Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה, דף נ״ט. We will start six lines from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא says, דכי אתא רבה בר אבוה איקלע לגבלא, that רבה בר אבוה happened to be in the city called גבלא, now this city, תוספות says in the ערוך it says that this city is הר שעיר. And bring a ראיה that in תרגום יונתן on הר שעיר it says טורא דגבלא, so we see that הר שעיר means the mountain of גבלא. And in תרגום ירושלמי on the פסוק where it says הופיע מהר פארן, and it says איתגלי מיטורא דגבלין עם בני ישמעאל. That he came from הר פארן, it means he came from טורא דגבלא, so we see that טורא דגבלא, גבלא is הר פארן. But תוספות says לפי האמת it's משמע more that this is one of the cities in ארץ ישראל. As it says in the second פרק of כתובות that רבי יהושע בן לוי happened to be in גבלא, חזא גולמין כפנין, is משמע that this is a city in ארץ ישראל. But whatever it is, when רבה בר אבוה happened to be in גבלא, חזא, he saw בנות ישראל, Jewish women, דעברן מעובדי כוכבים דמלו ולא טבלו, that they became pregnant from גוים that went through circumcision, מילה, but they didn't go through טבילה. In other words, they thought that if they just went through מילה, they're also considered יידן. Also, חזא חמרא דמזגו עובדי כוכבים, he saw wine that the גוי diluted in water, ושתו ישראל, and יידן would drink from it. They thought that you're allowed to drink that wine, since the גוי didn't touch it, he just put water in it. Also, חזא תורמוסא דשלקו עובדי כוכבים ואכלו ישראל, he saw lupines, תורמוסין, that the גוי cooked and a ייד would eat it, and they didn't consider this בישול עכו״ם, as we learned before that food that was cooked by a גוי is not allowed to be eaten. And when he saw all these three things, ולא אמר להו ולא מידי, he didn't say anything to them. אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, later he came to רבי יוחנן, and he told him the things that he saw, and he told him that he didn't say anything.

אמר ליה, so רבי יוחנן said to him, זיל והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים, go announce on their children that they are ממזרים, ועל יינם משום יין נסך, and announce that their wine is יין נסך, ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, and announce that their תורמוסין is אסור because it's בישול עכו״ם, משום שאינן בני תורה. The reason for the third thing, why did he consider תורמוסין בישול עכו״ם, is because the people there were not בני תורה. In other words, as the גמרא will explain soon, really תורמוסין were not בישול עכו״ם, because one of the conditions to be בישול עכו״ם is that if it's food that would be served on the table of a king. And since תורמוסין would not be served on the table of a king, so really there is no בישול עכו״ם if a גוי cooked it. But nevertheless, he said announce that it is בישול עכו״ם, since these people are not בני תורה, so therefore they will not understand. If you're going to tell them that this is not בישול עכו״ם, they're going to think that other things which really are בישול עכו״ם, they'll think are also not בישול עכו״ם. So therefore he said announce that their תורמוסין is בישול עכו״ם. And the גמרא explains all these three things: על בניהם שהם ממזרים, why did he say announce on the children they're ממזרים? Because רבי יוחנן לטעמיה, רבי יוחנן goes according to his own reasoning. דאמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said,

לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול, a גוי is not considered a גר unless he goes through מילה and goes through טבילה, he gets circumcised and he goes to the מקוה. וכיון דלא טביל, since he did not go to the מקוה, עובד כוכבים הוא, he's still a גוי, even though they went through מילה, but as long as he didn't go through טבילה, he's still considered a real גוי. ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן, עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל, הולד ממזר, that if a גוי or an עבד כנעני, a גויישער עבד, has relations with a Jewish woman, the child that's born is a ממזר. It's not the way we פסקן, that if a גוי has relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not a ממזר, but רבי יוחנן held that a child born from a גויישער father is a ממזר. And that's what he said, that since they became pregnant from these גוים that went through מילה not טבילה, since רבי יוחנן holds that just by going through מילה he's still considered a גוי, and רבי יוחנן holds that if it's a גויישער father the child is a ממזר, that's what he said: go tell them that their children are ממזרים. על יינם משום יין נסך, second thing that he said was tell them that their wine is יין נסך, משום because of this כלל: we said before, לך לך אמרין נזירא, סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב, because as we said before that even though the גוי didn't touch the wine, he just diluted the wine in water, but still as a fence that they shouldn't come to drink real יין נסך, the חכמים made this אסור also. So therefore he said to him, go tell them that their wine is יין נסך. ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, לפי שאינן בני תורה, and tell them that their תורמוסין are אסור because of בישול עכו״ם, the reason for that is because they are not בני תורה. In other words, really it shouldn't be אסור, but tell them that it's אסור anyway because they are not בני תורה. And the גמרא says, טעמא דאינן בני תורה, the whole reason why it's אסור is because they're not בני תורה, הא בני תורה, שרי, but had they been בני תורה, it would have been מותר. In other words, על פי דין the תורמוסין is not אסור because of בישול עכו״ם. But the question is, why not?

והא אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב, didn't רב שמואל שמואל בר רב יצחק say in the name of רב, כל שנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, anything that could be eaten raw, so even if it was cooked by a גוי, it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And since תורמוסין cannot be eaten raw, so the דין of בישול עכו״ם should apply there. In other words, the גמרא feels at this point that the only condition that could exempt it from the דין of בישול עכו״ם is if it could be eaten raw. Now, since this cannot be eaten raw, it should have a דין of בישול עכו״ם על פי דין. And from the גמרא it seems that the only reason he said it's בישול עכו״ם is because they are not בני תורה, but otherwise it would not be בישול עכו״ם. The question is, why? And the גמרא answers, רבי יוחנן כי הא לישנא סבירא ליה. רבי יוחנן holds like the other לשון. There's another לשון in what the statement of רב שמואל בר רב יצחק was in the name of רב. דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב, that רב שמואל בר רב יצחק said in the name of רב, כל שאינו עולה על שולחן מלכים ללפת בו את הפת, any food that would not be served on the table of a king to eat together with bread, אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים, doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And therefore, since תורמוסין would not be served on the table of a king, it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. And even though it doesn't have the other condition, because it is not eaten raw, but since it has this condition, therefore, really, it is not בישול עכו״ם. And that's why, טעמא דאינם בני תורה. So therefore, the only reason he said to tell them that it is בישול עכו״ם is because they are not בני תורה. הא בני תורה, שרי. But had they been בני תורה, it would have been מותר, because it's not עולה על שולחן מלכים, it couldn't be served on the table of a king, and then it doesn't have a דין of בישול עכו״ם. Concerning what we just learned, that רבי יוחנן holds that an עבד ועכו״ם הבא על בת ישראל, הולד ממזר, so that if the father is a גוי, then the child is a ממזר, תוספות asks a קשיא in פרק אלמנה לכהן גדול, which is in יבמות דף ס״ח עמוד ב׳, and also in פרק עשרה יוחסין, which is in קידושין דף ע״ה עמוד ב׳, the גמרא says there that רבי יוחנן in the name of רבי ישמעאל needs a special פסוק to teach us that if a Jewish woman had relations with an עבד or a גוי, she is פסולה to a כהן. And the גמרא learns this out there from the פסוק, בת איש כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה. The question is, why do we need a special פסוק to teach us that she is פסולה to a כהן, if רבי יוחנן holds that the child is a ממזר under such conditions? So certainly she becomes פסולה, because what makes a Jewish woman פסולה to a כהן? If there was a ביאה אסורה, if she had relations at any time in her lifetime with somebody that's forbidden. Now, if this is a kind of ביאה that turns a child into a ממזר, so certainly this is a ביאה אסורה, so certainly this would turn her into a פסולה לכהן. So why do we need a special פסוק for that? And תוספות answers that we must say, הא דידיה, הא דרביה. One דין he said from himself, and one דין he said from his רבי. In other words, that according to the סברא that we hold that the child is a ממזר, you טאקע wouldn't need the פסוק. And if you need the פסוק, obviously you don't hold that the child is a ממזר. So one of these two places he said his own דין, and in the other place it was in the name of his רבי. And the גמרא continues, בעו מיניה מרב כהנא,

there was a question asked of רב כהנא, עובד כוכבים מהו שיוליך ענבים לגת? What is the דין, can a גוי carry the grapes for a איד to the wine press? אמר להו, so he said to them, אסור, it is אסור, משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב, because we tell a נזיר, stay away from the כרם, because you might come to eat the grapes. So not only don't eat the grapes, don't even pass through the כרם, go around it. So, too, in order to make sure that you don't drink יין נסך, don't even let a גוי carry the grapes for you. Now, what is the שאלה here, that we're asking whether a גוי is allowed to carry the grapes or not? תוספות says in the name of רשב״ם that the שאלה is like this: When they take the grapes off the tree, and they put them into the basket to take them to the wine press, so they put a lot of grapes into the basket, so they get squashed in the basket, and wine comes out of it. And the שאלה here is, what happens if the גוי will touch the wine that came out of the grapes while they're in the basket? Will it be considered יין נסך or not? And his answer was that it is אסור. Even though it's not really יין נסך, but it is אסור. And the רשב״ם explains that the whole שאלה was only concerning touching the wine while it's in the basket. The שאלה was not whether he is allowed to put these grapes into the wine press, because the רשב״ם says, ממה נפשך, if in the wine press there is wine that already started flowing down into the בור, so then it's considered wine already, so definitely it is אסור. And if the גוי would put these grapes into that wine press, it would make everything אסור, because by him putting it in, that itself would make it אסור. It is not like when you throw something, and then we say later on in the גמרא that if he threw something in, then it is מותר. There's a difference between throwing from far and throwing from close. And therefore, if there is wine already in the wine press which is flowing into the בור, which is considered wine, then there is no שאלה that if he would put these grapes in, definitely he would make it אסור. If there is no wine in the wine press, and again there is no שאלה, because definitely he's allowed. The whole שאלה is that the wine that's coming out of the grapes while they are in the basket, if the גוי will touch that wine itself, will that wine itself be אסור or not? Ah, if so, if the שאלה is only on the wine that comes out from the grapes while they're in the basket, what is נוגע where he's taking these grapes to? So why is the שאלה whether he's allowed to take the grapes to the wine press? The שאלה should סתם, is a גוי allowed to touch the grapes that are in the basket? Why mention the wine press at all? And he answers, because that would usually be the reason why you would put the grapes in the basket, in order to take it to the wine press. So that's why it mentions, is a גוי allowed to carry the grapes to the wine press, because that would be the common case. But really the שאלה is, the wine that comes out from the grapes while they're in the basket, is a גוי allowed to touch it or not? That's the פשט the רשב״ם says, and this is the גמרא שאלה here. But תוספות asks many קושיות on the רשב״ם's פשט. First of all, why טאקע does he ask the question concerning carrying the grapes to the wine press? He should have asked סתם, that what is the דין if a גוי touched the grapes that are in the basket, is it אסור or מותר? And also, one thing is for sure, that the wine that comes out from the grapes while they're in the basket is definitely not considered wine. It's considered like water, like regular juice, but not wine, because as we learned earlier, there's two משניות, there's called what we call משנה ראשונה, משנה אחרונה. The משנה ראשונה said that the wine in the wine press is not considered wine. The משנה אחרונה says that if it started flowing already into the בור, it is considered wine. But according to both, even according to the משנה אחרונה, before it starts flowing into the בור, definitely it's not wine. So the juice that comes out from the grapes into the basket is definitely not considered wine. So what kind of שאלה does he have? And also תוספות asks, the רשב״ם wants to make a חילוק between throwing from far and throwing from close, and that's why he says even though it says that if a גוי threw it in it's מותר, nevertheless here, if the גוי would throw these grapes into the גת it definitely would be אסור. That is also not true, תוספות says. We don't find anywhere that there should be a חילוק between throwing from far and throwing from close. And then תוספות goes into more detail, but the end of the תוספות has a different פשט, that the שאלה here is that we're talking about a גת, a wine press that started flowing already into the בור. So the wine in the wine press is considered wine already. And the שאלה is, are you allowed to let the גוי take the grapes from the basket and put it into the wine press? Now, if the גוי would not put the grapes into the wine press, the fact that there is juice coming out of the grapes in the basket is no שאלה, definitely it would be מותר. Also, if the wine in the wine press would not have started flowing yet into the בור, so then also there would be no שאלה that the גוי is allowed to put these grapes into the wine press, because as we said before, the wine in the press before it starts flowing down to the בור is not considered wine, so he wouldn't make it אסור. The question is in the case where the wine of the wine press started flowing already into the בור, so it has already a דין of wine. The שאלה is, when the גוי will throw these grapes into the wine press, which already has a דין of wine, will it be אסור or not? What is the reason for the שאלה? Because we said before that if the גוי puts water into the wine, he dilutes it with water, so even though he didn't touch the wine, nevertheless it's אסור. So this could be similar to that. When he puts the grapes into the wine press, and in the wine press you have wine which has a הלכה of wine, it is similar to when he puts the water into the wine. So maybe it should be אסור because of that. In other words, just like the case when he puts the water in, we say it's אסור because we're afraid maybe he will come to touch it, so here, too, maybe we say it's אסור if he puts the grapes into the wine press because he might touch it, or maybe it's not the same like when he puts water in. And the reason why it shouldn't be the same is because when he puts the water in, he wants to put in a certain measurement, because he wants to put the water in so you'll be able to drink it. So then he's involved in what he is doing, so we're afraid maybe he's going to touch it. But in this case where he just throws the grapes into the press, maybe we're not afraid he'll touch it, and maybe here we don't make it אסור, or on the other hand, maybe we don't make this difference and it is אסור. And the answer he gave him was that it is אסור. Ay, the question is, why should it be אסור? After all, it is just throwing in, and as תוספות brought before, throwing in doesn't make it אסור. The difference is that in this case the throwing in is similar to מזיגה, similar to when he puts the water in, when we do make it אסור as a גזירה, and therefore he said that in this case it would be אסור. But on the other hand, it's not really like מזיגה, because after all he's not putting the water in and he's not מדקדק in what he is doing, he's just throwing the grapes in. Therefore, he said it's only אסור לכתחילה and not בדיעבד, as the גמרא will explain soon. But the חילוק that רשב״ם makes, whether you throw it from far or throw it from close, that is not a חילוק, we don't find such a thing, תוספות says. And in ירושלמי it's also משמע that there is no חילוק like that, because it says there in ירושלמי, תני רב שמואל בשם רבי אבהו אין זריקה אוסרת ביין נסך. Throwing in doesn't make it אסור ביין נסך. From here it's משמע that we don't make any חילוקים, any type of throwing in doesn't make it אסור. So therefore, as far as the throwing in, it wouldn't be אסור. The only שאלה is, is it considered similar to pouring the water into the wine that we said that we make גזירה, so here too, it's similar to that and we should also make a גזירה, that he shouldn't be able to put the grapes into the winepress, which has wine already, that started flowing, which has a הלכה of wine, or not. And he answered him, "Yes, but this is also אסור, it is similar to the case of the מזיגה." Then the גמרא continues, איתיביה רב יימר לרב כהנא, רב יימר asked a question of רב כהנא: We

learn in a ברייתא, עובד כוכבים שהביא ענבים לגת, if a גוי brought grapes to the winepress, בסלים in baskets, ובדודורין and in barrels, אף על פי שהיין מזלף עליהן, even if the wine is actually pouring out around it, there is juice coming out of it, מותר, it is מותר. "How could you tell me," he's asking him, "that a גוי is not allowed to carry the grapes to the winepress, and here it says clearly if the גוי carried the grapes to the winepress, it is מותר?" אמר ליה, so he said to him, "הביא קאמרת? You're talking about if he brought? In the ברייתא it says if the גוי brought the grapes, it's מותר. That is בדיעבד. If it happened, it is מותר. אנא לכתחילה קאמינא, I meant לכתחילה." The question you asked was whether a איד is allowed to let a גוי do it, so I answered you he is not allowed, לכתחילה he is not allowed. But the ברייתא says בדיעבד, if he did it, it doesn't become אסור. And we said before according to תוספות' פשט, because after all, this is not like מזיגה. It is not ממש like pouring the water in where he is מדקדק in what he is doing. So therefore, a little bit it's like מזיגה it's אסור לכתחילה, but בדיעבד it is not like מזיגה and it is מותר. Then the גמרא continues, ההוא אתרוגא דנפל לחביתא דחמרא,

there was an אתרוג that fell into a barrel of wine. אידרי עובד כוכבים ושקליה, a גוי jumped jumped up and grabbed it while it was in the barrel of wine. אמר להו רב אשי, so רב אשי said to them, to the people there, נקטו לידיה, hold onto his hand, כי היכי דלא לשכשך ביה, in order for him not to splash around in it, ובצוה, and bend the barrel, עד דשפי, till it will be empty. In other words, don't let him take his hand out, because when he takes his hand out, he will be splashing around, and as soon as he splashes around it'll become יין נסך. So what you do is, hold onto his hand, tilt the barrel and empty it, and then let him take it out with the אתרוג. And then as רב אשי said, it'll be מותר בהנאה, because as long as his hand is inside, then he is not משכשך. If he will take out his hand, he will be משכשך. It is impossible to watch him from splashing, and then it'll become אסור. That's why he said, hold onto his hand still, and empty the wine, and then the wine will be מותר בהנאה. The only question one might ask, what about the time when he put his hand in? But תוספות says we must say that when he put the hand in, it's not called שכשוך to make it אסור בהנאה, because he was involved in what he is doing. He grabbed onto the אתרוג, he didn't want the אתרוג to go down, to sink to the bottom of the barrel. So what he was doing when he put his hand in, he was only thinking about grabbing onto the אתרוג. So since he was busy with grabbing onto the

אתרוג, the אתרוג shouldn't get dirty, so therefore, that is not considered שכשוך. It's similar to the case where the דין is that if the גוי measured the wine with his hand, the רבנן say that you're allowed to sell it, and have הנאה from it, even though you can't drink of it, you can't have a הנאה, have הנאה from it. Same thing here, when he put his hand in, since he was only interested in grabbing the אתרוג, so that is not considered שכשוך, you're allowed to have הנאה from it. In other words, even if we're going to say that the case here was that he knew it was wine, so when he put his hand in, he had כוונה knowing that it's wine. Nevertheless, being that he was involved in grabbing the אתרוג, that is not considered שכשוך. And therefore, you're allowed to have הנאה from it. But when he would take out the אתרוג, then he is not so involved, because he grabbed the אתרוג already. ממילא, he is not so involved and excited in what he is doing. So here we're afraid that if he'll take it out, it will be שכשוך. And then it would not be similar to the case where he put his hand in to measure it, because by measuring, even when he takes the hand out after he finished measuring, he's still involved in the measuring, because when he takes it out, he's holding on to the place where the wine came up to, to make sure that he has the proper measurement. So there, the whole time, putting in and taking out his hand, he is involved in what he is doing, and therefore it's מותר בהנאה. But in this case, that the reason he put his hand in was just to grab the אתרוג, so after he grabbed it, now when he would take it out, he's not so involved in the אתרוג. So that's why to take it out we're afraid it would be שכשוך. Therefore, he said, hold onto his hand, don't let him take it out, empty it from the side, and then take out his hand. But when he put his hand in, then definitely he was involved in the אתרוג, and that is not considered שכשוך, and therefore, it is מותר בהנאה. This is the first פשט that תוספות says. But the

רבינו תם says that here, the case is that when he put his hand in, he thought it was oil. And that is the reason that by putting his hand in he didn't make it אסור, because it's similar to the case that we said on דף נ"ח, that he shouldn't, a גוי who thought that the jar was oil, and he put his hand in, and the גמרא says there, זה היה מעשה ואמרו ימכר, this happened the story, and he פסק'נט that you're allowed to sell it, you're allowed to have הנאה from it. So the same thing here also, he thought it was oil, and that's why when he put his hand in, it doesn't make it אסור, because he didn't know it's wine. But when he came to take out, since now he knew already it was wine, because his hand was in, he felt it was wine, now if he'll take it out, he'll make it אסור. That's why he said, hold onto his hand, and empty it without him moving his hand. But תוספות says this פשט is a דוחק'דיק פשט. And then תוספות brings another פשט that the reason why by putting in his hand he didn't make it אוסר, because when he touched, the hand לכתחילה it is מגע עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה, because he didn't have intention to touch the wine, he wanted to grab the אתרוג. So it's considered as if he touched the wine without כוונה. Even though he knew that he was going to touch the wine, but that's not what he intended to do, because he was intending to take the אתרוג out, so it's considered as if he touched the wine without כוונה. The same as the דין in the case where he thought it was oil, and he put his hand in and he found out it was wine, so we say it's מותר בהנאה, why? Because at that point he didn't know it's wine, so it's as if he didn't have כוונה to touch wine. The same thing here: even though he knew it's wine, but since he meant to get the אתרוג out and didn't intend to touch the wine, so even though he knew he was going to touch the wine, it's considered as if he touched the wine without כוונה. So therefore, by putting in his hand he didn't make it אוסר. But after he took the אתרוג, so then we're afraid maybe now when he's holding on to the אתרוג already, maybe now he will intend to touch the wine, and he will משכשך and make it אוסר. That's why he said hold on to his hand, make sure he doesn't move it, empty the barrel, and then he'll be able to take his hand out and the wine won't be אסור בהנאה. Then the

גמרא continues: אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, האי עובד כוכבים דנסכיה לחמריה דישראל בכוונה, a גוי who took the wine of a איד and poured it and was מנסך it intentionally in order to cause the damage to the איד, אף על גב דזבוני לעובד כוכבים אחרינא אסור, even though to sell it to another גוי it's אסור because you're not allowed to have הנאה from this wine, since it is יין נסך, שרי ליה למישקל דמי מההוא עובד כוכבים. You're still allowed to take the money from that גוי that made it into יין נסך. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? מיקלא קלייה, he is the one that burnt it, he is the one that caused the damage. So then when he will take the money for the damage, it won't be taking money for יין נסך, which means he would have הנאה from the יין נסך. He is taking money from him for כשר'ע wine. All he's telling him is that I had wine, and because of what you did, I cannot use that wine. So you spoiled my כשר'ע wine. So for spoiling כשר'ע wine, he's allowed to take money for. So it comes out that it's not הנאה from יין נסך, but it's הנאה from כשר wine. If he would sell it to somebody else, so then he is selling him יין נסך, so the money you'll get from that person will be money for יין נסך, and you can't have הנאה from יין נסך, so you can't use the money. But the גוי himself who spoiled it, so from him he will take money for causing him a damage. You could tell him, it's as if you spilled my wine, now you have to pay me for it. So in this case too, since he caused him that the wine cannot be used anymore, so he's able to take the money from him. And the גמרא continues: אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, מנא אמינא לה, from where do we, I know this, where do I take this דין from? It says: דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, עובד כוכבים שניסך יינו של ישראל, if a גוי was מנסך the wine of a איד, שלא בפני עבודת כוכבים, even if it was done not in front of עבודה זרה, אסור, it is אסור. And as רש"י says, it's even אסור בהנאה, because if he made it into יין נסך, it's אסור בהנאה, and the חידוש is that even though it was not done in front of עבודה זרה, it's still אסור בהנאה. אבל

רבי יהודה בן בבא ורבי יהודה בן בתירא מתירין, but רבי יהודה בן בבא and רבי יהודה בן בתירא, they say it is מותר בהנאה. And the reason is משום שני דברים, for two reasons: אחד, one reason is, שאין מנסכין יין אלא בפני עבודת כוכבים, that a גוי, a person does not מנסך wine unless it is in front of עבודה זרה, and therefore in the case where it was done not in front of עבודה זרה, it is not really considered יין נסך. ואחד, and another reason is, שאומר לו, he could say to him, לא כל הימנך, you are not believed, שתאסר ייני לאונסי, that you should make my wine אסור against my will. And here we see that since he did it against the will of the איד, so he caused damage to the איד's wine, so the איד is able to tell him that my wine doesn't become אסור. So according to רבי יהודה בן בבא and רבי יהודה בן בתירא, they hold that בכלל it's not אסור. It's בכלל מותר בהנאה, and you could even sell it to other people, to other גוים. So טאקע, רב אשי said, we don't פסקן like them so far as to say that this wine is not אסור בהנאה, but one thing we do see from there, that we do accept such a סברא that the גוי who did it caused him a damage לאונסיה. So at least from here we have a ראיה that at least לגבי accepting money for the damage from that גוי itself who did it is allowed. And that's what he said, from this ברייתא I take my דין. From the way that רבי יהודה בן בבא and רבי יהודה בן בתירא פסקן, so from there we can understand that at least from this גוי you're allowed to take the money. This is the way רש"י learns the פשט in the ראיה, and this is also the way the רשב"ם learns פשט in the ראיה, as תוספות brings down, that not that really have a ראיה from here to his דין, all we see from here that there is a concept that we're able to say to the גוי, you caused me damage and therefore I want you to pay for it. But we don't have any opinion in this ברייתא that fits with the opinion of רב אשי. Just from the way that רבי יהודה בן בבא and רבי יהודה בן בתירא hold, we see that there is such a סברא, because באמת, we, like as the רשב"ם says, we don't פסקן like them, because we see later on on דף ע"ב עמוד ב' that you could make יין נסך even לאונסיה, even if it's against the will of the owner. So we don't פסקן like them. The only thing is we see that there is such a טענה, and since we see that such a טענה, so רב אשי said, I use this טענה that the גוי should have to pay for it, and we don't consider it יין נסך, but we consider that he's paying for the damage that he caused. But תוספות learns a different פשט. תוספות learns that even though we don't פסקן like יהודה בן בבא and יהודה בן בתירא, but from what they said, we understand what the opinion of the חכמים is. Because in this ברייתא, the חכמים say that it is אסור בהנאה. יהודה בן בבא and יהודה בן בתירא say that it's מותר בהנאה because it was done באונס. So even though the חכמים argue on יהודה בן בבא and יהודה בן בתירא, but from the opinion of יהודה בן בבא and יהודה בן בתירא, then we could understand what is the opinion of the חכמים. Because usually we don't try to make a מחלוקת to two opposite extremes, so we try to make it as close as possible. So therefore, it makes sense to say that just like יהודה בן בבא and יהודה בן בתירא holds that because of this טענה that you did it לאונסי, it is מותר בהנאה completely, we understand that the חכמים who say it's אסור, they also don't mean it's אסור completely, they only mean it's אסור to sell to somebody else. But to take money from this גוי itself, the חכמים would also admit that you're allowed. And therefore, when it says in the ברייתא that the חכמים hold it's אסור, we have to say it's only אסור to sell to other גוים, but to sell to this גוי, which means to get the money from this גוי, that you're allowed. Because the same סברא as they use concerning saying that it's מותר completely, we could say the חכמים used at least not to אסר it to this גוי. So according to this פשט, he actually has a ראיה from this ברייתא to his opinion, because he learns פשט in this ברייתא that the חכמים who say it's אסור, that's what they mean: that it's אסור to sell to other גוים, but it's מותר to take the money from this גוי because it's not considered money for יין נסך, but it's considered money for the נזק. Then

תוספות asks a קשיא: how can we say that it is considered money for the נזק, when after all, if the גוי wouldn't get the wine, he wouldn't pay for it? Let's say the ייד would take the wine and pour it out, the גוי wouldn't pay for it. If it's considered דמי נזק, then he should pay for it no matter what. He caused the ייד damage, so he has to pay for it even if he doesn't get. But since we know for sure that if he wouldn't get, he wouldn't pay for it, he only pays for it if he gets it, ממילא it's considered as if the ייד has הנאה from יין נסך, he's getting money for the יין נסך. הא ראיה, if he wouldn't give him the יין נסך, he wouldn't get the money. So how can we consider it that it's דמי נזק? And תוספות answers that באמת we still consider it as דמי נזק, because you know it says in the גמרא גיטין דף נ״ג עמוד ב׳ that if a ייד would do this, if a ייד is מנסך someone else's wine, the דין is that he is חייב to pay. And there the דין is no matter what, whether he gets it or not, even if the ייד will pour it out, nevertheless, the ייד who caused the damage, who made it יין נסך, will have to pay for it. So we see this concept that if you cause someone else's wine to become יין נסך, you are considered a מזיק and you have to pay for the נזק. So therefore, we understand from here the same would apply to a גוי also, that since he caused the damage, he has to pay for it. And even though there is a little difference: by the ייד it is definitely even if he won't get the wine, even if the ייד pours it out, while by the גוי, if the ייד will pour it out, the גוי won't give him the money, but nevertheless we have a ראיה to the סברא of it, that when you cause damage by making it יין נסך, you are considered a מזיק and you have to pay דמי נזק. And that's why even by a גוי, we say that it is considered דמי נזק, and it is not considered that he's getting money for the יין נסך. And the

גמרא continues: ההיא חביתא דחמרא, there was this barrel of wine, דאישתקיל ברזא, that the cork fell out. אתא עובד כוכבים, a גוי came, אידרי, he jumped up, jumped up from this place and ran over, אנח ידיה עלויה, he put his hand over the... The גוי jumped up, put his hand over the hole so the wine shouldn't pour out. אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said: כל דלהדי ברזא חמרא אסיר, all the wine that's on the level with this hole is אסיר. It's only אסור to drink, it's not אסור בהנאה, since there was no שכשוך, he didn't splash around, because the hole was very narrow, so he couldn't splash around. So it is just touching, and when it's just touching, it is not אסור בהנאה. And even that, he said only the wine that's in the level of the hole, so that we consider to be touched, that is אסור to drink. ואידך, but the rest of the wine, שרי, is מותר, you could even drink it. Why? Because he holds that the sides are not considered a חיבור, that the wine that's on the sides of the place where he put his hand on, that is not considered a חיבור, not considered a connection, and therefore all the other wine except the wine that's in the level of the hole is not אסור even to drink. That's one way, one version of what רב פפא פסקנ'ט. איכא דאמרי, others say there was another version of what he פסקנ'ט: אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said: דעד הברזא חמרא אסיר, that all the wine from the top all the way down till the level of the hole, all that wine is אסיר. And the reason for that is because if the hole would not have been stopped up, all the wine from the top would have flown out through the hole. The wine that's under the hole wouldn't come out, but all the wine from the top till the hole would come out. So therefore, that all is considered connected. So when he touched the wine at the bottom by the hole and all the other wine would have passed through that hole, so all that wine is considered connected, and therefore all that wine is אסור. ואידך, the rest of the wine that's under the hole, שרי, that is מותר. גמרא says:

אמר רב ימי, רב ימי says, כתנאי, the opinion of רב פפא depends on a מחלוקת תנאים, which means his פסק דין doesn't fit according to all cause we learned חבית שניקבה, if you had a barrel of wine which was תרומה, and it got a hole, בין מפיה, whether the hole was on top, בין משוליה, or the hole was in the bottom, ובין מצדיה, or whether the hole was on the side, ונגע בו טבול יום, and a טבול יום touched it, a טבול יום is still טמא. The דין is that when a person is טמא he has to go to the מקוה, but he's still not completely טהור till הערב שמש, till the sun sets on that day. Now, if it is before the sun sets, he is considered a טבול יום. He טובל'd on that day, but he's still not completely טהור. Now, a טבול יום touches תרומה makes it טמא. So, if the טבול יום touched the hole, טמאה, the whole barrel is טמא, all the wine in the barrel is טמא, and it's no difference where the hole was. This is the opinion of the חכמים. And as תוספות explains the פשט according to רש״י, that the reason all three are טמא is as follows: The reason everything is טמא if he touched the hole that was on the top, because the part that he touched definitely becomes טמא. Now, everything that's under it is considered that this is the base for the wine that's on top. And therefore it's connected, because this is the base, this holds up the wine on top, so it is מחובר to the wine on top. And therefore, if the wine on top is טמא, so the wine on the bottom is also טמא. If the hole is on the bottom, we say the same thing. That since everything is laying on top of the wine that's on the bottom, if the hole would be opened up, so then the wine would start running out on the bottom, and automatically everything else would flow along with it. ממילא, all the wine that's in the top is considered also a חיבור because that is going to be נמשך through the hole on the bottom. If the hole is in the middle, it's exactly the same thing. When the hole is in the middle, so the wine that's right against the hole becomes טמא, so the wine that's under it is considered the foundation, the base for this wine that's טמא. The wine that's over it is going to be נמשך if it'll start flowing out. And therefore, even if the hole is in the middle, also the דין is that everything is טמא. That's the opinion of the חכמים. But רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, מפיה ומסוליה טמאה, that if the hole is on the top or the hole is on the bottom, it is טמא for that reason. Because if the hole is on the top, so the wine on top is טמא, everything else considered the base for the wine on the top, and that's why it's a חיבור, and it's טמא. If the hole is on the bottom, so everything else which is on top is going to flow through that same hole. ממילא, that makes into a חיבור. But מצדיה, טהורה מכאן ומכאן. But if the hole was in the middle, so whatever he touched is טמא, anything that's in the level of that hole is טמא, but from all other sides it is טהור. In other words, if the hole is in the middle, he doesn't look at the other wine that it's as if this is the base, and the wine on top is the wine that's going to be נמשך. We only say that if the hole is actually all the way on the top or the hole is all the way on the bottom. But if it's the middle, only what's in the level of the hole is טמא, but all the rest is טהור. And here we see that the opinion of רב פפא only fits to רבי יהודה, and not to the חכמים. Because let's see, first according to the first version in the words of רב פפא, that he said that the wine that's level with the hole becomes יין נסך. Everything else is not יין נסך. So this fits exactly with what רבי יהודה said. רבי יהודה said that if the hole is in the middle, and the טמא touches that hole, so the wine that's in the level of the hole is טמא, but the wine on top and the wine on the bottom is not טמא. Why? Because the צדדין, the sides, the top and the bottom, is not considered a חיבור. So this is exactly what רב פפא said, that the wine that's in the level of the hole is יין נסך, the other wine is not. So it fits according to רבי יהודה. But according to the רבנן who say that even if the hole is in the middle, still all the wine becomes טמא, so in the case of the יין נסך, also we should say the same thing. Because the wine on the bottom should be יין נסך, because this is the base to the wine that was touched by the גוי. The wine on top should be יין נסך, because this is going to flow through the hole that was touched. So, everything should be יין נסך. So since רב פפא says that only the wine the level of the hole is יין נסך, so he fits only with the opinion of רבי יהודה, and not with the opinion of the חכמים. And even to the, according to the second version, the second לשון in רב פפא, also it fits only according to רבי יהודה, and not according to the חכמים. Because what did רב פפא say? That the wine that's on top becomes

יין נסך, but the wine that's on the bottom of the hole doesn't become יין נסך. So this only fits according to רבי יהודה. Because according to the חכמים, the wine on the bottom should also be יין נסך. Why should the wine under it not be יין נסך? So, therefore, we must say that this fits according to רבי יהודה, that if you touched the hole in the middle, so only what's in the level becomes יין נסך. But the rest of it is not חיבור. איי, why is the wine on top יין נסך? This probably is because of a חומרא of יין נסך. So by יין נסך, he was מחמיר, and he said that the wine on top which is going to flow through the hole is יין נסך, but the wine on the bottom is not. But if we would hold like the חכמים, then the wine on the bottom should also be יין נסך. So the only way we can understand his opinion is if he holds like רבי יהודה, that באמת only what's in the level of the hole should become יין נסך. Like in the case of the טומאה, that only what's in the level of the hole becomes טמא and the rest is not. So here really it's also like that, but because of the חומרא of יין נסך, the חכמים were מחמיר and said what's on top should also become טמא. And ממילא, רב פפא only fits according to רבי יהודה, but not according to חכמים, because according to the חכמים, everything should become יין נסך. And the רא״ש adds that being that רב פפא only fits according to רבי יהודה, and not according to the חכמים, and יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים, when there's an argument between one against the majority, always the הלכה is like the majority, ממילא we definitely don't פסקן like רבי יהודה, we פסקן like the חכמים. And since רב פפא fits only to רבי יהודה and not according to the חכמים, so definitely we don't פסקן like רב פפא either. The

רא״ש says the הלכה in this case is not like רב פפא. תוספות asks a קשיא, according to this it comes out, the whole איסור we're talking about here is only concerning drinking. The הנאה definitely not אסור, because the only way יין becomes אסור בהנאה is through שכשוך, if the גוי splashes around, and since in this case he didn't splash around, he didn't move the wine, so therefore nothing is אסור בהנאה. So when רב פפא said that the wine up to the hole is אסור, and the wine under the hole is מותר, he means, according to the פשט we learned before, that up to the hole, from the top bottom down till the hole, is אסור to drink, and from the hole down to the bottom of the חבית is מותר to drink. תוספות asks, how can it be that you have one barrel of wine, and half should be מותר to drink, and half should be אסור to drink? And therefore תוספות learns that when רב פפא said that up to the hole, from the top till the hole, is אסור, he meant אסור בהנאה. But why should it be אסור בהנאה? תוספות explains because as soon as the hole was opened, the whole wine from the top till the hole, all of that moved, because it started going out. So when the גוי put his hand on the hole, so he stopped everything from going out, so it comes out that it's as if he touched everything. And therefore, if he touched everything, so everything is אסור בהנאה. Now the rest under the hole to the bottom is מותר בהנאה, but we still can't drink it. And the reason it is אסור to drink, because of the wine that's over the hole, which is אסור בהנאה, so therefore the bottom also has to be at least אסור to drink, because you can't have a barrel of wine that part of it should be אסור to drink, and part of it should be מותר to drink. Now we just

saw that תוספות asked this קשיא only according to the לשון that the wine from the top till the hole is אסור. תוספות asked, how is it possible that half a barrel should be אסור to drink, and half a barrel should be מותר to drink? לכאורה this same קשיא could also be on the other לשון, the לשון that רב פפא said that the wine that's in the level of the hole is אסור, and the wine that's on top and on the bottom is מותר, you could ask the same question, how is it possible that you should have wine in the same barrel, some of it should be אסור to drink and some of it should be מותר to drink? But nevertheless we see that תוספות didn't ask the question according to both opinions of רב פפא. תוספות only asked the question according to the opinion of רב פפא that the top half of the barrel is אסור. And the truth is, as the ב״ח brings down, that the רא״ש asks the question on both opinions, but תוספות only asked the question according to this לשון in רב פפא, that half of the barrel is אסור. And the ב״ח explains why: because according to the לשון that only the wine that's in the level of the hole is אסור, and as we're saying till now, it's only אסור בשתיה, only אסור to drink, so wine that's only אסור to drink, we know is בטל בששים, if it falls into sixty times as much, it becomes בטל. And therefore, since the איסור is only a little bit, only that little bit that's in the level of the hole, so therefore the rest of it is מותר because it becomes בטל. But according to the לשון that half of the barrel is אסור, then the question is, how could it be that this half is אסור and that half is מותר? Because it can't become נתבטל, because there's too much there to become נתבטל. And since it's not בטל, תוספות asks, so how could half of it be מותר to drink? But according to the other לשון, when we say that only a little bit is אסור, then we understand why the rest of it is מותר to drink, because it is בטל בששים.

Concerning the fact that the רא״ש said that we don't פסקן like רב פפא, because רב פפא only fits to רבי יהודה, and רבי יהודה is a יחיד against the חכמים who are a רבים, and יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים, so תוספות says that's no ראיה, because we find many times when we do פסקן like a יחיד against a רבים. Nevertheless, רבנו תם says that definitely the הלכה is not like רב פפא, but for a different reason. Because we find later on that רבא argues against רב פפא. And even though רב פפא was after רבא, and we know a כלל that הלכה כבתראי, the הלכה is always like a later generation, nevertheless not when it comes between רב פפא and רבא, because רבא was the רבי of רב פפא. And רבא בעצם was a בתראה also, he was also a later generation, just רב פפא was one generation later, but רבא was his רבי. And also רבא was greater than רב פפא בחכמה ובמנין, and therefore we would פסקן like רבא against רב פפא. And since רבא argues against רב פפא, the הלכה is like רבא, not like רב פפא. Where do we find that רבא argues against רב פפא? So תוספות says we see that later on in the next פרק on דף ע״ב עמוד ב׳, it says there that there was a גוי who put his hand אבת גישתא. And תוספות explains what בת גישתא is, that when you want to suck wine out of a barrel, all you would do is you would take two pipes and connect them at the point, make it look like a V, and then when you put one end into the barrel and you suck at the other end, that pulls the wine, and the wine continues to go the whole time. And if you want to stop the flow, all you do is you would put your hand at the opening that's outside, and then all the wine would go back into the barrel, and it wouldn't continue flowing. But if you wanted to flow again, you would have to suck on it again. But the גמרא tells a story there, there was this גוי put his hand on the בת גישתא, on that pipe that was sticking out, and רבא said that all all the wine is אסור. What does all the wine mean? All the wine that's in the barrel is אסור. And the גמרא says there that רב פפא asked him, "Why do you make everything אסור? Is it because of ניצוק? Is it because there was one flow of wine?" So he said, "No, the reason here it's אסור is because all the wine in the barrel would have flowed through the בזביזא. And since he touched the בזביזא, so automatically he as if he touched all the wine in the barrel." And the ר"ן explains that the case is that the גישתא, which is the part of the pipe which is in the barrel, did not reach the bottom of the חבית, did not reach the bottom of the barrel of wine. And nevertheless, רבא said that all the wine is אסור, even the wine that's under the end of the גישתא in the חבית. And the reason why he said it's אסור is because everything is being pulled after the בזביזא. So we see here that רבא accepts the סברא that since everything is going to be pulled after that, ממילא that makes a connection and everything becomes אסור. When רב פפא asked him, "Is the reason you make it אסור because of ניצוק?" So his question was concerning the wine that's under the גישתא, under the end of the pipe that's inside. Because he thought that the wine that's under the גישתא should not be אסור, only the wine from the גישתא and up should be אסור, as רב פפא said here according to the לשון that the wine up to the hole is אסור, so there too he held that the wine up to the גישתא is אסור, but the wine that's under the גישתא should not be אסור because he doesn't hold of the reason of גריר. He doesn't care about the fact that this will be pulled. Therefore, he asked רבא, "Why do you say it's אסור? Meaning, why do you say that even the wine that's under the גישתא is אסור? Is it because of ניצוק?" And רבא said, "No, that is because that wine would have been pulled." But רב פפא, who asked the question, he obviously doesn't hold that way. He holds that the wine under it is מותר because he doesn't accept the סברא of גריר, and that's why he said it's מותר. So it comes out here that there's a מחלוקת between רבא and רב פפא in this דין, that רבא says that we do accept the סברא that since it's going to be pulled everything is אסור, while רב פפא doesn't accept the סברא. Now, it

comes out that according to רבא, in the case of our גמרא, since רבא holds that even under the גישתא is אסור because it would have been pulled, why would it have been pulled? Even though really it wouldn't have gone out because the גישתא stopped there, but nevertheless when the flow comes through the גישתא, all the wine, even the wine under the גישתא starts moving and is ready to go up and be pulled. So it comes out that according to רבא, in our case here where the גוי touched the hole, so the wine under the hole also should be אסור because of this reason of גריר, that it started moving to go out of the hole. So it comes out according to רבא in our case everything would be אסור, so רבא argues against רב פפא. And since we've said before we פסקן like רבא against רב פפא, so automatically this is a ראיה that we don't פסקן like רב פפא in this case, but we פסקן like רבא. But תוספות says how do we know that that is the פשט in the גמרא there? How do we know the מחלוקת between רב פפא and רבא was concerning the wine that's under the גישתא? Maybe the מחלוקת was concerning the wine that's over the גישתא, from the bottom of the גישתא and up, that when רבא said everything is אסור he means only the wine that's from the bottom of the גישתא and up because that wine would definitely have gone through the גישתא, but the wine under it is even according to רבא מותר. And when רב פפא asked, "Why do you make it אסור?" which means he held it's מותר, he meant the wine that's over the גישתא should also be מותר, because concerning the wine under the גישתא everyone agrees it's מותר, the מחלוקת is concerning the wine over the גישתא. Now, if we learn that way, we have no ראיה that רבא would have argued against רב פפא in the case here, because רבא there too holds that under the גישתא it's מותר, so this case, too, under the hole רבא would have admitted that it's מותר. So we don't have a ראיה רבא argues against רב פפא, and ממילא how can we prove that the הלכה is not like רב פפא because רבא argues? But

תוספות says we can't say that פשט, because according to that פשט there's a סתירה in the words of רב פפא here and the words of רב פפא there. According to the לשון here, רב פפא says that the wine over the hole is אסור is a סתירה, contradiction, to the opinion of רב פפא there. If we're going to say that the מחלוקת there is concerning the wine over the גישתא, so it comes out that רב פפא there holds that the wine from the bottom of the גישתא and up is also מותר, so how come here he says that the wine from the hole and up is אסור? So the גמרא should have asked a סתירה between this גמרא and that גמרא. אי, you might say maybe the דין that רב פפא said here was after רבא answered him there, maybe that was a first discussion, first רב פפא felt that even the wine over the גישתא should be מותר, when רבא explained to him the סברא of גריר and therefore the wine over the גישתא should be אסור, so רב פפא accepted it, and that's why when it came to this שאלה here in our גמרא which came later, he פסקנ'ד like רבא there that the wine over the hole is אסור, but concerning the wine that's under the hole, since that's not really ready to go out, so there he said it's מותר. But תוספות says you can't say that, because the לשון of the גמרא there where it says that רבא אסר כולא חמרא, all the wine, is משמע that it means all the wine even at the bottom, because if he would have meant only the wine that's from the bottom of the גישתא and up but not the wine that's under the גישתא, the גמרא should have explained it. But there it says כולי חמרא, he made the whole wine אסור, is a ראיה that really רבא meant to make all the wine אסור. Now, ממילא, if רבא meant all the wine is אסור, so even if we're going to say that רב פפא, when he asked the question, that everything should be מותר, he meant all the wine should be מותר, even the wine on top, and later he changed his mind, if he would have changed his mind, he would have accepted רבא's opinion, and that would mean that everything should be אסור, even the wine on the bottom. In our גמרא, he says the wine on the bottom is מותר. So obviously it is not because he changed his mind and accepted רבא's opinion. Now, if so, we must say that what happened there was, he held that the wine under it should also be מותר, and רבא told him it's אסור, and רב פפא didn't change his mind. רב פפא still sticks to his opinion that the wine under the גישתא is מותר, the wine over is אסור, and under is מותר, which fits to the לשון here that says that the wine over the hole is אסור and the wine under the hole is מותר, and רבא argues against him. Now, since רבא argues against him, the הלכה is like רבא and ממילא not like רב פפא. But רבנו משה מכותי asked a קושיא on this פסק, because the whole פסק is based only on one thing, on the פשט that the רבנו תם learned in the גמרא there, that the גישתא that was sticking into the חבית did not reach the bottom of the חבית. And based on that, he has his whole ראיה that רבא and רב פפא argue and ממילא the הלכה is like רבא and not like רב פפא. But he says that's not the פשט. The פשט in the גמרא there is that the גישתא reached till the bottom of the barrel, and that's משמע from the לשון of the גמרא there where it says that כולי חמרא אגישתא גריר. It says that all the wine will be pulled to the גישתא. It's משמע the all the wine. Because the whole idea of the גישתא is to empty the barrel, so probably it was all the way to the bottom, so everything should come out. And רש״י over there also explains that, that the גישתא reached all the way to the bottom of the barrel. And therefore we cannot say that the מחלוקת between רבא and רב פפא was concerning the wine under the גישתא, when really the גישתא reached till the bottom. And ממילא that point that the רבנו תם made, that the הלכה is not like רב פפא because רבא argues against him, is not true, because רבא and רב פפא are arguing about something else there. And ממילא we're able to say back that the הלכה is like רב פפא. But nevertheless he says the הלכה is not like רב פפא for the other reason, the קושיא הג', because רב פפא is only according to רבי יהודה, and רבי יהודה is a יחיד, and יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. And what רבנו תם said from that it is no ראיה, because sometimes we פסקן like a יחיד against the רבים. When do we פסקן like a יחיד against the רבים? If the גמרא says בפירוש that in this case the הלכה is like the יחיד, then we know that whatever reason the גמרא has, the הלכה is like the יחיד. But whenever the גמרא doesn't say that, then we have to accept the rule that יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. And we're able to say that maybe רב פפא didn't hear of this ברייתא. רב פפא didn't know that there's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים in this ענין, and ממילא that's why he פסקנד the way he did. Maybe had he heard that there's a מחלוקת between the חכמים and רבי יהודה, he would have changed his mind because the חכמים don't fit to his opinion, and יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. And therefore, he comes to the מסקנא that the הלכה is not like רב פפא because רב פפא only fits to the יחיד and we don't פסקן like a יחיד. And תוספות added that רבנו חננאל also פסקנד like that, that he did not פסקן like רב פפא. But then תוספות asked a קושיא: According to the way we're saying now, that in the גמרא over there the גישתא reached all the way to the bottom, what was the reason of רב פפא to say that it should not be אסור? ממילא, according to the לשון that holds that רב פפא in our case said that only what's in the level of the hole is אסור and everything else is not אסור, so we understand what his opinion there was too. That he said, only what was against the hole of the גישתא, that should be אסור, but all the other wine should not be אסור, like he says here. But according to the לשון here, that he said that everything from the top till the hole is אסור, because all that would go out through the hole, why over there did he feel that not everything is אסור? לכאורה, according to the סברא here, that everything that would have gone out through the hole is אסור, so there too, since everything would have gone out through the גישתא and the בת גישתא, ממילא, even he should agree that everything should be אסור. Why did he feel there that not everything is אסור? And תוספות answers that there's a difference between the case here and the case there. Here the case is where the גוי held the hole with his hand. Over there the case is where he held the גישתא or בת גישתא with his hand. And the difference is, concerning a hole, that if he would have taken his hand off, everything would have come out automatically. So when he held it up, what he really did the whole time, he was holding the wine from going out. And therefore, all the wine that's up to the hole, that would have gone out, and is not going out because he is holding it with his hand, all that becomes אסור. It's as if he is constantly pushing onto that wine not to come out. And that's why it is אסור. But the case of the בת גישתא, the moment he put his hand over it, that stopped it from going. And now, the wine can't go out even if he takes his hand off. The only way to get all the wine out is if you have to suck it again. And ממילא, in a case like over there, רב פפא holds this is not enough to consider all the wine, since it would have gone out, that it should be אסור, because all he did was he stopped the flow. It's not like here, where he actually is holding all the wine up. Over there, all he did is stop the little bit that's by the flow, and as soon as that stopped, then automatically all the wine doesn't come out. And ממילא over there רב פפא held that all the wine should not be אסור. And then

תוספות continues saying that רב פפא and רבא, the reason they both don't say it's אסור because of תערובת, לכאורה, you can say a very simple reason why everything is אסור. The אמת'ע יין נסך is only the part that's against the hole or against the בת גישתא. The rest is אסור because it's mixed, יין נסך is mixed with regular wine. תוספות says since they don't say that reason, obviously they all both hold like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל who says that if יין נסך got mixed into other wine, you're allowed to sell everything except the דמי יין נסך שבו. The value of the יין נסך you cannot have הנאה from, but from everything else you can. And therefore here too, everything else is מותר בהנאה because they hold like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. And then תוספות adds that when we say that the reason everything is אסור because סופו לצאת, the reason is because the גוי is holding on to the hole, and the rest of it will come out. If he takes his hand away it'll all come out, that's why it's all לצאת. But תוספות says this is only if the גוי put his hands on the hole of the חבית or on the בת גישתא in the case of רב פפא and רבא there. So he stopped the wine from going out, so it's as if he touched all the wine, all the wine that is pushing so to speak to go out, and he stopped it, so he makes it all אסור as if he touched it. But if he would have touched just the flow that's coming out, or if a איד would have been pouring wine from a חבית into a כלי which has יין נסך, so according to the מאן דאמר that holds ניצוק אינו חיבור, that the

flow is not considered a חיבור, this does not cause the connection, and that's how we פסקן, then everything that's left in the חבית you would even be able to drink. Because when the גוי touched the קילוח, just the flow, that is only that the flow becomes אסור, but the wine that's inside doesn't become אסור. Only in the case where he actually held up the wine from coming out, there we say everything is אסור. But if he just touched the flow, according to the מאן דאמר ניצוק אינו חיבור, which the הלכה is like that, it would not be אסור. And תוספות says that from certain הלכות in the גמרא we can prove this דין. And then תוספות adds and says that according to רב פפא, according to the לשון that only the wine that's level to the hole would be אסור, so what can be done to save the rest of the wine? תוספות says the only thing to do is to make a hole someplace else and let the wine go out from the other place. Because if you're going to let the wine go out through the same hole, then everything will become אסור. Why? Because while it's going out, it'll be touching the wall of the hole, and in that hole you have little drops of wine which is יין נסך, and those drops would make the drop that is going through אסור. And even though you're going to have a lot of wine going through, much more than the drops that are there, but every little drop that touches it also becomes אסור. So it's as if ראשון ראשון נאסר, every little drop becomes אסור, and then the next one that'll touch this will become אסור, and constantly everything will be אסור. So the only thing to do is make a hole on the other side and let the wine come out on the other side. Then

concerning what the גמרא brought that if it was a barrel of wine that had a hole and a טבול יום touched it, so חכמים hold whether the hole was on the top or on the bottom or on the side, everything is טמא. רבי יהודה says if the hole was on the top or on the bottom, everything is טמא, but if the hole was in the middle, so the wine that's on the side is not טמא. תוספות asks a קשיא: how is it possible that the wine in the side should not become טמא? Why shouldn't the טמא'דיקע wine make טמא the rest of the wine? So automatically everything becomes טמא. And תוספות answers that the דין is that משקה הבא מחמת טבול יום נפסלין ואינן פוסלין, that liquid which became טמא through a טבול יום is only פסול and ממילא cannot make anything else טמא. The rule is that whenever we use the לשון פסול concerning טומאה, it means that it itself is טמא, but it is not טמא enough to make other things טמא. When something is טמא, it means that not only it's טמא, but also if something else will touch it, it'll also become טמא. But if it says the לשון פסול, so then it's פסול itself, but anything that'll touch it will not become טמא. So concerning liquid normally we say that whenever liquid becomes טמא, it becomes a ראשון, it becomes such a level of טומאה no matter what level of טומאה made it טמא, it still becomes always such a level that will make other things טמא also. But liquid that became טמא through a טבול יום is an exception, and that only becomes טמא itself, but will not make טמא other things that this liquid will touch. And

תוספות brings a ראיה from a משנה in טבול יום where it says that שמן שצף על גבי יין, if you had oil floating over wine, and a טבול יום touched the שמן, so he only made פסול, טמא, the part that he touched, but the rest is not טמא. And we don't say, well, even if the rest is not טמא, but by touching the part that became came טמא, that itself should make the other things טמא, we don't say that. The only מאן דאמר that says that everything is טמא is because he holds it's all like one. But otherwise just because it touched the טמא'דיקע one, that is not enough reason to say it's טמא. Why? And the reason is because this is משקה that became טמא through a טבול יום, and the דין is it only becomes פסול and not טמא, that's why it doesn't make anything else טמא. And here too, if we hold that only the wine that's in level of the hole became טמא, so the rest of the wine is not טמא even though it's touching, because this is משקה that became טמא through a טבול יום.