Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ״ח, but we will start eight lines from the bottom of דף נ״ז עמוד ב׳. גמרא says: ההוא עובדא דהוה במחוזא, there was this story in the city called מחוזא. אתא עובד כוכבים עייל לחנותא דישראל, a גוי came into a store of a ייד. אמר להו, and he said to them: אית לכו חמרא לזבוני? Do you have any wine to sell? אמרו ליה, they said to him: לא, we don't have. הוה יתיב חמרא בדולא, there was some wine standing there in a bucket. שדא ביה ידיה, the גוי put his hand in, שכשך ביה, he splashed around, ואמר להו, and he said to the storekeepers: האי לאו חמרא הוא? Isn't this wine? שקליה בהדי דאיכעס, so he took it out of anger, the storekeeper out of anger took that bucket of wine, שדייה לדנא, and he poured it into the cask, into the big barrel of wine. And he meant to say, I am not going to give you any wine to you. And the question was, since the גוי put his hand into that bucket, so that bucket should have become יין נסך, now when he poured the wine of that bucket into the big barrel, so now the שאלה is on the whole barrel. שרייה רבא לזבוני לעובדי כוכבים, but רבא allowed it to be sold to גוים. In other words, what he meant was that you can't drink that wine, but it is מותר בהנאה, you're allowed to have use from it, and therefore you could sell it to גוים and keep the money. איפליגו

עליה רב הונא בר חיננא ורב הונא בריה דרב נחמן, that רב הונא בר חיננא and רב הונא the son of רב נחמן argued against him. They weren't in town at that time to discuss the matter with him, but when they heard the story and they heard that רבא was מתיר, so they said he was wrong, and they said it was אסור. They said it was forbidden. נפקא שיפורא דרבא ושרא, an announcement came out from רבא that allowed that wine to be sold, ונפקא שיפורא דרב הונא בר חיננא ורב הונא בריה דרב נחמן ואסר, and an announcement came out from רב הונא בר חיננא and רב הונא the son of רב נחמן that it is אסור. Then the גמרא says later on, איקלע רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן למחוזא, רב הונא the son of רב נחמן happened to be in מחוזא, and מחוזא was the city of רבא. And this story happened after רבא already changed his mind, as we will see later in the גמרא that because of the question אביי asked רבא, רבא regretted his פסק דין and he said later on that it is אסור. So after that, it once happened that רב הונא the son of רב נחמן happened to be in מחוזא, and רב הונא the son of רב נחמן was one of those that argued against the פסק דין of רבא, but he never met with him to discuss it, and now he happened to be in מחוזא.

אמר ליה רבא לרב אליקים שמשיה, so רבא said to רב אליקים his servant: כרוך תיגלי דלא ליתו אינשי דניטרדן, lock the door, bolt the doors so nobody should come in to bother us, because as רש״י explains, he was afraid that רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן would come to him and discuss the question and have all kinds of קושיות on his פסק דין, so that's why he said to him, lock the door that he shouldn't be able to come in. But nevertheless, על לגביה, nevertheless he came to him, that רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן came in to רבא, אמר ליה, and he said to him, he asked רבא the question: כי האי גוונא מאי? A case like that, what is the דין? In a case where the גוי put his hand into the wine, not intending for it to become יין נסך, does it become יין נסך and it's אסור, or is it מותר? אמר ליה, said to him: אסור אפילו בהנאה, that it is forbidden, אסור בהנאה, you can't have any use from it. But he asked him back: והא מר הוא דאמר, aren't you the one that פסק'נד: שכשוך אין עושה יין נסך? Didn't you פסק'ן in that case that even though the גוי splashed in the wine, nevertheless since it was done without כוונה you said it was not יין נסך? So he answered him: אימת אמרי אנא, what did I say, only לבר מדמי דההוא חמרא, except the money for that wine. Because what happened here was, the wine in the bucket was touched by the גוי, but the wine in the big barrel was not touched by the גוי. The only שאלה is because the wine from the bucket was poured into the wine of the big barrel. So he said, when I said that it's מותר, I meant that you could sell that whole barrel of wine, but the money that you will get for that bucket, you will have to throw out. For instance, if the barrel of wine was worth, let's say, $100, that bucket was worth $5, so now that you have that barrel of wine with the bucket in it, so you would sell it for $105, so $100 of it you could keep, but $5, which would be the price of that bucket of wine, I also hold that you have to destroy, you can't have any use from it. So when I was מתיר it בהנאה, I was only מתיר the money for the rest of the wine, but not the money for the wine of that bucket. אבל דמי דההוא חמרא מי אמרי? But the money for that wine, did I say that's also מותר בהנאה? ואמר רבא, and רבא said, he told the story that כי אתאי לפומבדיתא, when I I came to פומבדיתא, אקפן נחמני שמעתא ממתניתא, נחמני, which is אביי, surrounded me and overwhelmed me with questions from stories that happened and דינים that were פסקנד, and from a ברייתא. דאסיר, that there we find it's אסור. In other words, I לכתחילה פסקנד it's מותר, but I came to פומבדיתא, and אביי showed me different פסקי דינים and also from a ברייתא that it should be אסור. שמעתא, which פסקי דינים did he tell me? He said that דההוא עובדא הוה בנהרדעא, the same type of story happened in נהרדעא, ואסר שמואל, and שמואל פסקנד that it was אסור. בטבריה, the same story happened in טבריה, ואסר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן פסקנד it's אסור. ואמרי ליה, so רבא says: I told אביי that you can't prove it to me from the fact that שמואל and רבי יוחנן אסר'ד it, לפי שאינן בני תורה, because the people in נהרדעא and the people in טבריה are not בני תורה, not learned people. And usually we know that when it comes to פסק'ן a דין to not learned people, you have to be more careful. You can't be מיקל, because they will make a mistake. They will compare this case to another case, and they'll be מיקל even in cases where it is אסור. So therefore, to them, you have to be more strict, and that is the reason he אסר'ד it. ואמר לי, but אביי told me: what are you saying, that טבריה and נהרדעא אינם בני תורה, דמחוזא בני תורה? That the people of טבריה and נהרדעא are not בני תורה, and the people of מחוזא are בני תורה? You פסק'נד that it's מותר in מחוזא, and you're saying that the reason that in נהרדעא and in טבריה they פסק'נד it's אסור because it's not בני תורה, so you're saying that they are not בני תורה and people in מחוזא are בני תורה? That is not true. So therefore, if they said it's אסור, then in your case it also should be אסור.

מתניתא, then he brought me a ראיה from a ברייתא: ואגדומין עובד כוכבים, if you have an inspector of weights from the government who was a גוי, שקדח במנקת, he made a hole in the cover of the barrel of wine with a pipe, והעלה, and he brought up some wine in order to taste the wine, to see whether they're cheating or not, he would make a hole in the cover, put a little pipe in, pull air, and that would make the wine come out, and that's how he would taste the wine. So if he did that, או ששתה מן הכוס, or if this גוי tasted some wine from the cup, והחזירו לחבית, and then the leftovers he poured back into the חבית, into the barrel, to the jug, זה היה מעשה, this actually was a story, ואסרוה, and the חכמים אסר'ד it. מאי לאו, don't you think בהנאה? That when it says they אסר'ד it, that means they אסר'ד it בהנאה? So we see here that the wine that the גוי touched שלא בכוונה ניסוך, he didn't intend to be מנסך, nevertheless it's אסור בהנאה. And as רש״י explains, that לכאורה the קשיא could be even stronger. We could learn that when it says והחזירו לחבית, that the rest was poured back into the חבית, it doesn't say who did it. So it's possible that the case is that the ייד poured it back into the חבית. So it would come out from here that even though there was only a little bit that was אסור, just a little bit that was in the cup, and the ייד poured that into the big barrel, into the חבית, nevertheless the whole חבית is אסור. So it comes out that even for that little bit, everything is אסור. So this would be a קשיא not only if you hold like רבא had לכתחילה that the whole thing is מותר בהנאה, and here it says it's אסור בהנאה, but the קשיא would be even stronger: even if you hold it's אסור בהנאה, still it doesn't fit to this ברייתא. Because we said before, even when you hold it's אסור בהנאה, what do we mean? That that little bit that was אסור is אסור בהנאה, which means you could sell the whole barrel, but the money that you will get for that little bit that was poured in, you can't have any use from that. But from the other parts of the barrel you definitely could have הנאה. And in this ברייתא it would be saying that the whole thing is אסור בהנאה. So לכאורה this would be a קשיא on the דין even if you hold that in the case of רבא it's אסור בהנאה. Nevertheless, the גמרא doesn't ask the קשיא, because if that would be the קשיא there could be a תירוץ. Because this really is a מחלוקת later on in the גמרא, whether when you pour in some יין נסך into a whole barrel of wine, is the פשט that the whole thing is אסור בהנאה, or is the whole thing מותר except the money for that little bit that was poured in? And רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that it's מותר, and that's how we פסק'ן. So if you would ask a קשיא on רבא from that ברייתא, רבא would say, "Well, I have no קשיא from that ברייתא, because I פסק'ן like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and therefore I said that everything is מותר בהנאה except the money for that wine." The קשיא of the גמרא here is different: the גמרא here is learning the case where he drank from it, this גוי drank from it, and the גוי poured it in. So not only is this little bit that he had left in the cup is אסור בהנאה, but the whole jar was אסור בהנאה because of the גוי. So it comes out that the whole barrel is similar to the little bit of wine that the גוי touched, because the whole barrel became יין נסך because of the גוי. And the גמרא שאלה is here is only one thing: that here we see that even though he didn't do it with the כוונה to be מנסך, nevertheless we say the whole thing is אסור בהנאה. So in the case of רבא, at least that bit that's in the bucket, that he touched, even though he touched it without כוונת ניסוך, nevertheless, that little bit should אסור בהנאה. And that the question אביי asked רבא, that how can you say that it's מותר בהנאה, because that's the way רבא פסקנט before, when here we see that whatever the גוי touched, even though it was without כוונת ניסוך, it is אסור בהנאה. So רבא said to him: לא, no, בשתיה. How do you know that in the ברייתא where it says that the חכמים made it אסור, how do you know it means אסור בהנאה? Maybe it means אסור to drink, and that does fit to what רבא said, because רבא also only said you're allowed to sell it, which means it's מותר בהנאה, but he didn't say you're allowed to drink it. And maybe this is what the ברייתא means. So he said to him: אי הכי, if so, ליתני, let it say, ימכר. If the ברייתא would mean that it's אסור to drink, but you're allowed to have הנאה, the ברייתא would have said you should sell it. That is generally the לשון. When something which is אסור בשתיה, but you're allowed to have הנאה, the לשון would be you have to sell it. So we understand from that לשון that you can't drink it, because otherwise why does it say you should sell it? On the other hand, we understand that it's מותר בהנאה. כי דקתני סיפא, like it says in the סיפא of the same ברייתא. There it says: חרם עובד כוכבים, a גוי that רש״י says was a משוגענער, who always argued and made all kinds of trouble and did everything without כוונה, שהושיט ידו לחביות, and he stuck his hand into a barrel of wine, וכסבר של שמן היא, he thought it was oil, ונמצאת של יין, and they found out later it was wine, זה היה מעשה, this happened actually a story, ואמרו: ימכר, that you could sell it. The difference between this case and the previous case is, that in this case when he put his hand in, he didn't even know it was wine. So not only was it done without כוונת ניסוך, but it was done without even knowing that it was wine. In the previous case, when the inspector took some wine out, he knew it was wine, he just didn't have כוונה to be מנסך. So therefore, in this case where he didn't even know it's wine, they פסקנט that you could sell it. But in the previous case, they said it is אסור. Now, if in the previous case the דין would also be that it's מותר בהנאה, just אסור to drink, it would say the same thing, ימכר, that you should sell it, just like in the second case. Since in the second case it says ימכר, you could sell it, in the first case it says אסור, obviously the first case means it's אסור בהנאה also. So just like in this case here it's אסור בהנאה, in the case of רבא it also should be אסור בהנאה, because it's exactly the same thing. That when the גוי stuck his hand into the bucket of wine, he knew it was wine, but he didn't have כוונה to be מנסך. So it's exactly like the case of the inspector, and nevertheless they פסקנט it's אסור בהנאה. So the קשיא is, how could have רבא said it's מותר בהנאה? תיופתא דרבא תיופתא, this is actually a קשיא on רבא, and it proves רבא wrong, and as we said before, because of this רבא actually changed his mind. And that's why, when רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן came to רבא and asked him what is the דין in such a case, he פסקנט that it is אסור. And the reason he פסקנט that it is אסור is because he already changed his mind and also held that it's אסור. The truth is, when he told רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן, he didn't say I changed my mind from what I פסקנט before, what he said to him was that when I said it's מותר, you're allowed to sell it, I meant the rest of the wine, not the money for the wine of that bucket. But that wasn't really so, because really לכתחילה he פסקנט that even that wine is מותר. It's just later on that he had חרטה and he פסקנט that that wine is אסור. But the reason he didn't say that to him, because as רש״י says, he was embarrassed, so therefore he לכתחילה said to him, what I meant was the rest of the wine, but that wine is אסור. But the truth is, at that time he already had changed his mind and agreed to אביי that this wine itself, the הנאה is אסור. Then the גמרא continues:

רב יוחנן בר אנאזבר, ורב יוסי בן אירואה, רב יוחנן who is the son of אנאזבר, and רב יוסי the son of אירואה, הוו יתבי וקא שתו חמרא, they were sitting and drinking wine. אתא ההוא גברא, so this man came. אמרו ליה: תא אשקינן, could you please pour it in for us? לבתר דרמא להו כסא, after he poured the wine into their cups, איגלאי מילתא, they found out, דעובד כוכבים הוא, that he's a גוי. חד אסר אפילו בהנאה, one of them said that it is אסור even to have any use from it. וחד שרי אפילו בשתיה, and one of them said that not only is it not אסור בהנאה, you're even allowed to drink it. אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, and רבי יהושע בן לוי said: מאן דאסר שפיר אסר, the one that said it's אסור has right for his decision that it's אסור, ומאן דשרי שפיר שרי, and the one that פסקנט that it's מותר has right for his decision also why it's מותר. And he explains why: מאן דאסר, the one that said it's אסור, that even אסור בהנאה, because he said, מימר אמר, he assumed that the גוי probably said to himself when he was asked to pour the wine into their cups, the גוי probably said to himself: סלקא דעתך דרבנן כי הני, is it possible that such great חכמים, such great rabbis as they are, שיכרא קא שתו, they're drinking beer? אלא ודאי האי חמרא הוא, definitely this is wine. So when he went to pour it into their cups, he knew already it was wine, ונסכיה, and therefore we are afraid maybe he was מנסך, he had in mind to be מנסך. And therefore, if it was מנסך for עבודה זרה, it's אסור בהנאה. מאן דשרי, שפיר שרי. The one that says it's allowed also has a good reason to allow it. Why? Because he says, מימר אמר, probably the גוי thought in his mind, סלקא דעתך דרבנן כי האני, is it possible such רבנן, חמרא קא שתו, they're drinking wine, ואמרו לי לדידי, תא אשקיין, and they're telling me who am a גוי, that I should pour the wine in? Because even the גוים knew that a ייד is not allowed to drink wine that was poured by a גוי. So when he saw them asking him to pour the wine in, he couldn't believe that they're drinking wine, because then definitely they wouldn't ask him. Because he didn't know that they thought he was a ייד. So therefore, when they asked him to pour this wine in, so he thought to himself, אלא ודאי שיכרא הוא דקא שתו, definitely it's not wine, definitely they're drinking beer. And therefore, when he poured it, he thought it was beer, ולא נסכיה, and therefore he didn't have in mind to be מנסך this wine. And therefore, the דין is it's מותר. So this is the reason for the מאן דאמר that said it's מותר. But then the גמרא says, how can he make such a mistake, והא קא חזי, didn't he see that it's wine? The גמרא answers, בליליא, so this was at night, so he couldn't see. But then the גמרא asks, והא קא מורח ליה, didn't he smell it? Wine smells different than beer. And the גמרא answers, בחדתא, it was new wine. And new wine, the smell is not that strong and you can't really smell the difference between wine and beer. But then the גמרא asks, והא קא נגע בידיה בנטלא, but didn't he touch it with the כלי? The גמרא thought at this point that he drew the wine from the barrel with a כלי which is called נטלא. Therefore the גמרא asks, when he did that, so he's touching the wine with the כלי. And even though he didn't know it was wine, but והוה ליה מגע עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה. So he touched the wine without כוונה, because he didn't know it's wine, but nevertheless he touched it, ואסיר, and it should be אסור. And the גמרא says, לא צריכא, they don't even have to tell us, דקא מוריק אורוקי, that he just poured the wine. He didn't draw it with a כלי. He just poured the wine out. והוה ליה כוחו שלא בכוונה. So then he didn't touch the wine. But even though the wine is going because of his כח, because of his power, so his connection to the wine is not through touching, but just through כוחו. And in addition to that, it's without כוונה, because as we said, he didn't know it was wine. So this is considered כוחו and without כוונה, and the כלל is כל כוחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו ביה רבנן, that when the connection of the גוי to the wine is only through כוחו, and it is without כוונה, חכמים didn't make the גזירה. And in that case it is מותר. And that was the reason for the מאן דאמר who said that you're even allowed to drink this wine. Now לכאורה we could ask a question. Now that the גמרא establishes the case was that he didn't touch it, but he just poured, so according to the other מאן דאמר who says it's אסור, and the reason we said it's אסור is because we assume he knew it's wine, because he thought to himself, how could it be that this great חכמים should not drink wine but beer? So he knew it was wine. And therefore it's אסור because he touched it and we're afraid he was מנסך. But now we're saying that the case was that he didn't touch it. The case was that he just poured out from it. But nevertheless, the reason is, as רש''י says, because we're afraid that maybe he touched it when we didn't notice. Since they thought he was a ייד, so they didn't pay attention to what he's doing. So therefore, even though he just poured out, but maybe while he was pouring he touched it. And if he touched it, maybe he was מנסך. And that's the reason he פסקנ'ד that it's אסור even בהנאה, while the other one פסקנ'ד that it's מותר even to drink, because he holds that probably he thought that it was beer, and it was only כוחו, and כוחו שלא בכוונה is not אסור. Then the גמרא continues,

בעא מיניה רב אסי מרבי יוחנן. רב אסי asked a question of רבי יוחנן: יין שמסכו עובד כוכבים, מהו? Wine that a גוי mixed with water, what is the דין? In those days, the wine was very, very strong. And before you would drink it, you would have to dilute it in water. So the question was, if the גוי didn't touch the wine, all he did was he poured water into the wine, what is the דין? Is the wine מותר or is the wine אסור? אמר ליה, so he said to him, ואימא מזגו. Why do you use the לשון שמסכו, why don't you use the לשון מזגו? מזגו is usually the לשון used in גמרא concerning the mixture of wine and water. But why when you ask your question did you use the לשון מסכו? אמר ליה, so he said to him, אנא כדכתיב קאמינא. I am saying as it says in the פסוק, I am using the לשון of a פסוק. This is a פסוק in משלי, קפיטל ט' פסוק ב', where it says, טבחה טבחה, מסכה יינה, which means she slaughtered her animals and she mixed her wine. And there the תורה uses the לשון מסכה, so therefore I also use the לשון מסכה. אמר ליה, so he said to him, לשון תורה לעצמה, לשון חכמים לעצמה. The לשון תורה is separate, the לשון חכמים is separate. In the לשון תורה טאקע you use the לשון מסכה and it means mixing wine with water, but in the חכמים's לשון, when they want to use the לשון of diluting the wine with water they use the לשון מזיגה, while מסכה would mean something else. Usually it would mean the mixing of two types of wine. But anyway, getting back to the point, he

asks, מאי, what is the דין if the גוי poured in the water? אמר ליה, so he said to him, אסור. It is אסור. Even though the גוי did not touch the wine, all it is here is his כח, Nevertheless, the חכמים said that it is אסור to drink. And the reason is only because of הרחקת עבירה, to have people stay away from עבירה. Now really this should not be אסור, but because we're afraid if the חכמים would allow this, then people would come to go further, and even if a גוי touched it, they would drink the wine, that's why the חכמים said don't do it. And the גמרא uses a לשון which is used concerning a נזיר, but generally this is a לשון the גמרא uses whenever they want to express the concept of a גזירה. And the לשון is לך לך אמרינן נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב, which means we say: go away, נזיר. A נזיר is not allowed to drink wine, and not allowed to eat grapes. So we say to a נזיר: go away, surround the כרם. If you ever have to go someplace, don't go through the כרם, the vineyard. Why? Because we're afraid if you're going to be in the vineyard, you might come to eat the grapes. So don't even get close to the vineyard. So the same thing, sometimes the חכמים made אסור certain things just because of הרחקת עבירה. So here, too, even though the גוי didn't touch it, and it's only כחו, nevertheless, the חכמים said that the wine that the גוי poured the water in, you shouldn't drink. Now the הנאה is definitely מותר, as רש״י says, because this is not worse than if the גוי touched the wine על ידי דבר אחר, through something else, שלא בכוונה, and the דין is it's מותר. Like the גמרא says earlier in דף נ״ז, a גוי that touched with the tip of his לולב, he touched the wine, and רב said it's מותר בהנאה. So, too, here it's מותר בהנאה. But when it said here that it's אסור, it means that it's אסור to drink.

רבי ירמיה איקלע לסבסא, רבי ירמיה happened to visit a place called סבסא, חזא חמרא דמזגי עובדי כוכבים, so he saw wine that the גוי diluted in water, ושתה ישראל מיניה, and a איד would drink from it, ואסר להו, and he prohibited it to them, משום because of this reason: לך לך אמרינן נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב, because of this concept that we tell a נזיר: go around the כרם, don't get close to the כרם, because we're afraid you might eat the grapes. So, too, he told them that you're not allowed to drink the wine that the גוי diluted with water, because we're afraid you might come to drink wine which is really אסור. איתמר נמי, we also learned, אמר רבי יוחנן, that רבי יוחנן said, ואמרי לה, and some say, אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, that רב אסי said this in the name of רבי יוחנן, that יין שמזגו עובד כוכבים אסור, that wine that the גוי diluted in water is forbidden, משום, because of this reason, לך לך אמרינן נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב, as we tell the נזיר: surround the כרם, don't get close to the כרם. גמרא continues: ריש לקיש איקלע לבצרה, ריש לקיש happened to be in בצרה, חזא ישראל דקאכלי פירות דלא מעשרי, he saw a איד eating fruit that מעשר wasn't taken off. The reason is because they felt that this city is not part of ארץ ישראל, so there's no obligation to take off מעשר. So that's why he ate the fruit without taking off מעשר. ואסר להו, so he said to them that it's אסור. ריש לקיש אסר'ד it, because he felt that this is a city that belongs to ארץ ישראל. Also, חזא מיא דסגדו להו עובדי כוכבים, he saw water that גוים bowed down to, ושתה ישראל, and nevertheless, a איד drank from it, ואסר להו, and he said it's אסור. And the reason is because since the גוי bowed down to it, it's עבודה זרה, so it's אסור. אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, he came later to רבי יוחנן and told him what he said, what he פסק'נד. אמר ליה, so רבי יוחנן said to him: עד דמכתרא עלך עולך, while you still have your clothes on, before you even rest from the trip, before you take off your coat, זיל הדר, go back and change your mind, change the פסק דין and tell them it's allowed. Because you made a mistake in your פסק דין. There is another פשט that could be said here, that תוספות says is not really the right פשט, that when he said here, before you take off your coat, go tell them that it's מותר, he meant to say, in order not to lose your coat, go tell them it's מותר. Because the דין is that if a רב, a דיין פסק'נס a דין, and because of that someone has a loss, and the פסק דין was a mistake, so it's on his obligation to pay for that loss. ממילא you could say that that's what he said to him here, that before you lose your coat, go and change your mind before there is any loss caused to them, and that'll make you lose your coat, because they will take away your possessions as payment for their loss. So go right away and change your mind and tell them that it's מותר. But תוספות says you can't say this פשט, because the גמרא says in סנהדרין דף ו׳ that when is this דין that the דיין has to pay for the loss, that's only if he actually, with his own hands, took the money from one and gave it to the other, and really that was a mistake, so then we say he was the one that caused the היזק, so he has to pay for it. But in a case where he just פסק'נד, then the דין is not that he has to pay. And also, the גמרא says there, if a מומחה לבית דין, if he is a מומחה, an expert, then even if he made a mistake, he doesn't have to pay. And ריש לקיש was definitely an expert. So therefore, we cannot say that this is the פשט here. The פשט here is what he meant, as רש״י says, that before you even take off your coat, before you rest, before you do anything else, go right back and tell them that it's מותר. Why is it מותר? Because בצר לאו היינו בוצרה. בצר is not בוצרה. He thought that it says in the תורה: בצר במדבר בארץ המישור, and that was from ארץ ישראל, so he thought that this city, בוצרה, is the same city as בצר. And therefore, he told them that you're not allowed to eat before you take off מעשר. But the truth is בצר is not רבא פסק, that it's מותר. And רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן, פסק that it's אסור. And later the גמרא says, איקלע רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן למחוזא, רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן happened to be in מחוזא. So

רבא said to the ינוקא, his servant, lock the doors so no person should come and bother us, meaning that רב הונא shouldn't come. And the reason he said that, because he was afraid that רב הונא would bother him concerning his הלכה. And this happened as רש"י says after רבא already had changed his mind as the גמרא says later on. But he said nevertheless he didn't want רב הונא to come and bother him, so he said said to אליקים his servant, lock the doors. על לגבי, רב הונא came and asked him the question, what is the דין in a case like this? So he said that it's אסר, אסור בהנאה. So רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן said to him, but didn't you say that it's מותר? So he said, what did I mean מותר? I meant everything else is מותר except the money for that wine of the bucket. And as רש״י says, that the reason he said that was because at that time he already had changed his mind because of the question that אביי had asked him, as the גמרא says later. And this story happened after אביי had asked him the question. And the reason he said to רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן that when I said מותר I meant the rest of the wine, but I didn't mean the wine, the money for the wine of that bucket, even though that is not so, when he said מותר לכתחילה he meant everything is מותר including the money for that wine, the reason was as רש״י says, because he was embarrassed that he had פסקed wrong, and therefore לכתחילה he said I meant that only the money for the other wine is מותר, but not the money for the wine in the bucket.

תוספות asks many קושיות on רש״י. Amongst the קושיות that תוספות asks are this: 1. That if the story that he had admitted to אביי and changed his mind happened before the story that רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן happened to be, if he was חוזר, so why didn't the גמרא tell that story before this story? And also, why did רבא say to אליקים his servant lock the door so רב הונא shouldn't come and argue with me and ask me questions? לכאורה, what was he afraid of? After all, he had changed his mind already. So what did he care if רב הונא would ask him the question when he admitted to רב הונא already? And if we're going to say that that itself was the reason, since he already admitted, so he didn't want to get into the discussion concerning his previous decision, but what was wrong if he would have heard the reasoning behind רב הונא? After all, he already changed his mind to that פסק also, so wouldn't it be good if he would hear more reasons from רב הונא? And also, from the לשון of the גמרא it comes out, he said lock the door so he shouldn't come in, and then it says על לגבי, he came in. In other words, what it means is that even though he wanted to lock the door not to let him in, nevertheless somehow he got in. So the גמרא should have said the לשון אפילו הכי על לגבי, nevertheless even though he said don't let him in, nevertheless somehow he got in. But the גמרא doesn't say אפילו הכי, the גמרא says על לגבי, he went in, as if he went in normally, but the גמרא says that he told him first to lock the door. And also, when he said lock the door דלא ליתי אינשי דניטרדן, that people shouldn't come and bother us, what does he mean people shouldn't come? According to רש״י he was afraid that רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן would come, so he should have said lock the door so that person shouldn't come in. And also, why didn't he want to let him in? What was he ashamed to say, yes לכתחילה I פסקed the other way, and I made a mistake? רבא himself many times we find in the גמרא, in גמרא שבת and other places, that he said דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הם בידי, that the thing that I said before is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with him admitting that he made a mistake, and we know that רבא wasn't ashamed of that. So why at this point was he ashamed to say yes, I פסקed לכתחילה different, but I made a mistake? And more קושיות the תוספות asks: also concerning the later part of the גמרא, what רש״י said that the case of that גוי inspector, the גוי himself poured the wine back into the jar, into the barrel, because if the case would have been that a איד would have poured the wine back in, and the question would have been that how come the whole barrel is אסור because of that little bit, that he could have answered that I פסק like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל who holds that if some יין נסך was mixed into a whole barrel of wine you're allowed to sell it except the money for the יין נסך. So therefore there would be no קשיא from the case over there where it says that a whole barrel is אסור because that probably goes according to the חכמים. And therefore the פשט there is that the גוי himself poured the wine back into the barrel, so the pouring into the barrel is as if the גוי touched the wine in the whole barrel and the whole barrel becomes יין נסך. That's what רש״י says. And תוספות says it doesn't accept that, that the reason the whole barrel is אסור is מפני טיפת יין אסור. He says it's בכל שהוא. Since there's a drop of יין אסור, and that makes the rest of the wine אסור, and even if it had 60 times as much, but it's אסר בכל שהוא, יין נסך makes it אסור without any limit, even if it's one drop in much, much more, it still is אסור. So it comes out that the reason the wine was אסור there, it wasn't because the גוי poured it in and that is considered as if he touched the wine in the barrel, it is אסור because the drop of יין נסך that fell into the barrel. וממילא we could say that that ברייתא is talking even if the איד poured the wine in, and nevertheless it's אסור because of that. Because of all these קושיות the ר״י learned that when רבא said לכתחילה that you're allowed to sell it to גוים, he meant everything you're allowed to sell, including the wine that the גוי himself had put his hand in and splashed around. And what was רבא's סברא, why are you allowed to do that? Because רבא held that שכשוך גרוע הוא, it's not a real שכשוך, it's not a real splashing, since he didn't intend to splash the wine for ניסוך. The reason he put it in, he wanted to see if it's wine, because he was told by the storekeeper that there is no wine, so he put it in to see if it's wine, and that's why he splashed around. So that is called שכשוך גרוע, it's not a real שכשוך, and therefore when it was mixed into the whole barrel of wine, it became same bucket. And even though ר' שמעון בן גמליאל says that the wine that was mixed in definitely is אסור, even according to ר' שמעון בן גמליאל who said that the whole barrel is מותר, but the money for that wine that was mixed in that the גוי had actually put his hand in should be אסור. How could רבא say here that everything is מותר, even the money for that wine that the גוי put in? But תוספות says because here it's different. There the case is when the little bit of wine that was mixed in was really יין נסך, so therefore you can't have הנאה from the money for that little bit of wine. But here, since when he put his hand in and was משכשך, he had no כוונה of ניסוך, so even this wine is מותר if it's mixed in the whole barrel of wine. And רב הונא בר חיננא and רב הונא בר רב נחמן, they argued on him, and they said that it's אסור. Why? Because they said that this has the same דין as regular יין נסך המשוכשך. Since the גוי put his hand in, and he was משכשך, he splashed around, so this wine definitely becomes אסור. And now, when this wine was poured into the big barrel, so it has the same דין like יין נסך was poured into a barrel. So the same דין like ר' שמעון בן גמליאל says that the whole barrel is מותר, but the money for this wine is אסור. That's what it... And then the גמרא continues with a story, not like our גירסא, that רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן happened to be in מחוזא, but רב נחמן happened to come to מחוזא. That was the גירסא in other ספרים. And רב נחמן was the רבי of רבא. And when it says he went to him, so רבא went to רב נחמן to ask him the שאלה. And after he went into רב נחמן, he told his servant, ר' אליקים, "Lock the door after I enter to רב נחמן, so no one else should come in and bother us." The locking of the door has nothing to do with being afraid that he will be asked questions. And then the גמרא continues על לגביה, he entered into him, meaning he came into רב נחמן, and he asked him what would be the שאלה, the the דין in this case. In other words, he told him the מעשה that happened, and he asked him what would be the דין. So רב נחמן answered him, "It's אסור בהנאה." In other words, because he put his hands in this wine and he was משכשך, it's אסור בהנאה. So רבא said to him, "But didn't once happen the same story to you, and you פסקנ'ד that it's מותר? And based on that פסק דין that I saw you פסקנ, I פסקנ'ד also that it's מותר." So he said to him, "What did I say it's מותר? I meant the money for the rest of the wine is מותר. But the money for that יין המשוכשך, definitely I never said it's מותר." And רב נחמן continued and told him the story that in פומבדיתא this מעשה happened and שמואל אסר'ד it. In טבריא a מעשה happened and ר' יוחנן אסר'ד it. In other words, that we see that the wine itself, the משוכשך from that bucket of wine, that is definitely אסור. But the rest is מותר. Because even by סתם יינם, regular סתם יינם, we פסקנ like ר' שמעון בן גמליאל that says that the money of the wine that was actually touched by the גוי is אסור, but the rest is מותר. So in this case too, this wine, the money for this wine is אסור, but the rest of it is מותר. And then the גמרא also asked a קשיא on רבא, that how could רבא say that even the money for this wine is מותר, when we learn in the ברייתא concerning the inspector who drank some of the wine and poured it back, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he himself poured it back, even if a ייד poured it back, but nevertheless the wine that he drank in the cup became אסור, and he poured it back into the big barrel, the ברייתא says that the whole barrel is אסור. Definitely that ברייתא doesn't go according to ר' שמעון בן גמליאל, goes according to the רבנן, that the רבנן hold that one drop of wine that's יין נסך that falls into a whole barrel, the whole barrel is אסור. So even though that ברייתא goes according to the רבנן, but from that ברייתא we could understand what the הלכה should be according to ר' שמעון בן גמליאל. That according to ר' שמעון בן גמליאל at least that drop that fell in is אסור. If the דין would be that that drop is not even יין נסך, so how could the רבנן say that the whole barrel is אסור? Since the רבנן say the whole barrel is אסור, obviously that little bit that fell in is definitely אסור according to everybody. The רבנן say that because of that everything is אסור, while according to ר' שמעון בן גמליאל, not everything will be אסור, but definitely that bit that fell in definitely is אסור. It's a קשיא on רבא who said that even the money for the wine that was in the bucket that fell into the big barrel is also מותר. And the

גמרא says, "תיובתא דרבא תיובתא," it's a קשיא on רבא. And we don't have any case in the גמרא here that רבא changed his mind, and the גמרא goes in a straight order, that the story happened with רבא, and then רבא came to רב נחמן and asked him the question, and רב נחמן told him that he had פסקנ'ד wrong, and then the גמרא asked a קשיא on רבא, and the גמרא disproves רבא. So this answers that the order of the גמרא is in the regular order, not that the גמרא tells one story that happened later before the other, and also all the other questions we had on the different expressions of the גמרא are answered. Because he didn't want to hide from anybody who was going to ask him questions, he didn't want to lock someone out, and he wasn't ashamed to say "I made a mistake" because he didn't make a mistake. He didn't change his mind to say that he should have to say made a mistake. It wasn't רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן that went to him, and that's why he wanted to not let him in, but it was he who went to רב נחמן, and that's why it says in the גמרא על לגביה, and it doesn't say אתא להכא על לגביה, and all the questions that תוספות had on רש״י are answered. According to this פשט, concerning the ברייתא itself, where it says that the inspector, a גוי, came and קדח במנקית והעלה, או שטעם מן הכוסבי והחזירו לחבית, זה היה מעשה ואסרו. So we said before that what does that mean? רש״י said that the פשט is that he made a hole in the cover of the חבית with a little pipe, and then he sucked from the pipe till the wine came up, and he drank from it, so that wine becomes אסור. That's what it said in the ברייתא. תוספות asks: why did it have to say that the wine came up? Even if the wine wouldn't have come up, it still should be אסור בהנאה, because the גוי touched it. And this is not the same as the דין we know that if a גוי touched the wine בקנה, he wanted to measure the wine and measures with a stick, so then the דין is it's not אסור בהנאה, because there he wasn't מכוון לשכשוך, he wasn't מכוון to splash it. But in this case where he wanted to drink from it, so he was מכוון for שכשוך, so it should be אסור בהנאה even if the wine didn't come up, even if he actually didn't drink from it. As long as he wanted to drink from it, and he sucked on it, so he was מכוון

לשכשוך, so that should make it אסור. And also תוספות asks the קושיא: how did רבא have a הוה אמינא to say that this ברייתא when it says that they אסר it, it means they אסר it only בשתיה, but not בהנאה? Because if the ברייתא would mean only אסור בשתיה, then why טאקע does the ברייתא have to mention that העלה it came up? Even without coming up, it should be אסור בשתיה, because in the case of the קנה, when we say when he measured it with a stick, where he was not even מכוון לשכשוך, still it's אסור בשתיה. And we said before that if he did it with a קנה it's מותר, it means מותר בהנאה, but to be אסור to drink it's even if he wasn't מכוון לשכשוך. Certainly here where he was מכוון לשכשוך, certainly it should be אסור בשתיה, even without העלה, without the wine coming up and him drinking from it. Since it says that he drank from it, obviously we're trying to say that it's an even further case, that because he drank from it it's definitely אסור, so it must mean אסור בהנאה. So how did רבא even have a הוה אמינא to say that here it means אסור באכילה? And therefore תוספות says that it must be the פשט like the רשב״ם says in the name of רש״י, that this is a pipe that you put on top in the opening of the חבית, and it sticks outside of the חבית, and when the wine starts fermenting and starts bubbling and boiling, so then it comes up onto into the pipe, and it doesn't fall out. If you wouldn't have the pipe there, and when it starts boiling, then it would overflow and come out to the ground. But when you put the pipe in, since the pipe sticks out, so when it boils and overflows, the overflow goes into the pipe and then falls back in. And after it quiets down and it stops fermenting and it stops boiling, you don't take it out. All you do is you cut off the tip, and you leave the bottom part of the pipe inside, and you stuff up the top when you cover up the jar, when you cover up the barrel, and you seal it, you seal the top opening plus you seal that opening of that pipe. When you want to open it, what you do is you open up the little hole of the pipe, and you draw some wine, you suck some wine out. And therefore, if the wine would not have come up when the גוי would suck on it, then the גוי didn't do anything to it. According to the other פשט that he put in the pipe, so by putting in a pipe into the wine and splashing around in order to drink from it, that means that even if it wouldn't have come up, he wouldn't have actually drank from it, he still touched the wine. But according to this פשט, the pipe is there from before, he just bent down and sucks on it. So if the wine comes up, that means that it becomes נסך. But if the wine didn't come up, then he didn't do anything to it. That's why the ברייתא has to mention the word והעלה. And then תוספות says, if you really want to accept the previous פשט of רש״י, you could say that the דרך was that when they used to put the pipe in, the pipe would not touch the wine. It's only when you want to drink from it, you would bend the חבית, and then suck on it and the wine would come up. And that's why it has to say והעלה, because if he would just have put in that pipe, that wouldn't make it יין נסך, because he wouldn't even have touched the wine. That's why the ברייתא has to say והעלה.

Concerning what the גמרא said later on that רב אסי asked a question of רבי יוחנן: what is the דין if a גוי diluted the wine with water? Does it become יין נסך or not? And the answer was that it is אסור because we say to a נזיר, לך לך אמרין לנזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב. And the same thing here, in order to be sure that they won't drink wine which is really אסור, so therefore, even though the גוי didn't touch it, but since he diluted it, it is also אסור. So we said before that רש״י says that it's אסור only to drink, but בהנאה it is מותר. And תוספות brings that there are two פשטים: there is one פשט that it is אסור only בשתיה and not בהנאה, because whenever we אסר something only because of לך לך, like we say stay away from it, you shouldn't come to do a worse עבירה, so then we wouldn't אסר it בהנאה, we'd only אסר it בשתיה, to drink. But there's another פשט that when the גמרא says that they made it אסור, it means even אסור בהנאה also. Later on תוספות says that the ר״י writes that בזמן הזה, a גוי that splashed around in the wine of a ייד you are allowed to sell it to another גוי, even though he splashed around, so it should be אסור בהנאה. Nevertheless, nowadays it's different because the גוים are not בקי בשכשוך, they don't even know what this splashing is and what the concept of being מנסך for עבודה זרה is, and therefore it is only אסור. בשתיה, but it is not אסור בהנאה. And תוספות continue that even בשתיה it's only אסור if the גוי touched it not in order to get the ייד angry and to spoil the wine of the ייד. But if we see that the גוי did it because he wants to get the ייד angry, and he wants to spoil his wine, so then it's מותר בשתיה, מותר to drink, because in a case like that, the חכמים didn't make the גזירה. And he

continues and says that when a גוי threw an object into a בור, a בור of wine, in order to get the ייד angry, even if he continues to hold the object till it falls into the בור, still you're allowed to drink it. And he quotes that that's what it says in תשובות of רב האי בן נחשון גאון and the פסקי ריב״א. And also from the גמרא is משמע like that. And קרוב הדבר בעיני, תוספות says, that even if the גוי touched it with his hand in order to get the ייד angry, you're allowed to drink it, because he only did it in order to get the ייד angry. And he quotes that in a תשובה it says that once there was a בור of a ייד that was full of wine, and a גוי, an אנס, came and he put his hand in specially just to get the ייד angry in order to spoil his wine. And there was a great תלמיד חכם there, he was a great ירא שמים. This was a תלמיד חכם that later on, תוספות says, בעוונותינו הרבים, was killed על קידוש השם. But we heard that when the גוי touched the wine of the ייד to get the ייד angry, that great תלמיד חכם himself took some of the wine into a כלי, drank from it in front of the אנס, and the reason was to show him that a ייד is allowed to drink it, in order for him not to be רגיל to do this to other יידן, touch their wine. So we see from there that if he did it, even if he touched it in order to get the ייד angry, it is מותר, even בשתיה, you're even allowed to drink it.

Later on in the גמרא, when the גמרא tells the story that ריש לקיש happened to be in בצרה, and he saw that יידן were eating their fruit without מעשר, so he said it's אסור. And later, רבי יוחנן told him, "You made a mistake, because בצר is not בצרה. You thought that it's בצר, and בצר במדבר was considered ארץ ישראל, but this is בצרה. בצרה is חוץ לארץ, and therefore it is not אסור." תוספות asks a קשיא, here it seems that רבי שמעון בן לקיש, ריש לקיש, was the one that held, that thought, that בצר is בצרה, but רבי יוחנן was the one that told him בצר is not בצרה. It seems to contradict, the גמרא says in the second פרק of מכות, דף י״ב, that ריש לקיש said, "ג׳ טעיות עתיד שר של רומי לטעות," that there are three mistakes that the שר, the מלאך of רום, is going to make a mistake, because he's going to run away to בצרה, and he knows that it says in חומש that one of the ערי מקלט, one of the cities of refuge for a person who killed בשוגג is able to run away and save himself, is בצר. So he's going to run away to בצרה thinking that that's בצר, and he will save himself from the רציחה that he did. And the פסוק says that the אייבערשטער is going to go to בצרה and take him out. And one of the mistakes he's going to make is that he's going to go to בצרה thinking that he is in בצר, וממילא he is in a עיר מקלט. The other two mistakes is that he did it במזיד, and ערי מקלט is only for שוגג, and also ערי מקלט is only for a human being and not for a מלאך. But in the meantime, we see that ריש לקיש was the one that said that he's going to think that בצרה is בצר. Obviously, ריש לקיש himself knew that בצרה is not בצר. In this גמרא it seemed that ריש לקיש himself was the one that thought that בצרה is בצר. תוספות answers that after this story, that's when he said that he said in the גמרא מכות that the mistake that the שר of רומי will make. In other words, after he heard רבי יוחנן tell him that בצר is not בצרה, so then he admitted to his mistake, and then he said, "This is probably the same mistake that the שר של רומי is going to make." Then תוספות says, the פשט that comes out from this גמרא that בצרה is חוץ לארץ while בצר is ארץ ישראל, and because בצרה is חוץ לארץ, that's why רבי יוחנן told him that they don't have to take off מעשר. It comes out from here that חוץ לארץ is not חייב במעשר. And

it's also משמע like that in the first פרק of חולין, דף ו׳, it says that רבי מאיר ate an עלה של ירק in בית שאן, so רבי said that בית שאן is מותר, and you don't have to take off מעשר, because since he saw that רבי מאיר ate an עלה של ירק without מעשר in בית שאן, and בית שאן was חוץ לארץ, and that's why he was מתיר בית שאן. From that he understood that בית שאן is חוץ לארץ. But in the meantime, we see that since בית שאן is חוץ לארץ, you don't have to take off מעשר. So we see that חוץ לארץ doesn't need מעשר, there is no חיוב of מעשר. תוספות asks a קשיא that in other places in the גמרא it's משמע that חוץ לארץ is חייב במעשר. And תוספות actually brings certain גמרות where it seems that חוץ לארץ is חייב במעשר. And רבינו תם answers that here and in the first פרק of חולין where it seems that חוץ לארץ is not חייב במעשר, we're not talking about the regular חיוב מעשר, but we're talking about taking off מעשר from דמאי. דמאי means that if an עם הארץ tells you that he took off מעשר, we don't trust him, and the חכמים were מחייב to take off מעשר again. If a תלמיד חכם or somebody who's in the category of a חבר says that מעשר was taken off, he is believed, and you don't have to take off מעשר. But if it's from an עם הארץ, so we don't trust an עם הארץ, and the fruit that the עם הארץ claims he took off is considered דמאי, and מדרבנן you must take off מעשר again. So concerning דמאי, that's where we say that in חוץ לארץ you don't have to take off מעשר from דמאי. From real טבל, then even in חוץ לארץ you have to take off, but from דמאי you don't have to take off. And תוספות quotes, it says in מסכת דמאי, פרק א׳ משנה ג׳, it says, "מכזיב..." ולהלן פטור מן הדמאי. That from כזיב and on, which is the border of ארץ ישראל and חוץ לארץ, from there on you are פטור from the דמאי, that דמאי you don't have to take off מעשר, because by דמאי the חכמים were מקיל. But concerning טבל, even in חוץ לארץ you must take off מעשר. But then תוספות says that רבינו דוד ממיולן answered a different תירוץ. It says in the גמרא here that he saw in the city that they were eating fruit without מעשר, and he thought that it was ארץ ישראל, so he said that they, it's אסור. And then רבי יוחנן told him that it's really חוץ לארץ and it's מותר. It doesn't mean that they actually didn't take off any מעשר at all. It means that they weren't מחמיר to take off מעשר with the חומרות of ארץ ישראל. Because concerning דינים of מעשר, there are certain חומרות that apply to ארץ ישראל, while to חוץ לארץ they don't apply. So he saw that they were eating it without מעשר, meaning without the חומרות of מעשר of ארץ ישראל. But with the קולות of מעשר of חוץ לארץ they were eating. And therefore he said that it's אסור because they weren't doing the חומרות of ארץ ישראל. And then רבי יוחנן told him that he made a mistake, because really this is חוץ לארץ, so they don't have to do the חומרות of ארץ ישראל. And the same applies to the גמרא in חולין where רבי was מתיר בית שאן. It doesn't mean he was מתיר בית שאן completely, that you don't have to take off מעשר there. What it means is that he was מתיר that you don't have to act with the חומרות of ארץ ישראל. You're able to act there with the קולות of חוץ לארץ. And one of the קולות, for instance, of חוץ לארץ is ביטול ברוב, that מעשר of חוץ לארץ becomes בטל ברוב. And other קולות תוספות says that were mentioned in different places in the גמרא. But then תוספות asks, according to this it comes out that in חוץ לארץ, at least with the קולות of חוץ לארץ, you must take off תרומות ומעשרות, so how come nowadays we don't take off תרומות ומעשרות in חוץ לארץ, not even with the קולות of חוץ לארץ? רבינו תם says because our fields that we own are really משועבד to the government, and therefore it is not considered ours, because דינא דמלכותא דינא. The law of the government is law, and therefore, since we are משועבד to the government, it's not really considered ours, and if it's not our fields, then we are פטור from תרומות ומעשרות. But then he asks a קושיא: why is that different than in the time of the חכמים? In the time of the חכמים they also had קרקעות that were משועבד to the taxes and to the different things to the government, and nevertheless we say in the גמרא that in חוץ לארץ you are חייב in מעשרות. So why are our fields different? And also תוספות asks that we also have many fields which are not משועבד to the taxes and not משועבד to the government. Therefore תוספות says you could rely on the ירושלמי where it says that רבי יוחנן said, רבותינו שבחוץ לארץ היו מפרישין תרומות ומעשרות, that the חכמים of חוץ לארץ were used to take off תרומות ומעשרות, עד שבאו הרובים וביטלום. And it says there, who are the רובים? אמר רבי זעירא, תרגומייא. But whatever the פשט should be, we see that at one point they were מבטל from giving תרומות ומעשרות in חוץ לארץ. But then he says that this whole דין that you are חייב in תרומות ומעשרות in חוץ לארץ are only those areas which are close to ארץ ישראל, for instance מצרים and בבל, מואב and בני עמון, because there they were רגיל to take off תרומות ומעשרות in order not to come to be מקיל with מעשר of ארץ ישראל. Because since they are very close, if people there won't take off מעשר, then people in ארץ ישראל also won't take off, or the people there, when they will get fruit from ארץ ישראל, they won't take off. But in the far places from ארץ ישראל, the חכמים were לכתחילה not מחייב any מעשר. Even in the close places, it's משמע from the ירושלמי that they were only חייב מעשר from דגן, תירוש, ויצהר. Since דגן, תירוש, ויצהר is the only thing that you are חייב מדאורייתא in ארץ ישראל, so there, in the places in חוץ לארץ which are close to ארץ ישראל, you are at least חייב מדרבנן. But everything else, which even in ארץ ישראל is only מדרבנן, so in חוץ לארץ you're פטור completely even in the close places. But in the far places, you're not even חייב to take off from דגן, תירוש, ויצהר. But then תוספות says that maybe from ירושלמי it's not such a ראיה. Maybe in the close places you were חייב to take off מעשר not only from דגן, תירוש, ויצהר, and in ירושלמי it's משמע that you don't, maybe that's only concerning ירק, because ירק has no אסמכתא at all in the תורה, and therefore by ירק you were פטור in the close places too. But concerning other things, even not דגן, תירוש, ויצהר, maybe you are חייב in the close places, but in the far places you are definitely פטור. Concerning what the גמרא said later on that רבי יוחנן said in the name of רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק that מים של רבים אינם נאסרין, that water that belongs to רבים doesn't become אסור even if the גוי will turn it into עבודה זרה, תוספות says, here's משמע that רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק was the רבי of רבי יוחנן, because he says a מימרא in the name of רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק. And so it's משמע, תוספות says, in other places in ש״ס that רבי יוחנן used to say over things in the name of רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק, it's משמע that רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק was his רבי, okay? But תוספות asks that in other places it's משמע that he wasn't his רבי. So תוספות here doesn't answer anything, but in other places תוספות says you must say that there were two רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק. Concerning what the גמרא is מדייק from the words of רבי יוחנן that he said מים של רבים אינם נאסרין, water that belongs to the public doesn't become אסור. The גמרא is מדייק, but if it would belong to a private person, the יחיד, it would become אסור. Now, how can water belong to a private person? So we must say, תוספות says, that it was flowing from the person's property. תוספות asks, it says in the end of מרובה in בבא קמא דף פ״א עמוד א׳ that there were ten conditions that יהושע made when he entered ארץ ישראל. One of the things was that a מעיין, a well that came before they conquered ארץ ישראל, all the people from the city have a right right to use it. So it comes out that there is no such thing as a מעיין that belongs to a יחיד. So how could the גמרא say here, פה דיחיד נשברה? And he answers that when יהושע made this condition that the water should belong to the public, that's only if it came out by itself. But here we're talking in a case where he dug the באר, and he caused the water to come out, then it belongs to him. Or תוספות says, here it's talking in a case where the whole city belongs to him. When is the דין that that יהושע said? That was only if the city belongs to all the people, and one private person in the city has a well, so that well automatically belongs to everybody. But if the whole city belongs to one person, so then automatically the well belongs to him too. תוספות earlier in דף נ"ז עמוד א' gives another תירוץ, that when did יהושע say that a well automatically belongs to the public? If the well flows out of his field further on, then we say that everybody is allowed to use it. So it's not considered a מעיין של יחיד. But in the case where it flows in this in his field and doesn't go out further from the field, then it does belong to the private person. Concerning what תוספות brought before from the ירושלמי where it says that they used to take off מעשרות in חוץ לארץ, till the רוביים came, and רב זעירא said, "Who are the רוביים? תרגומיא." תוספות said that we don't know what the פשט is in תרגומיא, who these רוביים are. But whatever the פשט should be, there we see at one point they stopped giving מעשרות in חוץ לארץ. But the רא"ש here in the גמרא does bring what the פשט of תרגומיא is. He says one פשט is that it means גדולי חכמי ישראל, that mean that גדולי חכמי ישראל came to that area, and they פסקנ'ד that you don't have to take off מעשר. And another פשט he says that the that the כותיים brought certain people to דרשן and to speak for them, and they made all kinds of laws for the benefit of the כותיים. And one of the laws they made was that all the מעשר that you take off has to be given to the כותיים. So therefore, if the יידן would have taken off מעשרות, they would have to give it away to the כותיים. And because of that, they stopped taking off מעשרות. And that's what the ירושלמי means, that they used to take off מעשרות, till תרגומיא came, so then they stopped taking off מעשרות. And that's what we're saying here, that maybe we're able to rely on them, on that ירושלמי, and that is the reason why nowadays we don't take off תרומות ומעשרות in חוץ לארץ, because in ירושלמי it says that at one point they stopped taking off תרומות ומעשרות.