Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ״ז ע״א. We will start six lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא starts, ההוא, that there was a story, דהוה בבירם, that was in the city בירם, דההוא עובד כוכבים דהוה סליק בדיקלא, there was this גוי who was climbing on a palm tree, ואייתי לולבא, and he brought a לולב, he brought down a branch from the palm tree. בהדי דקא נחית, while he was coming down, נגע ברישא דלולבא בחמרא שלא בכוונה, he touched with the tip of his לולב, of the branch, in wine, in a jug of wine, without intention. שרייה רב לזבוניה לעובדי כוכבים, that רב allowed it to be sold to a גוי. In other words, he said that you're not allowed to drink it, but it is מותר בהנאה, you're allowed to sell it and take the money. אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב, that רב כהנא and רב אסי said to רב, והא מר הוא דאמר, aren't you the one that says תינוק בן יומו עושה יין נסך, that even if a child a day old touches wine, it becomes יין נסך? And when a child a day old touches it, obviously it is without כוונה, because a child doesn't have the שכל to have כוונה, and nevertheless, he פסקנ׳ט, this makes יין נסך. So why should the case here where the גוי touched the wine without כוונה, you say that it's allowed to be sold, it's מותר

בהנאה? אמר להו, so he said to them, אימר דאמרי אנא בשתיה, when I said that a child a day old is able to make the wine יין נסך, what I meant was that then it would be forbidden to, that people should drink it. בהנאה מי אמרי, did I say it's also אסור בהנאה, that you won't be able to have any use from it? That I never said. In other words, if a גוי touched it without כוונה, it is מותר בהנאה. And therefore, if a גויישע child a day old touched it, which is automatically without כוונה, it also would be מותר בהנאה. Then the גמרא goes into this, it's a דין, גופא, here we're going to discuss the דין itself. אמר רב, רב said, תינוק בן יומו עושה יין נסך, a child that's a day old could turn the wine into יין נסך. איתיביה רב סימי בר חייא לרב, so רב סימי בר חייא asked the question to רב: we learned the ברייתא, הלוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו, you buy slaves, גויישע slaves, from a גוי, and these slaves went through מילה, but they didn't go to the מקוה, because when you buy an עבד, he also has to go through the same process as גיור. Just like when a גוי wants to convert, he has to go through the process of מילה and טבילה, he has to be circumcised and also he has to be taken to the מקוה, so when you buy an עבד כנעני, he also has to go through this process, because an עבד כנעני is not really a גוי anymore. As the

רמב״ם says, an עבד כנעני goes out from the category of a גוי, but doesn't enter into the category of a ייד. And an עבד כנעני is מחוייב במצות, is מחוייב in the same מצות that a woman is מחוייב in. And therefore, he has to go through מילה and טבילה. So if you buy an עבד from a גוי, and he went through מילה, but he didn't go through טבילה, וכן בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו, and also if you have גויישע female maids, female slaves, in the home of a ייד, and they gave birth to a child, and that child went through מילה and not טבילה, and as רש״י explains, this must be talking in a case where the mother didn't go through טבילה yet. Because if the mother, the שפחה כנענית herself, went through טבילה and then she gave birth to the child, then the child doesn't have to go through anything. The child needs מילה like any עבד needs מילה, but not as part of the process of him becoming an עבד. Because if he was born from a mother that already became a full-fledged שפחה כנענית and she went through טבילה, then the child automatically is an עבד כנעני מיט כל הדינים. The case here is that the שפחה כנענית was in a יידישע home, but she herself didn't go through טבילה yet, and the child she gave birth to went through מילה and not טבילה. So the דין is in both of these cases, whether you buy an עבד from a גוי and he went through מילה without טבילה, and the case where if he was born from a שפחה כנענית, but he went through just מילה without טבילה, so the דין is: רוקן ומדרסן בשוק טמא, their spit and their stepping in the street is טמא. And as רש״י explains, it means even in the street. The חכמים said that every גוי has a דין like a זב. And the דין is by a זב that his spit and the place he steps on is טמא. And even though the דין is that in the street which is a רשות הרבים, a public place, ספק טומאה טהור, if there's ever doubt concerning טומאה, so the דין is, in a רשות היחיד, in a private place, ספק טומאה is טמא, in the רשות הרבים, in a public place, ספק טומאה is טהור. So we would think that the spit and the stepping of these people would be טהור in the רשות הרבים. So we say no, even in the רשות הרבים the spit is טמא, because the טומאה is not a ספק טומאה, but it's a ודאי טומאה. The חכמים made the גזירה, made a דין that every גוי should be like a זב. And that is not a ספק, but it is a ודאי דין מדרבנן. And therefore, the spit and the stepping of these עבדים makes it טמא because they are like זבים. ואמרו לו טהור, but some say that their spit and their stepping is טהור. And the reason is, because since it's only a גזירה מדרבנן, and an עבד that should go through מילה and not טבילה is a מילתא דלא שכיחא, that's not a common thing. And we have a rule: מילתא דלא שכיחא לא גזרו בה רבנן, that anything which is not common, the חכמים did not make a גזירה on that. And therefore the חכמים did not make the גזירה concerning this uncommon thing of an עבד who went through מילה and not טבילה. Then the ברייתא continues, יינם, what about their wine? גדולים, the adults, עושים יין נסך, would turn the wine into יין נסך. קטנים, the children, אין עושים יין נסך, they would not turn it into יין נסך. ואלו הן גדולים ואלו הן קטנים, the ברייתא explains, these are the ones that are considered adults and these are the ones that are considered children: גדולים, adults, means יודעים בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה, those that know the nature, the meaning of עבודה זרה and those things that are used for עבודה זרה. קטנים, who is considered a child? אינם יודעים בטיב עבודה זרה ומשמשיה, those that do not know the nature, the meaning of עבודה זרה and its משמשים, which means that קטנים and גדולים doesn't depend on age, it depends on whether they know the meaning of עבודה זרה and the things that are used to it, and those that don't know. This is the ברייתא. קתני מיהת, at any event you learned in the ברייתא, גדולים אין, that the adult would turn the wine into יין נסך, קטנים לא, but the children would not turn it into יין נסך. This contradicts what רב said, that even a child of one day old would turn the wine into יין נסך. And the גמרא answers, תרגמה אבני שפחה. It could be explained that when the ברייתא makes a difference between גדולים and קטנים, and says that קטנים would not turn it into יין נסך, is only in the case of בני שפחה. In the ברייתא we had two cases: one case is if you buy an עבד from a גוי who went through מילה and not טבילה, and the other case is if an עבד was born from a שפחה in a Jewish home, but the עבד went through only מילה and not טבילה. Now the difference is, when you buy an עבד from a גוי, he wasn't raised in a Jewish home, but the עבד that was born from the שפחה in the Jewish home, he was raised in the Jewish home. So the חכמים were מיקל concerning this עבד that was born in the Jewish home. And therefore we say that the פשט in the ברייתא is that when the ברייתא says that קטנים would not turn it into יין נסך, it only refers to the עבד that was born from the שפחה in the Jewish home. But concerning the עבד that was bought from a גוי, there there is no difference between קטנים and גדולים, even קטנים would turn it into יין נסך. But the עבד that was born from the שפחה in the Jewish home, that's where we make the difference between גדולים and קטנים. But the גמרא asks, how can you say that's the פשט in the ברייתא? והא וכן קאמר! Doesn't the ברייתא say וכן? וכן means and so and similar and the same. The ברייתא starts off by saying, if you buy עבדים from גוים and they went through מילה without טבילה, וכן בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו, and the same דין would apply to the children of the שפחות that were in the Jewish home that went through מילה and not טבילה. And then the ברייתא tells us the דין concerning both of them, that their spit and their stepping is טמא, some say it's טהור, concerning the wine there's a difference between גדולים and קטנים, so it seems as if all the דינים mentioned in the ברייתא refer to both of them. So how can we say now that this דין that the ברייתא says that קטנים would not turn it into יין נסך only refers to the first case, the עבדים that were bought by the גוי? And the גמרא answers, ארוקם ומדרסם. When the ברייתא says וכן, that there's the same דין in the בני שפחות שמלו ולא טבלו as the עבדים that were bought from the גוים, only concerning the first part of the ברייתא, concerning the first דין. The first דין the ברייתא says what? That their spit and their stepping in the street is טמא, and some say it's טהור. Concerning that דין, the דין of the עבדים that were bought from the גוים and the דין of the בני השפחה שמלו ולא טבלו are the same, and that's what the ברייתא means וכן. But concerning the next case of the ברייתא where it says that the יין of the קטנים is not יין נסך, that refers only to the second case. Then the גמרא asks, הא ניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר טמא, according to the one that says טמא, because in the ברייתא concerning the spit and the מדרס we have two opinions: one opinion is טמא, and one opinion is טהור. So according to the one that says טמא, we understand why the ברייתא connects the two. The ברייתא tells us that not only is the spit of the עבדים that were bought by the גוים שמלו ולא טבלו טמא, but also the בני שפחה שמלו ולא טבלו, their spit and their stepping is also טמא. But when understand why the ברייתא says וכן concerning that דין. אלא למאן דאמר טהור, but according to the one that says that their spit and their stepping is טהור, מאי איכא למימר, what can you say? Because if the דין is that spit and their מדרס of the עבדים that were bought by the גוים is טהור, so certainly that the spit and the מדרס of the בני השפחה שמלו ולא טבלו is certainly טהור. Because, as we see, the דין of the עבדים that were bought by the גוים is stricter than the דין of the בני השפחה, because the בני השפחה were raised in the Jewish home. So, if the דין is that even the רוק and the מדרס of the עבדים that were bought by the גוים is טהור, certainly it is of the בני השפחה. So, therefore, why did the ברייתא have to say וכן בני השפחה? Concerning which דין did the ברייתא want to compare the בני השפחה to the עבדים? Concerning the דין of the רוק and the מדרס which is טהור, there is no reason for the ברייתא to say that, because it's self-understood that if the עבדים that were bought by the גוים, their רוק and their מדרס is טהור, certainly of the בני השפחה. Concerning יין נסך, we just said before, the דין only applies to the בני השפחה and not to the לוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים, אז ממילא it's actually not the same. So, really, according to the opinion that says טהור, the ברייתא should have said as follows: that if you buy עבדים from the גוים that מלו ולא טבלו, their spit and their מדרס is טהור, not to mention anything with בני השפחה because that's self-understood. And then mention בני השפחה and say that concerning בני השפחה, concerning their wine, the גדולים make it יין נסך and the קטנים don't make it יין נסך. Because, as we're saying now, this דין that concerning יין נסך there's a difference between גדולים and קטנים only refers to the בני השפחה. This דין that their spit and their מדרס is טהור, that mainly has to be said concerning the first case when you buy עבדים from the גוים, because the בני השפחה would be self-understood. So, therefore, the ברייתא should have said: if you buy עבדים from גוים שמלו ולא טבלו, their spit and their מדרס is טהור, and the בני השפחה, concerning their יין נסך, the גדולים make it יין נסך and the קטנים don't. Since the ברייתא mixes it together, obviously the words וכן בני השפחה שמלו ולא טבלו refers to the יין נסך, and that is the reason why the ברייתא put them together, because this דין of יין נסך, that גדולים make it יין נסך and the קטנים don't, refers to both. Now according to that, it comes out that this דין refers also to the case of לוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים, and nevertheless we say that the קטנים don't make it יין נסך. So that's a קשיא on רב! And the גמרא answers: No, הכא קא משמע לן, what does the ברייתא want to tell us? That עבדים דומיא דבני שפחה, that עבדים are similar to the בני שפחה. מה בני שפחה שמלו ולא טבלו הוא דעושין יין נסך, that just as the בני שפחה, when do they make it יין נסך, only if they went through מילה and didn't go through טבילה; מלו וטבלו לא, but if they went through מילה and טבילה, so then they wouldn't turn the wine into יין נסך, even though they are עבדים כנענים; אף עבדים כן, so too if you buy an עבד from a גוי and he went through מילה and טבילה, also has the same דין that he would not turn the wine into יין נסך. In other words, the דיוק וכן is mainly concerning this point: that here we say that there is a case where it makes it יין נסך, even though קטנים don't, but nevertheless גדולים do. So we say that this דין that it could turn into יין נסך is only in this case, only if מלו ולא טבלו. And that's why it says וכן to teach us that not only by בני השפחה the דין is that if מלו וטבלו that it is not יין נסך, because that's the דיוק from the ברייתא, because the ברייתא says מלו ולא טבלו, so from there we understand that if מלו וטבלו he does not make it into יין נסך, so too concerning עבדים, if מלו וטבלו, it doesn't turn into יין נסך. And the purpose of telling us this is לאפוקי מדרב נחמן אמר שמואל, to exclude what רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל. דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל, because רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל: הלוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים, if you buy עבדים from גוים, אף על פי שמלו וטבלו, even though they went through מילה and טבילה, עושין יין נסך, they still, if they touch the wine they would make it יין נסך, עד שתשקע עבודת כוכבים מפיהם, till עבודה זרה is forgotten from their mouth. And this only applies if you buy an עבד from גוים. If an עבד was raised in a Jewish home, לכתחילה he has no connection to עבודה זרה. So there, as soon as he goes through מילה and טבילה, automatically he doesn't make the wine into יין נסך. But עבדים that were bought by גוים, so רב נחמן holds in the name of שמואל that even if he goes through מילה and טבילה, nevertheless it becomes יין נסך until after the time passes that he forgot the עבודה זרה. And this is what this ברייתא is telling us by not mentioning anything of this ענין that they have to forget about עבודה זרה, just saying that it becomes יין נסך because מלו ולא טבלו. So we understand that if מלו וטבלו, if they went through מילה and טבילה, they don't turn it to יין נסך, without any other conditions, which means you don't have to wait till they forget עבודה זרה. And this is what the ברייתא is trying to teach us, קא משמע לן דלא, the ברייתא is trying to teach us not like רב נחמן says. And the way the ברייתא teaches us this is by the ברייתא comparing if you buy עבדים from עובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו to the בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו. And we say just like בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו, they turn it into יין נסך, and the reason is just because לא טבלו. From that we understand that as soon as they go through טבילה, they don't make it יין נסך anymore, without any further conditions. There's nothing to wait for. So, too, by buying עבדים from גוים, the whole reason why they make it into יין נסך is because לא טבלו. But as soon as they go to the מקוה, then they don't turn to יין נסך, without waiting for any further conditions. So this proves not like רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל, that you have to wait till they forget עבודה זרה. The ברייתא is trying to tell us you don't have to wait. So this is the reason the ברייתא says וכן, because the question we had before was that if you're going to tell me that this דין, that גדולים make it into יין נסך and קטנים don't, only applies to בני השפחות, the question was, so why does the ברייתא compare לוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים and בני השפחות, for what purpose? According to the opinion that holds that רוקן ומדרסן is טהור, the answer is, it compares this to teach us this דיוק: that only because לא טבלו they turn it to יין נסך. As soon as טבלו, then there's nothing to wait for, and they don't turn it into יין נסך. And this is agreed by everybody by בני השפחות. So, too, לוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים, the דין is the same, that you don't have to wait for anything, but as soon as they go through מילה and טבילה, then they don't turn it into יין נסך. Then the גמרא says: גופא. Now we're going to discuss the גוף, the text itself that רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל. אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל, רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל: הלוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים, if someone buys עבדים by גוים, אף על פי שמלו וטבלו, even though they went through מילה and טבילה, עושין יין נסך, they still would turn the wine into יין נסך, עד שתשקע עבודת כוכבים מפיהם, until the עבודה זרה is forgotten from them. וכמה, how long is that? אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said: עד שנים עשר חודש, up to 12 months. Which means after they go through מילה and טבילה, you have to wait 12 months, so then they have forgotten already the עבודה זרה, and then by touching the wine, they would not turn it into יין נסך. The גמרא says: איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן, רבא asked a question by רב נחמן. We learned in the ברייתא, and the גמרא here quotes the same ברייתא we quoted before: הלוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו, if you buy עבדים by גוים and they went through מילה and did not go through טבילה, וכן בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו, and also the children of the שפחות that were raised in the Jewish home, but they only went through מילה and not טבילה, the דין is: רוקן ומדרסן בשוק טמא, their spit and their steppings even in the street is טמא. ואמרי לה, some say, טהור. יינם, concerning their wine: גדולים עושין יין נסך, the adults would turn the wine into יין נסך; קטנים אין עושין יין נסך, the children would not turn the wine into יין נסך. And the ברייתא continues: אלו הן גדולים ואלו הן קטנים? These are considered adults and these are considered children: גדולים, שיודעים בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה, adults are considered those that know the nature of עבודה זרה and the objects which they use for it; קטנים, שאין יודעין בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה, children are considered those that don't know the nature of עבודה זרה and its משמשים. This is the ברייתא. תני מיהת, but at any event we learned here in the ברייתא that מלו ולא טבלו, that this whole דין concerning יין נסך is because they went through מילה and did not go through טבילה. What comes out? מלו ולא טבלו אין, מלו וטבלו לא, that only because they didn't go through טבילה is משמע that if they would have gone through מילה and טבילה, then they would not turn the wine into יין נסך. And the ברייתא did not mention anything else, which means the same way as we said before to answer רב, the גמרא now is using as a קשיא on רב נחמן אמר שמואל. That from this ברייתא, since the only problem why it turns it into יין נסך is because מלו ולא טבלו, is משמע that if מלו וטבלו, they wouldn't turn it in יין נסך, and the ברייתא mentions nothing of the fact that you have to wait till they forget עבודה זרה, is משמע that you don't have to wait for that. So it's a קשיא on what רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל. The גמרא says: תרגמה, you could explain it, אבני שפחות. This דין only applies to the בני שפחות. This דין, that the only problem is because מלו ולא טבלו, but if מלו וטבלו, then automatically they would not turn it to יין נסך, this is only concerning בני שפחות. Since the בני שפחות were raised in the Jewish home, ממילא they don't know anything of עבודה זרה, so there there is nothing to wait for. As soon as they go through מילה and טבילה, they would not turn the wine to יין נסך. But the first case of the ברייתא, which is if you buy עבדים from the גוים שמלו ולא טבלו, there the condition is

different. There, even if it would be מלו וטבלו, still they would turn turn the wine into יין נסך. In other words, what he's saying is that this דין in the ברייתא that says concerning יין נסך that the גדולים turn it into יין נסך, the קטנים not, and it seems that the reason for that is only because מלו ולא טבלו, that דין only applies to בני שפחות. This דין concerning יין נסך does not apply to the first part of the ברייתא concerning the case of לוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים. And since does not this does not apply to that part of the ברייתא, so the whole דיוק would not apply to עבדים that were bought by גוים. The whole דיוק is that the reason it makes it into יין נסך is because מלו ולא טבלו, is משמע that if מלו וטבלו they wouldn't turn it into יין נסך. That's only if we would be talking about the דין of יין נסך. But concerning the case of הלוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו, we don't talk about the דין of יין נסך at all, because the דין of יין נסך of the ברייתא refers only to the second case. So since the ברייתא was not talking about יין נסך concerning the עבדים that were bought by גוים, therefore we cannot be מדייק that the whole reason why they turn it into יין נסך is because מלו ולא טבלו, since we are not talking about it. But then the

גמרא says, how can you say that? והא וכן תני? Doesn't the ברייתא say וכן? The ברייתא starts off by saying that if you buy עבדים from גוים שמלו ולא טבלו, וכן בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו, is משמע that all the דינים mentioned later in the ברייתא apply to both, since the ברייתא compares the two. And therefore we must say that the דין of יין נסך later in the ברייתא also refers to the case of הלוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים. And since here also it says מלו ולא טבלו, and the ברייתא continues and says that they turn it to יין נסך, is משמע only because of ולא טבלו. So we're able to be מדייק that if טבלו, they wouldn't turn to יין נסך. So we're back to the קשיא on רב נחמן אמר שמואל. The גמרא says no, ארוקן ומדרסן. That this word וכן only refers to the first part of the ברייתא, to this דין that the רוק and the מדרס is טמא. But there we say that the ברייתא is telling us that this דין applies to לוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים, and also applies to the case of בני השפחות. But concerning the דין of יין נסך, it only refers to the case of בני השפחות. And then the גמרא says, הא ניחא למאן דאמר טמא. This only fits according to the one that says that the רוקן ומדרסן is טמא. So we're able to say according to this מאן דאמר that the וכן בני השפחות refers to this דין. And the ברייתא is telling us that not only is the רוק and the מדרס of an עבד that was bought by a גוי שמלו ולא טבלו טמא, but also the רוק and the מדרס of the בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו is also טמא. אלא למאן דאמר טהור, according to the one that says in the ברייתא that the רוק and the מדרס of them is טהור, מאי איכא למימר? What can you say there? You can't say that the וכן refers only to this דין. Because if it would refer only to this דין, it wouldn't have to say it all. Because if the רוק and the מדרס of the עבדים that were bought by the גוים is טהור, certainly of the בני השפחות it's טהור, because they are a lighter and easier, a less strict case. So therefore, as we said before, the ברייתא should have said, הלוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו, רוקן ומדרסן טהור. And not mention anything concerning בני השפחות, because that's self-understood. And then start off by talking about the בני השפחות and speaking about the יין, because as we're saying now, the דין of יין only refers to בני השפחות. So the ברייתא should have divided it in its two parts. And since it doesn't, it seems to be saying that the וכן בני השפחות refers to all the דינים. So the גמרא says no, הא קא משמע לן. ברייתא wants to tell us that the reason the ברייתא compares בני השפחות to לוקח עבדים מן עובדי כוכבים, even though according to the מאן דאמר that the רוק and the מדרס is טהור it didn't have to do it, is to teach us that עבדים דומיא דבני השפחות, that עבדים have the same דין as the בני השפחות. מה בני השפחות גדולים הוא דעושין יין נסך, קטנים אין עושין יין נסך, just like by the בני השפחות the דין is that only the adults would turn the wine into יין נסך, but the children would not, אף עבדים נמי, so too concerning the עבדים that were bought by the גוים, גדולים עושין יין נסך, קטנים אין עושין יין נסך, that the גדולים, the adults would turn יין נסך, which means even when you buy an עבד by a גוי and he is a גדול, he turns it into יין נסך, but קטנים אין עושין יין נסך, but the קטנים would not turn יין נסך. And the purpose of the ברייתא telling us this דין is לאפוקי מדרב, to exclude of the opinion of רב. דאמר רב, because רב said תינוק בן יומו עושה יין נסך, that even a child a day old turns the wine into יין נסך, קא משמע לן דלא, the ברייתא comes to teach us that's not so. That concerning this difference between גדולים and קטנים is not only by בני השפחות, but also by עבדים. So even a קטן of an עבד that was bought by a גוי also would not turn it to יין נסך. According to רב we said that even a small child would turn it to יין נסך. And as we said before, only בני השפחות the דין would be that קטנים would not turn to יין נסך. But רב נחמן in the name of שמואל doesn't hold that way, he holds that this דין applies to all גוים, also to the עבדים that were bought by גוים. And that is the reason why the ברייתא compares the two, to teach us this דין, that עבדים that were bought by גוים But if the גוי would actually have touched the wine through the כלי, the wine would not become יין נסך. Concerning the עצם דין רב says that even a תינוק בן יומו turns it into יין נסך, and therefore you're not allowed to drink it, תוספות asks a קשיא: רב פסקנס later on like ר' שמעון, concerning the דין that if a גוי fell into the בור of wine and he went out, so ר' שמעון says you're even allowed to drink it, because He didn't intend to be מנסך, he didn't do anything, everything was done שלא בכוונה. And רב פסקנס like רבי שמעון. So we see that רב holds that if the גוי touched without כוונה, it is not יין נסך, you're even allowed to drink it. How does this fit with the פסק דין of רב that says that a child could turn into יין נסך? לכאורה it's the same thing. There it's without כוונה, and if a child touched it it is without כוונה. תוספות answers that רב holds that when a child touches it and sprinkles it, you could be גוזר אותו גדול. If we're going to allow that in the case where the child did it, some people will think that you're allowed even if an adult did it. But in a case where the גוי fell into the בור, there is no reason to make a גזירה, because everyone understands that there is a difference, because when he fell into the בור, it's obvious that it's an אונס. And everyone will understand that if it's done unintentionally completely, then it doesn't become יין נסך. And we're not afraid that if we're going to allow that, then other people will also allow it if the גוי touched it with כוונה. But in the case of a תינוק בן יומו, there is a reason to make the גזירה. Later on when the גמרא wanted to ask a קושיא on רב from the ברייתא where it says that the גדולים would turn the wine into יין נסך, but the קטנים would not turn it into יין נסך, you see that an eye that a קטן doesn't turn the wine into יין נסך, not like רב says. תוספות asks a קושיא, the גמרא could have answered a very simple תירוץ, that what does the ברייתא mean that the wine is not turned into יין נסך by קטנים? It means it's not אסור בהנאה, but it's still אסור בשתיה. Because רב when he said that a תינוק בן יומו makes it into יין נסך, the גמרא said he only meant that you can't drink it, but it's מותר בהנאה. So maybe this is what the ברייתא means: the גדולים if they touched it, they turn into a complete יין נסך, which means it's even אסור בהנאה. קטנים don't turn it into a complete יין נסך, which means it's not אסור בהנאה. But who said it's not אסור בשתיה? Maybe it's still אסור to drink. תוספות answers, since the ברייתא doesn't explain it בפירוש, that means that the ברייתא holds that it's not יין נסך at all, because if the ברייתא would feel that it is not יין נסך only לגבי הנאה, but שתיה is אסור, the ברייתא would have said that you're not allowed to drink it. Another תירוץ that תוספות gives is that the לשון of the ברייתא is that קטנים אין עושין יין נסך, קטנים don't turn into יין נסך. If we look into רב's expression, רב says, תינוק בן יומו עושה יין נסך. So we see that the לשון עושה יין נסך means that you can't drink it. If it would mean if you could drink it just that it's not אסור בהנאה, then the לשון wouldn't have been אין עושין יין נסך. Because the לשון עושין or not עושין refers to drinking. והא ראיה, רב holds that it's מותר בהנאה, just you can't drink it, and he uses the לשון עושה יין נסך. So from the לשון of the ברייתא אין עושין יין נסך, the גמרא is מדייק that the ברייתא holds that you're also allowed to drink it. Then תוספות says that רבינו חננאל asks the question, that why can't the גמרא answer that מולי שאני, that באמת טאקע a קטן also turns it into יין נסך according to רב? The reason the ברייתא says that the קטנים will not turn into יין נסך is because the ברייתא is talking in a case where these went through מילה, even though they didn't go through טבילה, but they went through מילה. So maybe that is the difference? Because they went through מילה, it is not so חמור, and that's why the קטנים will not turn into יין נסך. Because don't we see that the fact that they went through מילה makes it easier on them from the דין that there is an opinion that the רוק and the מדרס is טהור? Why should it be טהור? Obviously because the מילה helped. Because if the מילה without טבילה is nothing, then how could there be an opinion that their רוק and their מדרס is טהור? They should be like any other גוי. Since there is an opinion that the רוק and מדרס is טהור, obviously there is something better in them than in a regular גוי. And what is that? The fact that they went through מילה. So maybe לגבי יין נסך also, the fact that they went through מילה, that is the reason why if they're קטנים, they do not turn it into יין נסך. But רב when he said that a תינוק בן יומו does turn into יין נסך, he is just talking in a case where he didn't go through מילה either, so there is no contradiction. And the ר״י in תוספות answers that באמת מילה without טבילה is nothing. A גר if he's just מל and doesn't go through טבילה, he's not a גר at all. So therefore we can't say that because he went through מילה, that's why the קטן will not turn into יין נסך. It's only לגבי the דין of טומאה we say that the חכמים were מקיל. Since the חכמים didn't want to have הפסד טהרות, that things which are טהור should be thrown away, should be spoiled, so the חכמים looked for all kinds of קולות. So they said that since he went through מילה, we are not מחמיר to say that his רוק and his מדרס should be טמא, and therefore if he will touch טהרות, the טהרות will still remain טהור. But it's a special דין that they say by טהרות. But to say such a סברא concerning other דינים, for instance in our case concerning יין נסך, we cannot say because מילה without טבילה is like nothing. And later on when the גמרא answers that according to רב, and later on the גמרא says the same סברא according to רב נחמן אמר שמואל, that this דין of יין נסך, that the גמרא is מחלק between קטנים and גדולים, only refers to בני השפחות and not to עבדים that were bought by גוים. And the גמרא asks a קושיא, והא וכן קתני, but doesn't the ברייתא compare the two? It starts off by saying the דין concerning עבדים that were bought by גוים, וכן בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו. And this would show that All the דינים that are mentioned in the ברייתא refers to both, to the עבדים that were bought by the גוים and also to the בני השפחות. So ממילא the דין of יין נסך also refers to the עבדים that were bought by גוים. תוספות asks a קשיא, what does the גמרא ask, והא וכן קתני? Why can't we answer that the וכן refers to the גדולים? טאקע refers to the דין of the יין נסך, but it refers only to part of the דין. This part, where it says that גדולים turn it into יין נסך, that is in both cases. But that part of the דין, where it says that קטנים will not turn it into יין נסך, that only refers to בני השפחות. So according to this, the word וכן will fit to all the דינים of the ברייתא, to both, to the רוק and the מדרס and also to the דין of יין נסך, but not to all the details of the דין. תוספות answers that it's משמע, since it says וכן, if we're going to say that it refers to the דין of יין נסך, it will have to go on both. Since the ברייתא puts them together, that גדולים turn it into יין נסך and קטנים not, if the וכן refers to this דין also, then obviously it would refer to the דין of קטנים also, and that's why the גמרא couldn't answer that תירוץ. Or, תוספות has another תירוץ, that the גמרא holds that the גדולים who are יודע בטיב עבודה זרה ומשמשיה, it wouldn't have to say וכן. To teach us that דין, the ברייתא wouldn't have to tell us. To teach us a דין that the עבד that is an adult, meaning he knows the nature, the meaning of עבודה זרה, that he turns the wine into יין נסך, that's no חידוש. For that the ברייתא should tell us וכן, there is no reason. So בפשטות, if the דין וכן the word וכן does refer to the דין of יין נסך, it probably refers to the דין of קטנים. Now, if it refers to the דין of קטנים, then we have a good קשיא on רב, that from here it comes out that even עבדים that were bought by גוים, also the קטנים will not turn into יין נסך. And that's why the גמרא asks the קשיא, והא וכן קתני. And when the גמרא answered that the וכן goes only on the דין of רוק ומדרס, the גמרא asked a קשיא: הניחא למאן דאמר טמא, but according to the מאן דאמר טהור, מאי איכא למימר? Which means the גמרא's קשיא is, according to the one that says that רוק ומדרס is טהור, then there is no reason for the ברייתא to compare עבדים that were bought by גוים to בני השפחות. Because if even by the עבדים that were bought from גוים, the דין is that their רוק ומדרס is טהור, so certainly בני השפחות. So the ברייתא בכלל wouldn't have to mention the בני השפחות in that דין. And if the second דין of the יין נסך refers only to בני השפחות, then the ברייתא should have divided it into two parts: first say the דין, הלוקח עבדים מן העכו"ם ומלו ולא טבלו, then רוקן ומדרסן טהור, and then we would understand ourselves that the same דין applies to בני השפחות, which the ברייתא wouldn't have to mention it because it's a קל וחומר. And then the ברייתא would start that בני השפחות שמלו ולא טבלו and continue with the דין of יין נסך. Why does the ברייתא have to compare the two if we hold that the רוק and the מדרס is טהור? And the גמרא answers the reason it says וכן is to teach us the דין that just like by בני השפחות, the only reason why they turn into יין נסך is because מלו ולא טבל, but if טבל then it wouldn't become יין נסך and you don't have to wait for any other condition, so too by עבדים, the only problem is לא טבל, but after טבל you don't have to wait for anything. And this is לאפוקי from what רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל, that if you buy עבדים by גוים, even if מלו וטבלו, as long as they didn't forget the name of עבודה זרה, then they turn into יין נסך. תוספות asks a קשיא, לכאורה what is the גמרא's קשיא? According to the מאן דאמר רוקן and מדרס is טהור, why does it have to say וכן? The גמרא could have answered that the וכן is because of a דיוק. Because the דין is that according to the מאן דאמר it says that their רוק and their מדרס is טהור, it is only בשוק, only in the street, since it's a רשות הרבים and there we פסקן that ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים is טהור. That's why their רוק and their מדרס is טהור. But if it would be in the house, in a רשות היחיד, so even this opinion would admit that their רוק is טמא. So maybe this is the reason it says וכן, to teach us this דיוק: that only in the שוק it's טהור, but in the house it's טמא. So the דיוק is that just like by עבדים that were bought by גוים, if the רוק and the מדרס was in the house, it is טמא, so too by בני השפחות. Because the whole קשיא of the גמרא that you didn't have to mention the בני השפחות according to the מאן דאמר that the רוק is טהור, that's because it's a קל וחומר: מה, if the רוק of the עבדים that were bought by גוים is טהור, certainly the רוק of the בני השפחות that were raised in the Jewish home is certainly טהור. But that's only concerning the case where it's טהור. But concerning the case where it's טמא it's no קל וחומר. Could be that by the עבדים that were bought by גוים it's טמא, but by the בני השפחות it's טהור. So the ברייתא would have to tell us that in the case of the בני השפחות it's also טמא. So maybe this is the reason it says וכן, that to tell us that just like by the עבדים that were bought by גוים, בשוק it's טהור, but בבית it's טמא, by בני השפחות also, בשוק it's טהור, but בבית it's טמא. And תוספות answers we can't say that the וכן is because of the דיוק. Because since it is not mentioned בפירוש in the ברייתא that בבית it's טמא, even though we could be מדייק from the fact that mentions בשוק that it's טהור. So we could be מדייק that בבית it's טמא. Still, since it doesn't mention it, we can't say that that is the reason why the ברייתא wants to compare the בני השפחות to the עבדים that were bought by גוים. איי, תוספות asks, but isn't this exactly what the גמרא does? What is the גמרא's תירוץ? גמרא answers that there's a דיוק here in the ברייתא, that the reason why they turn into יין נסך is because מל ולא טבל. But since if טבלו they wouldn't turn into יין נסך, and because of that דיוק, the ברייתא compares עבדים that were bought by גוים to the בני השפחות, to say that just like the בני השפחות is only because לא טבלו it's יין נסך, but if טבלו it's not יין נסך without any further conditions, so too by עבדים that were bought by גוים, if טבלו, then they do not turn it into יין נסך without any further conditions. So we see that the גמרא holds that we could learn that the וכן is because of a דיוק. So why did תוספות say that we can't say that the וכן is because of the דיוק that בשוק טהור and בבית טמא? תוספות says there's a big difference: the דיוק that only מל ולא טבל it becomes יין נסך, הא מל וטבל it doesn't become יין נסך, is a very clear דיוק, because the ברייתא mentions clearly that the reason why it's יין נסך is מל ולא טבל. The ברייתא talks about the fact that it's מל ולא טבל. So the ברייתא is telling us clearly that the problem here is that לא טבל. So this דיוק, that if טבל it's not יין נסך, is a very obvious דיוק, it's almost as if it's clear in the ברייתא. But the דיוק that only בשוק it's טהור, ובבית it's טמא, is not clear in the ברייתא, because when the ברייתא mentions the word שוק, it mentions it according to the opinions that it is טמא. And we say ourselves that the one that says later on טהור, it's only בשוק but not בבית. But that דיוק is not clear in the ברייתא. So to say that the reason the ברייתא says וכן is because of that דיוק, that הא בשוק טמא according to the מאן דאמר that holds that it is טהור, that is not clear. And therefore, we cannot say that that is the reason the ברייתא says וכן. Concerning what the גמרא says that רב נחמן אמר שמואל says that עבדים that were bought by גוים, that even if מל וטבל, still the דין is that he makes יין נסך until after twelve months, until they forget the עבודה זרה, תוספות explains that this is only by עבדים, but not by גרים. Because from the גמרא itself it's not clear, we might think that the same דין applies to regular גר: a גר, after he goes through מילה and טבילה, and becomes a גר, becomes a ייד, you still have to wait twelve months till his touching the wine will not turn it into יין נסך. But תוספות says it's not so; it's only by עבדים because even though they they go through מילה and טבילה, but we're still not sure that the גירות is בלב שלם, that they really mean it 100%. Could be that the reason he's doing it is because of אימת רבו, he's afraid of his master, and therefore he's doing it. So therefore, we have to wait a while till he actually forgets the עבודה זרה, because otherwise, maybe he still has the עבודה זרה in his mind, and when he will touch the wine, he will have in

mind עבודה זרה. But by a גר, who is מתגייר on his own, it's through his own will, so why should we suspect that after he is מתגייר, he still has עבודה זרה in his mind and thinks about it? And therefore, we assume that right away he forgets about עבודה זרה, and therefore, even according to רב נחמן אמר שמואל, a גר who is מתגייר, right away as soon as he goes through מילה and טבילה, he would not turn the wine into יין נסך. And later on the גמרא says that according to רב נחמן אמר שמואל who holds that עבדים that were bought by גוים, even if מל וטבל, still the דין is that he makes יין נסך till after twelve months, according to him, the פשט in the ברייתא is that the reason it says וכן, the ברייתא compares עבדים that were bought by גוים to בני השפחות, is to teach us that only in the case of בני השפחות we say that the קטן would not turn it into יין נסך, but by the עבדים that were bought by גוים, even the קטן would also turn it into יין נסך. And the ברייתא comes to exclude from what רב said, that a תינוק בן יומו makes it into יין נסך. The ברייתא comes to teach us that that's not so. So it comes out here in the גמרא that we have a clear מחלוקת between רב and שמואל: that according to שמואל, a תינוק בן יומו does not turn it into יין נסך, which means it's even מותר בשתיה, you're even allowed to drink it, and רב holds that a תינוק בן יומו does turn it into יין נסך and that it is אסור בשתיה. Also it comes out in the גמרא that there's a מחלוקת between רב and שמואל whether you have to wait twelve months by the עבדים that were bought from גוים even after מילה וטבילה. Because as the גמרא said before, according to רב, the ברייתא is trying to tell us not like שמואל; the ברייתא is trying to tell us that you don't have to wait the twelve months. And שמואל holds that you do have to wait the twelve months, so there's a clear מחלוקת in that also between רב and שמואל.

תוספות says concerning the הלכה, that in the הלכות גדולות we find that he פסקנ'ט not like רב concerning the דין of תינוק בן יומו; he פסקנ'ט like שמואל that a תינוק בן יומו does not turn it into יין נסך. And concerning the other מחלוקת we find that the רבינו חננאל פסקנ'ט like שמואל, that you do have to wait the twelve months till the גוי forgets about the עבודה זרה. And the ראיה for that is because when the גמרא asks how long does it take for him to get, forget the עבודה זרה, so it says that רבי יהושע בן לוי said it takes twelve months. So since רבי יהושע בן לוי came to explain the words of שמואל, that shows that he also holds like שמואל, and therefore we פסקנ'ן like שמואל. And תוספות also brings that the ר''י found a כתב, found a manuscript that was in front of those that learned with the רבינו תם, and there it also says that he פסקנד הלכה like שמואל, and the reason is since רבי יהושע בן לוי holds like him, and always the הלכה is like רבי יהושע בן לוי even if it's against רבי יוחנן, כל שכן if it's against רב or שמואל. Because the הלכה is never like רב or שמואל against רבי יוחנן. So if the הלכה is like רבי יוחנן against רב or שמואל, and the הלכה is like רבי יהושע בן לוי even against רבי יוחנן, so certainly when רבי יהושע בן לוי himself is against רב, the הלכה is like רבי יהושע בן לוי. And also in סדר תנאים ואמוראים, which was a manuscript written by רבי יוסף טוב עלם, תוספות says the הלכה is like רבי יהושע בן לוי בכל מקום, and therefore in this case it's also like רבי יהושע בן לוי. And also תוספות says that רבינו תם brought many ראיות to this דין that the הלכה is like שמואל and not like רב, but nevertheless תוספות says you could answer all these ראיות. And then תוספות says, רבינו תם also פסקנד like the לשון in the ברייתא that says that רוקן ומדרסן בשוק is טהור, not like the opinion that it's טמא, but like the opinion that it's טהור. And the reason is, because this is a דין דרבנן only, and the כלל is בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל. When it comes to a דין דרבנן you go according to the קולא. And this is another proof that the הלכה is like שמואל, not like רב. Because the whole reason the גמרא said that שמואל had to say that the פשט in the ברייתא is to teach us not like רב, is only because of the מ״ד that רוקן ומדרסן טהור. Because if not for that מ״ד, we could say that the וכן only goes on רוקן ומדרסן, and doesn't go on the דין of יין נסך. It's only because of the מ״ד רוקן ומדרסן טהור that the גמרא asked, you can't say that the וכן goes on the רוקן ומדרסן and not on the other thing. And that's why we had to say that that בבא of the וכן goes on the דין of יין נסך also, and it comes to teach us the דיוק against רב. So since רבינו תם פסקנד like the מ״ד טהור of the רוקן ומדרסן, so ממילא we must say that the ברייתא is coming to teach us against the דין of רב. So this is another ראיה that the הלכה is not like רב but like שמואל, that a תינוק בן יומו does not turn it into יין נסך. And also

תוספות says that the רשב״ם and the ריב״ן, in the name of רש״י, said that it says in the תשובות הגאונים that בזמן הזה there is no איסור הנאה if a גוי touches wine. Why? Because the גוים of now are not רגיל to pour the wine for עבודה זרה, and they are considered as if they do not know the nature of עבודה זרה ומשמשיה. ממילא they have the same דין like a תינוק בן יומו, because as the ברייתא says, that קטנים doesn't mean קטנים in age, קטנים means those that don't know the meaning, the nature of עבודה זרה. And since nowadays the גוים are considered that they don't know the nature of עבודה זרה, ממילא they are considered like a תינוק בן יומו, and since we פסקן like שמואל that a תינוק בן יומו does not turn it into יין נסך, ממילא if a גוי nowadays would touch the wine, it would not turn into יין נסך. And that is the reason תוספות says, that we rely nowadays that when it comes to collect a debt from the גוים, we take if they give us wine, because we do not consider the wine יין נסך. And תוספות continued that this is what the ר״י wrote to the רבינו תם, that by combining what you say, and what your father says, and what your brother says, we're allowed to drink nowadays wine that a גוי touched. Because your brother, he says, the רשב״ם פסקנד in the name of his grandfather, of your grandfather רש״י, that a גוי nowadays is considered like a תינוק בן יומו, and you פסקן by the case of a תינוק בן יומו like שמואל, that he doesn't make יין נסך. And therefore it comes out that if you combine these two סברות, that a גוי is considered a תינוק בן יומו and by a תינוק בן יומו it's not יין נסך, so then we're allowed to drink wine that a גוי touched. And the, and the

רבינו תם answered him that the תלמיד that wrote that was too fast in פסקנינג the דין, because חס ושלום he never meant that if a גוי touches wine you're allowed to drink it. Because באמת he says we פסקן like רב against שמואל in this דין, because the law הלכה is, the כלל is that הלכה כרב באיסורי, when there's a מחלוקת between רב and שמואל in ענינים of איסור we פסקן like רב. And therefore we פסקן that a תינוק בן יומו does turn it into יין נסך, and it is אסור to drink. And the truth is he says, that the גוים nowadays are considered like a תינוק בן יומו, like רש״י says, but that doesn't help in the case of a גוי touching wine, because we פסקן like רב that even if he is a תינוק בן יומו, still he makes it יין נסך לגבי the איסור of שתיה. And also he said the הלכה is not like שמואל concerning עבדים שמלו ולא טבלו, that you have to wait twelve months until you forget עבודה זרה. And the reason is, because the ברייתא proves not like שמואל, according to the מ״ד that says that the רוק and the מדרס is טהור. So the גמרא said before in the first פשט, the way the גמרא explained it according to רב, that the reason it says וכן according to the מ״ד טהור is to exclude from what שמואל said that you have to wait twelve months until you forget עבודה זרה. And since we פסקן like רב in the case of תינוק, ממילא it comes out that we have to explain the ברייתא according to רב. And since we פסקן the דין that the רוק and the מדרס is טהור, so ממילא we must say that the ברייתא comes to exclude the דין of שמואל. So ממילא from the ברייתא we see that we do not have to wait 12 months. And he says that this was the מנהג of בני אשכנז, that they would allow their עבדים, right after מילה and טבילה, they should touch the wine. איי, the קשיא is, how can we say that we don't פסקן like שמואל, when רבי יהושע בן לוי explained what שמואל meant? Since the גמרא asked, what is what is the time that you have to wait till he forgets עבודה זרה? So, רבי יהושע בן לוי answered, 12 months. This משמע רבי יהושע בן לוי holds like him. So, he says that רבי יהושע בן לוי didn't explain the words of שמואל, because רבי יהושע בן לוי was older than שמואל. רבי יהושע בן לוי wouldn't explain the meaning of שמואל's words. But the פשט is that רבי יהושע בן לוי said this כלל of 12 months concerning something else. In the גמרא in יבמות פרק החולץ, דף מ״ח עמוד ב׳, he said that if you buy an עבד from גוים, מגלגלין עמו י״ב חודש, so you give him a chance 12 months to decide whether he wants to go through מילה and טבילה, more than that you can't. So, רבי יהושע בן לוי said his words there, but the גמרא used his statement over there and put it here to explain the words of שמואל, but not that he explained what שמואל meant. וממילא, there is no מראיה that רבי יהושע בן לוי holds in this דין like שמואל. Then the ר״י asked a קשיא, what comes out according to this פסק, that באמת a תינוק בן יומו does turn it into יין נסך, but it is מותר בהנאה, it's אסור בשתיה and מותר בהנאה. And now if we combine רש״י's פסק that a גוי nowadays has a דין like a תינוק בן יומו, so if a גוי will touch wine nowadays, it'll be מותר בהנאה. Because if a גוי is considered like a תינוק בן יומו, and by a תינוק בן יומו it is מותר בהנאה. But the ר״י asked the רבינו תם that still we can't compare the two, because the reason why we say by a תינוק בן יומו that the wine is not אסור בהנאה is because it's done without כוונה. So, even though we would consider a גוי as a קטן, because he is not יודע בטיב עבודה זרה, he doesn't know the nature of עבודה זרה, but nevertheless כוונה he has. So, it still should be אסור בהנאה. The reason by a תינוק בן יומו is not because he doesn't know the meaning of עבודה זרה, the reason there it's מותר בהנאה is because he had no כוונה. But if there would be כוונה, it should be אסור בהנאה. So, what do we gain with the פסק of רש״י, that a גוי nowadays has a דין like a תינוק בן יומו, it still should be אסור בהנאה, because he's doing it with כוונה. So, the רבינו תם later said that certainly from the הלכות we don't find any clear ראיה to be מתיר the wine if the גוי touched even בהנאה. The

only היתר that we could find is if we sell it to that same גוי. As the גמרא says later on in דף ס״ה עמוד ב׳, that רב אשי said that you take the money from that גוי that he did the איסור, and the reason is because he's the one that caused him the damage, and since he's the one that caused him damage, he has to pay for it, but not that you're allowed to have הנאה from that יין נסך itself, or let that גוי sell it to another גוי, and then it is as if he sells it for himself. And the רבינו תם testifies that his father, רב מאיר, once happened that he had יין נסך, and he himself destroyed it. That shows that he didn't accept the היתר that it should be מותר בהנאה nowadays. And still, the רבינו תם officially didn't want to go out with an official איסור. Since the מנהג that was accepted that time was to be מתיר wine that a גוי touched בהנאה, so he didn't want to go out and say it's אסור, because there's a כלל: הנח להם לישראל, יהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין. That better let them be בשוגג. If they're doing it anyway, let them do it בשוגג, but if you're going to tell them you're not allowed, they'll still do it, but then it'll be מזיד. So, that's why the רבינו תם didn't want to come out and proclaim that it's אסור. And also, תוספות brings that there is a certain סמך if to find for this מנהג a certain ראיה to prove that it is מותר בהנאה if a גוי touched it. Then תוספות asks a קשיא, since the חכמים made a גזירה that if a גוי touched it that it's אסור בהנאה, how can we say that nowadays the גוים are different and that's why it's מותר? But סוף כל סוף, the דין is that anything that the חכמים אסר במנין, that the חכמים got together and אסר'ד it, צריך מנין אחר להתירו, you need that the חכמים should get together again and be מתיר. And since we don't have the חכמים, we can't be מתיר it. And תוספות says that the פשט is that this is not included in the איסור. The איסור was only in the case where they were מנסכים, where there were גוים that poured the wine for עבודה זרה. But nowadays, since there is no such thing as גוים pouring the wine for עבודה זרה, ממילא you could be תולה the היתר, in other words saying that the חכמים never meant this to be אסור. And

תוספות brings a ראיה to this later on in the גמרא on דף ס״ה עמוד א׳, it says that רבא sent a present to בר שישך ביום אידו, in the day of his holiday, even though the דין is that you're not allowed to send a גוי a present in the day of his holiday because he's going to go and thank the עבודה זרה for it. But רבא said, I know this guy, and I know for sure that he's not going to thank the עבודה זרה, he's not going to bow down to עבודה זרה for it. But the question is, how could he do it anyway? This דין that you're not allowed to do any business on the day of their holiday is a דבר שבמנין, that the חכמים got together and made this איסור, so you should need another מנין to be מתיר it. And nevertheless, רבא didn't need another מנין to be מתיר it, and he said that since he knows that he's not going to do it, he's allowed to do it. What is the פשט? The פשט is that לכתחילה when the חכמים אסר it, they only אסר it Concerning such גוים that this could bring them to go to the עבודה זרה. But concerning such גוים that will not go to the עבודה זרה, the גזירה never was לכתחילה, and the same thing here also, the גזירה was only concerning such גוים that are מנסך לעבודה זרה. But גוים who are not מנסך לעבודה זרה, the גזירה לכתחילה wasn't there, and that's why we're able to say that if a גוי touches the wine בזמן הזה, it's מותר בהנאה. Then תוספות ask a קשיא, how could you be מתיר סתם יינם בהנאה? The reason the חכמים אסר סתם יינם, even בהנאה, is משום בנותיהם. The main reason is so we shouldn't socialize with them, we shouldn't come to intermarriage. Now that reason applies nowadays too. So what do we care if בפועל there are no גוים who are מנסך לעבודה זרה, but the reason for the גזירה still applies nowadays too? תוספות answer that באמת we see that there are other things that the חכמים אסר because of intermarriage, and they didn't אסר it בהנאה. For instance, bread of גוים, or for instance, at one point they אסר oil of גוים because of that, and they still didn't אסר it בהנאה. That proves that even if it's מותר בהנאה, it will not lead to intermarriage. So why did the חכמים אסר wine בהנאה if the whole reason of the איסור is because of intermarriage? Cause at that time, it was שכיח, it was common that גוים would pour for עבודה זרה, so the חכמים connected the two. So they connected the איסור of סתם יינם, which is because of intermarriage, to the איסור of יין נסך. And therefore they said that just like יין נסך was אסור בהנאה, so סתם יינם if a גוי touched, even though it is not for עבודה זרה, it is because of intermarriage, we also אסר it בהנאה. But in a case where there is no ניסוך, למשל nowadays when the גוים don't pour for עבודה זרה because they don't know the nature of עבודה זרה, ממילא the connection and the comparison between סתם יינם and יין נסך falls off. ממילא it remains like any other thing that the חכמים אסר because of intermarriage. And therefore, just like the other things they אסר for intermarriage is מותר בהנאה, so too the wine is also מותר בהנאה even though we're afraid it'll lead to intermarriage. תוספות concludes, והמחמיר תבוא עליו ברכה. If someone is מחמיר not to have הנאה from wine that was touched by a גוי, will get a ברכה.