Opinion#3 (cont.): Even if they had pitch in them and the pitch was peeled away, it is enough to wash out the skins. This is apparent from the Gemara later (74b), where the Gemara asks from the Mishnah that says that (if it was made out of earthenware) even if the pitch was peeled away it is forbidden, on the law that a press and pitcher that do not have pitch in them are permitted. Wine that is put in when the container is being coated with pitch is merely like putting water in plaster (and does not forbid the container).

Opinion#3 (cont.): "New coated with pitch is forbidden." This means that new barrels that do not seem like they ever had wine in them are still forbidden. Being that they are coated with pitch which absorbs, we suspect that the Nochri put wine in it, and it is no longer apparent. Even though the wine was not put in for storage, the vessel must have water poured in it (see 33b) because the pitch absorbs even if it only has wine in it one time.

Opinion#3 (cont.): The Beraisa concludes that the Nochri can coat it with pitch and tan it etc.

Opinion#3 (cont.): A different Beraisa said that barrels of Nochrim that are new are permitted. If they are and have pitch they are forbidden. This means that new barrels are permitted as the Nochri certainly never put any wine in it. Being that they are not coated with pitch, if he would have put wine in them it would be obvious. Old barrels coated with pitch are also forbidden, even if they look new, being that the Nochri might have put wine in it and it would not be recognizable. Old barrels are therefore forbidden even if wine was put in once, being that it was put in for storage.

Observation: According to Rabeinu Tam, we should forbid our kanash and yustash (types of earthenware containers) that are coated with pitch if a Nochri touches it when there is wine inside. One should have to do Hagalah (i.e. scald) or pour water in them, even though they are not used for storage, as they have the same law as skins that are coated with pitch. Similarly, if he bought these new and coated with pitch from a Nochri, they should have the law of skins.

Question: This is difficult based on the custom everyone has to buy new vessels from Nochrim without doing Iruy (pouring) or Hagalah (scalding).

Answer: The Ri explains that we can defend the custom. Only in the days of the Gemara, when it was common to pour wine in these containers when they were coating it with pitch, was there reason to forbid these vessels (without scalding or pouring). Even though putting wine in the vessel while coating it with pitch is considered like pouring water into plaster, as we explained regarding skins, there is still reason to suspect that after this process was done the Nochri added some more wine which would not be detected. However, now that they do not normally put wine in when the plaster is put in, if they would put wine in after the process it would be obvious. Even so, we still do not know of a leniency for a case where a Nochri touches our wine (as the barrel should seemingly become forbidden).

Opinion#4: Rabeinu Tam eventually retracted his opinion. He started to permit even a barrel that contained our wine that was touched by a Nochri by just washing it out. He explained that there are two favorable reasons to permit this. Firstly, our barrels are made out of wood, meaning that the wine does not get very absorbed through the pitch.

Opinion#4 (cont.): This is unlike the case of skins that are made of leather, as they are soft and can more easily absorb wine through their coating of pitch.

Opinion#4 (cont.): Additionally, the Nochrim do not often put wine in their skins. This is unlike the press, pitcher, and funnel quoted later as absorbing a lot through a coating of pitch. This is because these things are often used with wine.

Opinion#4 (cont.): Rabeinu Baruch wrote that even so, Rabeinu Tam did not actually rule Lechatchilah that one can use these vessels after merely washing them out. However, b'Dieved if he put wine in them after the Nochri touched them (when they contained wine), he would not forbid the wine.

Explanation: The Beraisa concludes that if a Nochri put water in the barrels, a Jew can put wine in them. If the Nochri put wine in them, a Jew must fill them up for three days, with each day meaning twenty-four hours, and he can then put water in them without worry. If a Nochri put wine in them and then a Jew put fish brine or fish oil in them, one can put wine in them. The Gemara asks, is this Lechatchilah or b'Dieved? The Gemara means that is this last case where a Jew puts in fish brine or fish oil a Lechtachilah thing to do like putting in beer, or is this only valid b'Dieved? However, it is clear that he can put wine in b'Dieved, as fish brine burns (away any absorbed wine).

Explanation (cont.): This is understandable, as the Gemara later states as an obvious fact that if fish brine burns, certainly fire burns!

Text: However, according to the Sefarim that have the text that if a Nochri puts in wine a Jew can put in fish brine or fish oil, this is difficult.

Question#1: Why is this a question? It is obvious that the Beraisa is saying that one can do so Lechatchilah, as the Beraisa says the Jew can do this!

Question#2: There is another difficulty. How does the Gemara know that if a Jew puts in fish brine that burns wine, it is now permitted to put in wine? (The Beraisa never says that one can store wine in this barrel according to this text!)

Text: The Tosefta has the text "Rivdan" (instead of Rivivan).

Opinion: It seems that Rivivan and Rivdan have the same meaning. This is as the text states in Shabbos (114a), "Any Torah scholar who has a "Ravav" -- "stain" found on his clothing is liable to be killed. Some say the text reads "a Ravad." (The similarity in meaning to our Gemara is that in both cases the Gemara is discussing something that was stuck to something else, whether it be dirt to clothing or pitch to a container.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to a vessel that is full of salt.

Question: What does this have to do with throwing water into plaster? The taste of wine would still be recognizable in the salt! Why would Rav Papi think it would be permitted?

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that Bei Milchi is the place where the salt is made. Rav Papi is saying that even though the Nochri throws the wine there, the salt is permitted because the fire burns the wine and destroys it. This makes it similar to water being thrown into plaster, as the taste of the wine is no longer recognizable. Rav Ashi asks, even so, the wine does not go lost as it does when it is put into a skin being coated with pitch, as the residue on the leather nullifies the wine!

Opinion#2 (cont.): Rabeinu Tam says that this question of Rav Ashi is just pushing aside the law of Rav Papi. It is as if he says that there is no proof from Rav Zvid that this is the law. However, even so the law follows Rav Papi.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Due to this, they permitted salt even though it is common that they put blood on it while it is boiling in order to make it white. (The Chidushim u'Biurim explains that there is less than Shishim of blood in the salt.)

Opinion: It appears that this does not refer to Rebbi Yehudah Nesiah who permitted oil of Nochrim, as he was the grandson of Rebbe. His opinion is even quoted in a Beraisa, as in Gitin (76b) the Beraisa states that "our Rabbanim" permitted her to marry (and the Gemara there says this was Rebbi Yehudah Nesiah that permitted oil). In the Tosefta (4:11), we also have the text that Rebbi Yehudah permitted oil (and this was clearly Rebbi Yehudah Nesiah).

Opinion (cont.): Rather, it must have been the Rebbi Yehudah after him. Perhaps this was the grandson of Rebbi Yehudah Nesiah who decreed that oil of Nochrim is permitted. This would be the Rebbi Yehudah Ha'Nasi regarding whom the Gemara says in Moed Katan (12b) that he drank water that a Nochri baker warmed up, and this upset Rav.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is incomparable to returning them to the fire. In that case, being that they were already heated up from the outside until their pitch fell off, the earthenware already became white hot. However, when the fire is put inside the vessel the pitch falls off immediately (and the outer part of the vessel is not heated up very much). The same applies to our barrels.

Observation: Rashi implies that if he would light a fire inside the vessel to the point that if there was pitch on the outside of the vessel it would fall off, this would be sufficient.

Question: This does not appear correct to Rabeinu Elchanan. One should suspect that he will be careful not to light too much of a fire inside the vessel, as it might break from the heat. The Gemara in Pesachim (30b) even says regarding earthenware vessels that people do not fill them with coals because they are scared they will break. Certainly people are scared that their barrels will burn up!

Opinion#2: Rav Moshe Mi'Kutzi wrote that even though we rule that the law follows the one who forbids this, one may still turn a barrel over onto a fire if the fire is very big inside the vessel to the point where one would remove his hand due to the heat if he would touch the outside of the barrel. This is considered like Hagalah (i.e. scalding).

Opinion#1: Regarding Hagalah, Rabeinu Tam permitted Hagalah to Kasher a barrel that contained Yayin Nesech if one of its boards on the bottom of the barrel was opened. The person would then pour hot water inside the barrel, and swish the water around the bottom of the barrel.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that for other prohibitions this type of Hagalah would not suffice, as this is not even pouring from a Kli Rishon. (Why should it help here?)

Answer: Even so, being that Yayin Nesech was used in this barrel when it was cold, it is permitted.

Proof: The Gemara brings a proof from Rebbi Yosi later (75a) who says that one can wash out a press with the water in which he cooked olives (as it is somewhat bitter). Regarding other prohibitions, this would not help.

Opinion#2: The Ri says that it is a choice Mitzvah (See Tosfos Ha'Rosh and Rosh who say that the Ri required this) for one to do Hagalah to each board separately, and to throw on it part of the vessel that was boiling on the fire, even if it was no longer boiling. Some put a pot in a frying pan over the fire until the water boils in the pot, and they do Hagalah with water from that pot. However, the Ri is unsure whether or not this is considered a Kli Rishon, and resolved that one should be stringent. He therefore forbade using these waters for Hagalah, as they are considered water from a Kli Sheini.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Regarding boiling a chicken in water in order to make it easier to take off its feathers, the Ri was stringent to treat this water like a Kli Rishon. (It is forbidden to cook the chicken whole before the blood has been taken out, as the blood gets absorbed in the meat and can no longer be taken out through kashering. However, it is only forbidden to cook it in a Kli Rishon, not a Kli Sheini, as a Kli Sheni is not considered cooking. Accordingly, the Ri was always stringent regarding the water in the pot, whether the stringency was due to the water being a Kli Sheini and therefore not sufficient to kasher, or whether it was due to the water being a Kli Rishon, making the chicken treif.)

Observation: In the entire Torah (i.e. Talmud), we see that Ravina is lenient and Rav Acha is stringent, and we always rule like Ravina's lenient opinion, as stated in Chulin (93b). We therefore have to explicitly state here that we rule like the stringent opinion.

Opinion: The Ri says that one can also put any water or other liquids in this barrel, aside from wine.

Explanation: The Ri explains that there are two types of Neser from which vessels are made. This is not the Neser mentioned in Shabbos (16a) which says that vessels of Neser and earthenware are equal in impurity (as this Neser does not have the same status as earthenware, see Maharsha).

Explanation (cont.): There is a third type of Neser which is not used to make vessels, but rather is used to launder clothes. This Neser is one of the seven elements listed in the Mishnah in Nidah (61b) which is used to test a stain on clothing (to see if it is blood which makes a woman impure).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to earthenware cups which are not used for storage, but rather are used to drink from. If a Nochri drinks from them the first or second time they are ever being used, they are forbidden. Being that they are soft, they absorb (the wine of the Nochri). They are therefore forbidden until one fills them with water for three days, as stated earlier.

Observation: Based on this, the custom is to put water in a new earthenware vessel and let it sit for a long time before they use it for wine. This is in order to protect it from requiring a pouring of water for three days, which would be required if a Nochri will touch the wine inside of it (the first or second time it is used).

Question: However, this seems difficult according to Rabeinu Tam due to the Gemara later (74b). The Gemara says that Rebbi admits that barrels are forbidden, because they are used for storage (of wine). This implies that without this reason, just like earthenware, they should be permitted even if they are merely wiped down. The law is indeed like this regarding a press, pitcher, and funnel. Rinsing helps by other vessels just as wiping down helps for a press, as wiping down as well is only to take away the residue that has stuck to the surface (not what has been absorbed).

Question (cont.): It is illogical to say that the case of barrels is where the Nochri used them with water when he started using them (and that is why they would be permitted as long as they were not used for storage).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the case here is regarding both new and old cups. The Nochri drank wine in them many times. The Gemara means as follows. When it says, "the law is that if it was the first or second time etc." it means that rinsing it out twice with water is insufficient. However, if it is rinsed a third time it is permitted, as after the third rinsing everything that was absorbed already came out.

Opinion#2 (cont.): We similarly find this phraseology in Zevachim (79b) regarding the earthenware toilet (sans plumbing) of a Zav or Zavah. The Mishnah says that the first and second are impure, while the third is pure. The explanation is that this is a vessel in which the Zav or Zavah has urinated. The Mishnah means that the first waters put in it (i.e. to clean it out) are impure, as they are mixed with the urine of the Zav. The third time water is put in it, the water is pure.

Opinion#2 (cont.): In Medrash Esther regarding the Pasuk, "There is a certain nation etc." the Medrash says that Haman said to Achashveirosh, "If a fly would fall into the cup of wine of a Jew, he would throw out the fly and drink the wine. However, if your majesty would touch the wine, he would throw it down on the ground. Moreover, he would rinse out his cup three times."

Opinion#2 (cont.): However, if they are made out of wood, metal, or glass they only have to be rinsed once. However, in many places throughout the Talmud we find that cups refer to meal or glass cups. Accordingly, it is appropriate to rinse each such cup out (no matter what is made from) three times.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to an earthenware vessel coated with lead known as a plume (in Old French).

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. Regarding the Mizbe'ach, the Gemara says in Zevachim (54a) that one should bring lime and Kunya, and it does not say "Aiver" - "lead" which is usually how lead is referred to in the terminology used by the Gemara. This is as the Gemara in Sanhedrin (52a) states, "a wick of Aiver."

Question#2: There is another difficulty. Is a coating of lead worse than if the entire thing was made out of lead?! (The Maharsha and Maharam argue regarding the explanation of this question of Tosfos.)

Question#3: There is another difficulty. The Gemara says that if they are green they are forbidden because the earth from Tzrif that is found in them absorbs. We have such vessels that are green and do not have earth from Tzrif (yet Rashi implies that all green vessels of this type are forbidden).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that Kunya refers to glass vessels that have not been totally cooked. They are made from sand, just like earthenware vessels. This is the Gemara states in Shabbos (15b) that being that it is made from sand, the Rabbanan equated it to earthenware vessels (as we stated).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that whole glassware does not absorb. (How, then, can we say this should be forbidden?)

Answer: In our Gemara, being that there is only a coating on the earthenware it absorbs. This is also the explanation of the Aruch.