קנוי לישראל, he is so to speak owned by the איד, and whatever he does, all his work, all his profit goes to the איד, and on שבת we are commanded that he shouldn't do any מלאכה, because the תורה says you should see that your עבד should not do any מלאכה. So therefore he is not included in the category of a regular גוי, and therefore he is not included in the גזירה of בישול עכו״ם. This is the opinion of the רמב״ן in the תשובה he wrote to רבינו יונה in the תשובות המיוחסות, and this is also the opinion of the ארחות חיים in the name of the רמב״ן that is brought down in the בית יוסף. Or the reason would be, because the whole idea of בישול עכו״ם is because of a גזירה of חתנות, we're afraid that this will bring to intermarriage. Now, this גזירה doesn't apply by an עבד, because when could this bring to intermarriage? Only if the person who cooks, cooks מרצונו, he cooks out of his own free will, because he likes the איד, and he cooks for him, so then this could bring to intermarriage. But in the case of the עבדים and the שפחות, since they do it not because they want, they do it because they have to, this will not bring to intermarriage. This is a סברא that it says in the שבלי הלקט, and also the רא״ה in the בדק הבית brings that סברא in the name of the ריב״ב, רב מנוח. And the לבוש adds another סברא, that since the whole reason is because of חתנות, concerning the שפחות there is no חתנות. Why? Because they are low people, so nobody will ever get married with them. And also according to the other reason, that we're afraid maybe he will feed the איד a non-kosher food, this is also not שייך by a שפחה, because she is afraid of her master. And the ש״ך even explains that there is a difference להלכה between these two reasons, the two reasons we said before. One is, since the גוי is under our control so he is not really included in the דין of a גוי, since on שבת we are obligated that he should keep שבת, etc., and therefore there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. Or the other reason that we said before, because since he does it by force, he doesn't cook because he wants, but by force, therefore there is no שאלה of חתנות, and therefore there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, so the ש״ך says that there is a difference להלכה between these

two reasons. According to the first reason, then when would this דין be that by an עבד and a שפחה there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם? Only if they are קנוי לישראל, if they actually belong to the איד. But what happens if you just hire a person for a half a year or a year, etc.? So then since they don't belong to the איד, so according to the first reason there would be a דין of בישול עכו״ם concerning these servants, these slaves. But according to the second reason, that since they have to cook whether they like it or not, therefore there is no בישול עכו״ם, so even if you hired a גוי for a time, for a half a year or a year, also there would be no דין בישול עכו״ם. But this is all according to the סברא that by an עבד and a שפחה there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, and it depends on which reason it is as we said before. But the רשב״א in שאלות ותשובות חלק א׳ סימן ס״ח and also the בית יוסף brings in the name of the רא״ש that it is not so, that even עבדים ושפחות also are included in the דין of בישול עכו״ם. And the truth is that the ריטב״א says that not only are שפחות included in the דין of בישול עכו״ם, but it is even worse, since the whole חשש is that it might bring to חתנות, so in the case of a שפחה who is in the house of the איד and cooks for the איד in his house, certainly we have to be more careful of intermarriage and therefore this דין would apply there more. Now,

concerning בדיעבד, the רמ״א says that בדיעבד we could rely that if they are an עבד or a שפחה that you could be eat it, and the reason that is given is because since it is cooked in the house of the איד, it is almost impossible So that one of the people of the house shouldn't have gone over to the pot and mixed a little, and we learned that before that if a איד helped a little bit in the therefore in the case of עבדים ושפחות we could rely on this. Concerning which things are included in the דין of בישול עכו״ם, so we learned earlier in the גמרא that in סורא they said that anything which is נאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישול עכו״ם, anything which is eaten raw there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. In פומבדיתא they said that anything which is not עולה על שולחן מלכים, which would not be served on the table of a king, then there is no בישול עכו״ם there. Now concerning this there is a מחלוקת in the ראשונים. תוספות we learned said that פומבדיתא added on סורא, which means that they came to say that not only do we accept what you said in סורא that if it's eaten raw there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, but also if it is not עולה על שולחן מלכים there is also no דין of בישול עכו״ם. Which means that if we have one of the two conditions, then there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. And תוספות also says that that's the הלכה. But the רשב״א, and also the רבינו חננאל, and also the מאירי, they say that מחלוקת between פומבדיתא and סורא was not that פומבדיתא added on סורא, but each one had his own דין. In סורא they said that only if it is eaten raw there is no דין בישול עכו״ם, and in פומבדיתא they said that only if it is not עולה על שולחן מלכים there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. להלכה most of the ראשונים פסקן that if one of the two conditions are missing already there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, but nevertheless there are other ראשונים that פסקן different. The

הגהות מיימוניות in הלכות מאכלות אסורות says there that there is a סברא to say that we should be מחמיר like both לשונות, which means that it's not מותר unless it has both חסרונות, if it if it is eaten raw and is not עולה על שולחן מלכים. While the רמב״ן פסקנס that it only depends on the נאכל חי. This is the only condition that we accept, which means we פסקן like סורא, that if it is eaten raw then there is no בישול עכו״ם, but concerning עולה על שולחן מלכים we don't accept that דין. On the other hand the מאירי brings a סברא, and the ריטב״א also, that we פסקן like the פומבדיתא. That means that it only depends whether it is עולה על שולחן מלכים or not. Now concerning what is considered that you could eat it raw, so we also have a מחלוקת in the ראשונים. The ריטב״א says that what means נאכל כמות שהוא חי as long as you could eat it raw, even if most of the people don't eat it raw, but as long as it could be eaten raw, that is considered נאכל חי. But other ראשונים, the מאירי and the ריטב״א and the רבינו ירוחם say that it doesn't depend on whether it could be eaten raw, but it depends on whether people usually eat it raw, that if the custom is to eat it raw, then it's called נאכל כמות שהוא חי, and it wouldn't be under the דין of בישול עכו״ם. But if people don't eat it raw, even though you could, then it's not considered נאכל כמות שהוא חי. Now concerning what is called cooked, concerning the דין of בישול עכו״ם, so the רשב״א says and it's brought down in the טור and the שולחן ערוך that this is whether it's cooked in a pot or whether it's broiled, as long as the גוי did something with fire to make it ready to eat, that is called בישול עכו״ם and it is forbidden. And also according to some סברות, not only through fire, but if the גוי prepared it through salting, for instance if he salted a herring and that is the way you eat it, and that is instead of cooking, so according to some סברות that is also forbidden. Smoked is not considered בישול עכו״ם according to the רמב״ם, and therefore, if there were fruit that a גוי smoked and through that it became ראוי לאכילה, it is still מותר. Also it says in the ירושלמי that if you put hot water over flour and that's how you prepare the flour to be eaten, there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם. Why? Because you didn't do any מעשה through fire here. The water that was cooked through fire, there was no דין of בישול עכו״ם by the water. When you put the water over the flour, then you're not cooking through the fire, and therefore it says in ירושלמי that you are allowed. If you

mix something which has a דין of בישול עכו״ם with things that don't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם, and a גוי cooked them, what is the דין there? So it says in the שולחן ערוך, the טור, taken from the רשב״א, and also in תוספות and the ריטב״א, says that it depends: if the עיקר is the thing which does have a דין of בישול עכו״ם, it is אסור. If the עיקר is the thing that doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם, it's מותר. In other words, we always follow the עיקר, the main thing, whether it is להקל or להחמיר. And based on this, if you have bread, and according to those who eat bread of a גוי if it's from a baker, and it's mixed with eggs, so even though concerning eggs there's a דין of בישול עכו״ם, but since concerning the bread there is no דין of בישול עכו״ם, you would be able to eat it. And the same דין would apply if you have bread and it's smeared on top with egg, there should be no דין of בישול עכו״ם according to this סברא. Nevertheless, some say that in a case where you smear the eggs on top of the bread, then it is אסור of בישול עכו״ם because the egg is בעין, you could see the egg, and it is not בטל to the bread and therefore there is a דין of בישול עכו"ם. That's what it says in the רמ"א, and it also says in the דרכי משה, and he also says it in the שולחן ערוך, it's all based on the תוספות in חולין דף ס"ד עמוד א' דיבור המתחיל סימנים, and that's what it says also in the רא"ש and in the מרדכי there, that anything which is בעין, so then we do not say it's בטל to the other things. Now the תשב"ץ

writes, and it's brought down in the בית יוסף, that the sweet stuff that was made of a mixture of honey and flour, even though concerning flour there is a דין of בישול עכו"ם, nevertheless you are allowed to eat it, because the honey is the עיקר, and the only reason they put in the flour is in order it should stick, so it is טפל to the honey, and therefore you're allowed to eat it, but nevertheless, an אדם חשוב should be מחמיר and not eat it. But the רמ"א writes in the דרכי משה that this is only if when they made this mixture it was very loose, in such a way that the ברכה would be a שהכל. But if the mixture is thick, and you would have to make a בורא מיני מזונות on it, even though you don't make המוציא if you are not קובע סעודה on it, but only a מזונות, but nevertheless in a case like that, the flour is not טפל to the honey. Then this would have a דין of פת עכו"ם and not of בישול עכו"ם. We know by פת עכו"ם some people have a מנהג that if it was baked by a baker a גוי, it is מותר. So according to them, so then this cake would also be מותר, because it would not be considered בישול עכו"ם, but it would be considered פת עכו"ם. And that is a general rule that is written in the אחרונים, that anything which you make a ברכה of מזונות on, but if you would be קובע סעודה on that you would have to make המוציא and then בענטש, which means if you would sit down and establish your סעודה on that cake you would have to make המוציא and later on you would have to בענטש, this has a דין of פת עכו"ם, not of בישול עכו"ם. But anything that you would never make המוציא on even if you would be קובע סעודה on it, then it goes into category of בישול, and there is no היתר, even in the case where there would be a היתר on bread, but there would be no היתר on that, because that is not bread, but that is called בישול. Now if you

had a mixture of something that is אסור already from בישול עכו"ם, it was cooked by a גוי and it's אסור, and it got mixed with a מאכל of היתר, and you can't separate it, so the דין is it is בטל ברוב. That's what the נימוקי יוסף writes, and that's what it says in the איסור והיתר, in the תורת חטאת, and that's what the רמ"א writes in the שולחן ערוך, and that's what is brought down in the ש"ך also. And this applies whether the mixture was מין במינו with the same kind, or מין בשאינו מינו, or if it was mixed in the other food that was a different kind than the food of בישול עכו"ם, whether it was in לח or in יבש, whether it was mixed in the wet where then there is a דין of ששים usually, or it's being mixed in יבש where there is usually a דין of רוב, in this case it would always be a דין of ביטול ברוב. That's what it says in the איסור והיתר and in the תורת חטאת there. Some say that you do need the דין of ששים like you would have to be מבטל every other איסור. That's what it says in the ש"ך, in the פרי חדש. Now concerning the כלים, the vessels that the גוי cooked the food in, so some say that they are אסור and you have to כשר them, because anything that the חכמים made אסור, so then its פליטה, the taste that's absorbed in the כלי is also אסור, and therefore when you will use that כלי later on to cook other food, the other food will absorb the taste that was absorbed in the כלי from the בישול עכו"ם, and therefore it should be אסור. This is what it says in the רשב"א and in the ר"ן and in the ריטב"א, and in the ארחות חיים, in the בית יוסף, and one דעה also brought down in the שולחן ערוך. But some say that the כלים are מותר without כשר'ינג them, because the חכמים when they אסר'ד בישול עכו"ם did not אסר the כלים. And the reason would be because the whole idea why you're not allowed to eat בישול עכו"ם mainly is because of חתנות and קירוב הדעת, in order not to intermarry, not to get close to the גוים, and this will not happen by eating the taste of the בישול עכו"ם that was absorbed in the כלי. This is the opinion of the ר"ן in the בדק הבית and also of the ריטב"א in the name of the ר"ן, and the טור brings it in the name of the רא"ש, and this is the second דעה that is brought down in the שולחן ערוך in the name of the יש אומרים. And even according to those that hold that you do have to כשר, if it is a כלי חרס, an earthenware, which normally we know that earthenware cannot be כשר, still if it's בלע, if it absorbed בישול עכו"ם, you could כשר it three times and that's enough. Even though normally it doesn't help, but since בישול עכו"ם is an איסור מדרבנן and doesn't have an עיקר מן התורה, it doesn't have a source in the תורה, so therefore even by a כלי חרס if you כשר it three times it's enough. בדיעבד, if a person used a כלי that was originally used for בישול עכו"ם and cooked a דבר היתר, a food which is מותר in it, and there is רוב in the food, there is a majority in the food against the בישול עכו"ם, then the דין is it is מותר. That's what the ש"ך says.

Concerning a ספק of בישול עכו"ם, the דין is that ספק is מותר. Since the whole דין of בישול עכו"ם is only איסור דרבנן, if there's a ספק whether the גוי cooked it or not, it is מותר. That's how the רמ"א פסק'נס it in the שולחן ערוך. Now concerning cooking בישול עכו"ם for a sick person, so normally we know that all other איסורים you're only allowed to give it to a חולה שיש בו סכנה. If he's sick and his life is in danger, then we say פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה. Then a person's life pushes away all the איסורים. But concerning בישול עכו"ם, the רא"ה writes in בית הבית, and the רשב"א in the משמרת הבית, and the מאירי, and the ר"ן, and also the רבינו ירוחם, and it's פסקנ'ד in שולחן ערוך that even if it's a חולה שאין בו סכנה, if the person is sick and his life is not in danger, still he's allowed to eat בישול עכו"ם. And the reason is not because it is only an איסור דרבנן, because the דין is that a חולה שאין בו סכנה is not allowed to eat איסור דרבנן neither. But by בישול עכו"ם it is different, because בישול עכו"ם there is no איסור in the food itself. The איסור is because it was cooked by a גוי that the חכמים didn't want that the גוי should cook. So the חכמים were not מחמיר by בישול עכו"ם more than they were מחמיר by מעשה שבת. By שבת the דין is that you're allowed to have a גוי do all the מלאכות for you if you are sick, even if it's חולה שאין בו סכנה. If a גוי does it, it's allowed. So the חכמים were not מחמיר concerning בישול עכו"ם more than by מעשה שבת, and therefore they allowed that בישול of a גוי concerning a חולה שאין בו סכנה. Or another reason is because the whole איסור of בישול עכו"ם is because it might bring to חתנות, and might bring to intermarriage, to socialize. But when you cook for a sick person, this will not bring to any קירוב הדעת, any socializing, especially that why would we ask the גוי to cook? Because a ייד is not allowed to cook. It's a time when the ייד can't cook, and that's why we asked the גוי. So then we should say that this should bring to קירוב הדעת, we don't expect. Another reason is given that since by בישול עכו"ם the חכמים said that if there is a היכר, there is something done to show that this is different, you are allowed to eat it. For instance, if the ייד put a piece of wood in, or he started the fire, etc., then you're allowed. So if you're allowed when you make a היכר, so the reason you would ask the גוי to cook for the חולה is because it is a day the ייד can't cook, because it's שבת for instance, so that itself is the best היכר. And therefore, you're allowed to ask a גוי to cook for a ייד who is sick even if it's אין בו סכנה on שבת, and he's allowed to eat it. But

according to this סברא, this is only on שבת when the שבת itself is the היכר. But to ask a גוי to cook for a ייד who is sick and אין בו סכנה in the weekdays, it טאקע wouldn't be allowed. And there's also a מחלוקת in the ראשונים concerning the דין that if you did cook for the חולה שאין בו סכנה on שבת through a גוי, and it was some of it was left over for מוצאי שבת, is that allowed to be eaten? So some say you're allowed because now when you're going to eat it, there is no חשש of חתנות in this food, and some say that after שבת you're not allowed to eat it, and not only other people can't eat it, even the חולה himself can't eat it. On שבת, when there was no choice, a ייד couldn't cook, so he had to ask a גוי to cook, so the חולה was allowed to eat it. But after שבת, now even the sick person himself can't eat it. And certainly that another person who is not sick, certainly according to these ראשונים cannot eat.