Observation: Therefore, one must be careful regarding beer made of honey called mead to check if they put sediments of wine in the beer in order to make it gain alcoholic content faster (see Avodah Berurah). There are some places where this is done, causing the beer to become prohibited.

Opinion: It therefore appears that it is permitted to buy any kind of drink from Nochrim, such as apple wine and strawberry juice, as long as the Jew sees that the Nochri is taking the liquid out of the barrel. This is even true if the value of these liquids is more than that of wine, as they certainly would not mix wine with these juices because it would make the juices go bad.

Opinion (cont.): However, if he did not see him take the juice out of the barrel, the law is different. If the liquid is more expensive than wine, it is forbidden to drink the liquid, as we suspect that he might have mixed in wine in order to make it more alcoholic and in order to profit.

Opinion (cont.): However, if the wine is more expensive there is no reason to suspect that he is putting in wine in order to make the Jew sin. This is as we state later (34b) that there is no such suspicion if a Kista of fish oil costs one Zuz and a Kista of wine costs four Zuz (that the Nochri would put wine in the fish oil).

Implied Question: The Tosefta (5:6) says that apple wine from the storehouse is permitted. However, if it was sold in the marketplace it is forbidden, as we suspect it is forged, meaning that wine was mixed in. (This indicates that it is always forbidden, unlike what we have just said.)

Answer: This (law of the Tosefta) is only in a place where wine is cheaper.

Implied Question: One cannot forbid these liquids because they are put in barrels that used to contain Yayin Nesech. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we state later that one is allowed to put beer into these barrels.

Question: This is difficult. Instead of asking a question from the Beraisa, the Gemara should ask from a Mishnah! The Mishnah (29b) states that skins and jugs of Nochrim that have Jewish wine in them "are forbidden and their prohibition is from benefit." These are the words of Rebbi Meir. In this case, he wants them to exist due to something else (i.e. the money he would receive from selling the barrel), as opposed to the wine that is absorbed in the vessel. Rebbi Meir says that the jugs are forbidden from benefit, and one cannot even sell them to a Nochri.

Question (cont.): We cannot answer here that we suspect that his skin will split and he will go and sew it (the forbidden skin) etc., as most jugs are made from earthenware and cannot be sewed.

Question (cont.): We cannot say that the Gemara holds like the Rabbanan who permit this, as they only permitted this regarding jugs (and skins), as the wine that is absorbed in them cannot be taken out. However, Hadreini earthenware can be soaked and take out the wine absorbed in it. Even the Rabbanan would prohibit this type of earthenware from benefit!

Answer#1: When Rebbi Meir says in the Mishnah that "they are forbidden and their prohibition is from benefit" he is not referring to the barrels, but rather to the wine stored in these barrels. When he says they are forbidden, he is referring to the wine in the skins and jugs. (The Avodah Berurah explains that Tosfos is bothered by the fact that the Mishnah states "they are forbidden" implying more than one item is prohibited. Tosfos previously thought this meant that the skins and jugs are prohibited. Now that Tosfos says this is referring to wine, he understands that it means both the wine that is in the skin and the wine in the jug is prohibited.)

Proof: This is clearly evident from the Gemara later (38b) regarding pickled vegetables. Rebbi Yochanan there states that even if it is known that the Nochri put wine or vinegar in it, it is permitted to have benefit from it (though it cannot be eaten). The Gemara asks, why is this different than fish oil? According to Rebbi Meir this is prohibited from benefit! The Gemara answers that when the fish oil is eaten, the wine is eaten as part of the fish oil. However, the pickled vegetable does not have any wine on it (and the wine is only put on it in order that it should stay edible).

Proof (cont.): If Rebbi Meir forbade jugs, the Gemara should ask why pickled vegetables are different from jugs, as Rebbi Meir even forbade the jugs from benefit (even thought the wine itself is not present)! Rather, it must be that Rebbi Meir permits one to have benefit from the barrels.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Meir says, "they are forbidden" implying two types of things.

Answer: This is referring to both the wine in the skin and the wine in the jug. (The Avodah Berurah is unsure why Tosfos repeats this question and answer that was essentially stated earlier in b).

Proof (cont.): However, there is a good question from the Beraisa according to the questioner in the Gemara, as he held that just as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbade making carpets from these skins, he should forbid them from any benefit. The Gemara concludes that this is a decree that his permitted skin might split, causing him to take this skin and sew it onto his permitted skin. The wine absorbed in the forbidden skin will then give a taste to his wine.

Text: Some Sefarim have the following text after this answer (that his skin might split) of the Gemara. According to the opinion that a person may not want something forbidden to exist due to something else, why is this different than barrels which are permitted? Isn't this also considered wanting something forbidden (i.e. Yayin Nesech) to exist due to something else (i.e. he wants to sell the barrels)? The Gemara concludes that barrels do not contain clear prohibited matter (it is just absorbed in the barrel), as opposed to cases where the prohibited item is clear to see.

Text (cont.): This text implies that the one who forbids wanting something forbidden to exist due to something else only does so regarding Hadreini earthenware, being that the prohibited matter can be clearly seen (and obtained through soaking it in water).

Answer#2: One can also explain that Rebbi Meir forbade the barrels from benefit, meaning they cannot be sold to Nochrim (as opposed to the earlier answer that he only forbade the wine, not the barrels).

Answer#2 (cont.): You should not ask from the Gemara regarding pickled vegetables (as we did earlier in c), as it is possible to differentiate between barrels and pickled vegetables. Barrels are forbidden because it is normal that wine absorbed in barrels gets drawn out of the earthenware, and ends up being clearly present. However, wine that is in pickled vegetables is not considered present.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that we do not ask regarding pickled vegetables, why is this different from Jewish wine that is absorbed in barrels that are forbidden from benefit by Rebbi Meir due to the Nochri wine absorbed in the barrel? Rather, it must be that this barrel is forbidden because the wine is drawn out of the barrel into the Jewish wine, and it is as if it is clearly present, and it can be felt. However, wine is nullified among the pickled vegetables, and it cannot be deemed clearly present.

Proof (cont.): In our Gemara, as well, we could not have asked a question from our Mishnah. Even though it is permitted to want a forbidden thing to exits due to wanting something else to exist, this is only in order to have the bed posts lean on it or to make it into a carpet. However, it is forbidden to sell it to Nochrim in order to put wine in it when the Nochri clearly wants the absorbed wine in the barrel for his wine (as it makes it taste better). This is not considered wanting a forbidden thing due to something else (but rather it is considered wanting it for itself).

Proof (cont.): Our Mishnah that said that Rebbi Meir forbade the barrels from benefit means that one may not sell the barrels to Nochrim, as they will certainly put wine in it. However, to use it to put his things in there or to lean his bed posts on it is permitted. This is why the Gemara asks from a Beraisa which explicitly prohibits making it into a carpet for one's donkey.

Text: According to this, we should not have the text, "And according to the one who says that it is prohibited, why are barrels permitted?" Barrels have nothing to do with wanting something prohibited to exist etc. The one who permits this (i.e. the Chachamim of our Mishnah) says that one can even sell it to a Nochri so that he will put wine into the barrel. The Gemara therefore should have asked that even according to this opinion, one should still not be allowed to use the wine. If so, why should the barrels be permitted?

Text (cont.): However, we can answer this text that it means as follows. According to the opinion that said one cannot even lean his bed posts on Hadreini earthenware, we should certainly forbid the barrels from benefit! Why did the Rabbanan even permit a Jew to put his wine in these barrels and to have benefit from it? The Gemara concludes that the wine in the barrels is not clearly present, which is why one can benefit from it. However, the Hadreini earthenware is considered clearly present (as it comes out when it is soaked in water).

Text (cont.): According to this explanation, the implication is that the one who prohibits wanting something forbidden to exist etc. forbids it for any type of usage.

Opinion#1: We rule according to the opinion that this is forbidden. Accordingly, there are codifiers who say one must be careful not to use vessels on Pesach in any way if they have Chametz absorbed in them, as this is considered wanting it to exist due to something else.

Opinion#2: However, this does not appear correct according to Rabeinu Tam. This is apparent from the answer that there is nothing clearly present etc. This implies that whenever the forbidden item is not clearly present, it is not forbidden from benefit.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Based on this, Rabeinu Tam ruled that pots that have absorbed meat and milk because they were cooked together in this pot can still have dry goods, such as grain, placed in them. Similarly, pots that have absorbed Chametz can have dry goods placed in them over Pesach, though they cannot have wet goods placed inside.

Explanation#1: The Gemara implies that when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says earlier that one may not make these skins into carpets, he was merely quotng the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai, but did not hold like him.

Explanation#2: Alternatively, Rabban Gamliel here is referring to Rebbi's grandfather. His son refers to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, the brother of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who was the father of Rebbi. This is also implied in Nidah (8b), as the Gemara there states that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel was the uncle of Rebbi. This is why the Gemara there says that Rebbi Eliezer was much older than him.

Implied Question: When the Gemara says in Sotah (49b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel read on himself the Pasuk, "My eyes have cried for my soul etc," as he had one thousand in his father's house, and only he and his first cousin remained, the implication is that he had no remaining brothers. (How could we say that Rebbi Chanina was his brother?)

Answer: This is referring to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, who was the father of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh, who was the grandfather of Rebbi.

Observation: These Amoraim clearly do not hold of the rule that whenever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is quoted in Mishnayos we rule like his opinion. This is apparent from the fact that they had to note that the law was like his opinion.

Implied Question: The Mishnah (29b) stated this case in the middle of two cases that are dealing with things that are prohibited from benefit. (Why did the Mishnah interrupt with this case?)

Answer: It is similar to the case of meat coming to an idol (just as the meat would only be prohibited due to where it is going, so too these people would only be prohibited to deal with because of where they are going).

Question: This is difficult, as earlier (29b) regarding skin that has a tear by the heart, the implication is that if there was no tear by the heart it would be permitted, as this indicates it was not sacrificed to an idol. Similarly, the Gemara later says regarding cheeses of Nochrim that even if they were not from Beis Uneiki they are forbidden according to Rebbi Elazar, as he assumes that they are all probably slaughtered for idolatry. If so, the Tanna who says that only cheeses from Beis Uneiki are prohibited is unlike Rebbi Elazar (and Rebbi Yochanan should mention this as well)!

Answer: It is possible that Rebbi Eliezer holds that other skins and cheeses are permitted (which is why Rebbi Yochanan did not mention that Rebbi Elazar holds they are prohibited). He might hold that we only say that the assumption is that Nochrim slaughter animals for idolatry if they are slaughtered, not if they are strangled or ripped open. It is understandable that Rebbi Elazar would say that meat brought before an idol is forbidden (based on his opinion), as it is abnormal to bring meat before an idol unless the animal was slaughtered. (This is why Rebbi Yochanan focuses on this case of our Mishnah in order to point out that the Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Elazar.)

Observation: The Gemara implies here that the Rabbanan do not compare Tikroves Avodah Zarah to a dead person. This is also implied in Chulin (13b), where the Gemara states that there is another one that transfers impurity through being carried and does not transfer impurity through being in an Ohel. This is unlike Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (in our Gemara who says it does).

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam asked that earlier (29b), when the Gemara asks how we know that Yayin Nesech is forbidden from benefit, the Gemara asks how we know that a sacrifice to idolatry is prohibited from benefit. The Gemara ends up comparing this to a dead person, and does not say that this is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah. This implies that everybody agrees that it is like a dead person (which transfers impurity through Ohel).

Question#2: There is another difficulty. When our Gemara deduces that meat that goes in to an idol is permitted, unlike the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, why is it saying this? Perhaps this Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar, and Rebbi Elazar holds like the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yehudah that there is no comparison between Tikroves and a dead person.

Question (cont.): One cannot say that the Gemara relied on the second part of the Mishnah which is like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, as it should have explained this explicitly. (Being that our Gemara heavily implies that it is deducing this from the case of the meat going in to an idol, we have no reason to think the deduction is from the second part of the Mishnah.)

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Rabbanan agree that sacrifices to idols that are similar to those brought in the Beis Hamikdash, such as slaughtering, burning, and pouring, are derived from a dead person. This is understandable regarding Yayin Nesech. However, they argue regarding a sacrifice that is not offered in a similar fashion to those offered in the Beis Hamikdash.

Opinion#1 (cont.): Therefore, we understand that our Mishnah's case regarding meat is according to Rebbi Yehudah, as we are discussing a piece of meat that is not slaughtered before an idol. Rather, it is being brought as a present to an idol.

Opinion#1 (cont.): This also helps us understand the Mishnah's phraseology, "because it is like sacrifices to the dead." It does not say it "is sacrifices to the dead" which would imply that it is an actual sacrifice.

Opinion#2: The Ri explains that regarding the prohibition against eating and having benefit discussed by the Pasuk there is no argument. All sacrifices to idols are forbidden from benefit, being that they are compared to a dead person. They argue regarding impurity. Rebbi Yehudah compares these sacrifices to a dead person, even regarding impurity. This is indeed implied, as Rebbi Yehudah does not use the term "prohibited" and instead discusses the fact that it is "impure."

Opinion#2 (cont.): Our Gemara therefore makes a good deduction. Being that the Mishnah says that meat that goes out from an idol is forbidden, why should it say that this is because it is like sacrifices to idols? Rather, it is to tell you that it is forbidden and impure, as we have stated that it is impossible that it is not offered to an idol. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah. One can respond at length to the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, as we have done in Chulin (13b, DH "Tikroves").

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Shmayah explains that "Terafos" refers to a dirty place, such as the expression "Beis ha'Turfah."

Opinion#2: The Yerushalmi explains that this is a term of Terafim (i.e. idols, see Bereishis 31:19).

Explanation: I explained this earlier (12b, DH "Ir" "Ela" "Aval").

Text: This is also the text later (33a), as it states regarding barrels of Nochrim that Grudim that are new are permitted, while old ones with pitch are forbidden.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that Grudim means that they never had pitch in them. Being that they are new they are permitted, as just having Nochri wine in them for a little while does not cause the skin to absorb. This specifically applies to skins of wine. However, earthenware vessels immediately absorb wine placed in them. If they are old and have pitch means that if they either are old or they have pitch, they are forbidden. If they are old, the leather absorbs the wine because wine has been sitting inside of it for a long time. If it is has pitch, even if wine was poured in it once it absorbs the wine.

Opinion#1 (cont.): His explanation implies that there is a difference between new skins and new barrels. New skins are still considered new even if they had wine put in them, as long as it was not in the skin for a long time. New earthenware barrels are only considered new if they were never used for wine at all. The reason for this is that earthenware absorbs immediately, even the first time that wine is poured into it.

Opinion#1 (cont.): This is also how Rashi explains the Gemara later. When the Gemara says that this refers to "Nodos" it means skins of leather, as opposed to "Kankanim" - "barrels" made of earthenware that absorb immediately.

Opinion#1 (cont.): It appears that when the Gemara permits new skins, it permits them even though wine was already put in them. This implies that the Gemara understands that the wine was not put in for storage. If he did put it in for storage, they decreed it should even be forbidden after one time, even by skins that do not have pitch.

Opinion#1 (cont.): This is also implied later (74b). The press, pitcher, and funnel of Nochrim is permitted to be used, according to Rebbi, if washed. The Chachamim forbid this. Rebbi admits that barrels are prohibited to be used, even if they are washed. What is the difference between barrels and these other items? The barrels have wine stored in them, while the other items do not have wine stored in them.

Opinion#1 (cont.): The Gemara there is referring to a press etc. that is not coated with pitch. This is apparent from the statement at the end of the Beraisa regarding the press, "If they were coated with pitch, they are forbidden." This clearly implies that the first part of the Beraisa was discussing a case where they were not coated with pitch.

Opinion#1 (cont.): Rava says there that when he would send "Gulfi" - "empty barrels" of earthenware, he would turn them over and seal the opening (that was now facing downwards). Why? This is because the Rabbanan made their decree on anything which is even temporarily used to store wine. "Temporarily" implies even once.

Opinion#1 (cont.): Therefore, barrels used for storage cannot be permitted even when new, unless they never had wine put in them. According to his opinion that we forbid skins that are not used for storage if they are old, even if they have no pitch in them and do not absorb much, vessels of Nochrim made of silver and wood are only permitted if one does Hagalah (scalding) and pouring water in them (see 33b).

Opinion#1 (cont.): Additionally, our yustash and konash (containers) made out of wood, being that they are lined with pitch they should be forbidden if they have wine in them for a small amount of time, or even if he touched them and there is wine dripping on them. This is the way to understand Rashi's opinion.

Question#1: There are a lot of questions on this opinion. First of all, the terminology of both Beraisos regarding Kankanim (barrels) and Nodos (skins) is the same. However, Rashi is explaining them differently. He is explaining that skins are called new even if wine was already in them, and barrels are only new if they never had wine in them at all.

Question#2: There is another question. It is unclear according to Rashi how many times wine would have to be put in a skin (and for how long) in order to called it an old skin (as opposed to a new skin).

Question#3: There is another question. The term "Gerudim" implies that they had pitch in them and it was scraped off.

Question#4: There is another difficulty. It is common practice that people buy silver vessels from Nochrim and merely wash them out, without doing Hagalah and pouring water into them.

Question#5: There is another difficulty. Our Gemara implies that if something is not used for storage and is not coated with pitch, even if it is old it can be used after merely washing it out with water.

Question#5 (cont.): The house of Parzak, second to the king, stole some barrels from the Jews of Pumbedisa. They put wine in them, and later gave them back. The Gemara (33b) says that the people were told that being that the wine was not put in for storage, they could merely wash them out and use them. It is not logical to say that they knew wine had only been put in these barrels one time.

Question#6: There is also difficulty with Rashi's explanation that earthenware barrels absorb a lot. This should not have been his reasoning. Rather, his reasoning should have been because they are used for storage. Saying that it is because they absorb implies that earthenware, even if not used for storage, is forbidden.

Question#6 (cont.): Later, in the second chapter regarding the empty barrels, the implication is that it is permitted. This is apparent from the statement that they made a decree on anything that is used for storage even temporarily, due to barrels used for storage for a long time. This implies that if something is not used for storage there was no decree on it, even if it did happen to be used for a long time (unlike the implication of Rashi).

Question#7: There is another difficulty. It is common that Jews have earthenware barrels that are not used for storage that are filled with wine. If a Nochri comes along and touches the wine, we only wash out the barrel.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Eliyahu ben Rabeinu Yehudah explains our text. The cases of skins and barrels are definitely when they are used for storage. This is the meaning of the Beraisa. New skins belonging to Nochrim are skins that never had wine in them and are free of ever having had a coating of pitch. If wine would have been put in them, one would be able to notice this fact. However, if they have a coating of pitch, or had a coating of pitch and the coating fell off, they are even forbidden if they are new. This is because we suspect that when they were being coated or immediately afterward the Nochri put some wine in the barrel. We would not be able to tell whether or not this occurred.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Old barrels means that he put wine in them, even if he only did so one time. They are forbidden, as anything that is for storage is forbidden. The same applies regarding barrels, meaning that there is no difference between skins and barrels in this law.

Implied Question: The Beraisa does not mix the cases of skins and barrels. (According to Rabeinu Eliyahu, why aren't these cases put together? There is no difference between them!)

Answer: This is because the end of the Beraisos separate from each other. Regarding skins, the Beraisa says that the Nochri can coat them with pitch and tan them (and pour wine into them while the Jew is there while doing these things, as they do not absorb wine while this is being done). Regarding barrels, the Beraisa states that if a Nochri pours wine into them etc. (the Jew must rinse it out for three days with water etc.).

Opinion#2 (cont.): Later, when the Gemara says that this is specifically referring to skins, it means that even though they are used for storage it is sufficient to pour water in them, because they do not absorb. However, earthenware barrels are very absorbent.

Opinion#2 (cont.): According to this, kanash and yustash should be permitted, even though they have pitch in them, as they are not used for storage. This explanation answers all of the questions we asked on Rashi, besides the term "scraped away."

Question: However, Rabeinu Tam asked a question on Rabeinu Eliyahu's explanation from the Bahag. The Bahag differentiates between skins that are not used for storage and barrels that are used for storage (that are therefore forbidden).

Question (cont.): According to this, one should not permit a kanash that is coated with pitch, even though it is like skins in that it is not used for storage. (Being that kanash are classified as barrels, they are forbidden, despite the fact that they are not used for storage.)

Opinon#3: Rabeinu Tam therefore understands that the correct text in our Gemara is as is stated in the Tosefta (4:10) that we differentiate between skins and barrels. The following is his opinion. Skins of Nochrim that are Grudim are permitted. If they are new or have pitch they are forbidden. "Grudim" means that they do not have pitch. They are permitted, even if they are old. Being that they are not used for storage, they can be washed out with water and are permitted.