AVODAH ZARAH 39 (8 Adar) - dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Sarah bas Baruch Hersh Rosenbaum, who passed away on 8 Adar 5776, by her husband Zev Dov Rosenbaum.


תוספות ד"ה התם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no question on our Gemara from wine barrels that were presumably forbidden by Rebbi Meir.)

וא"ת תקשי ליה קנקנים דלא ידיע ממשן ואסר ר"מ

(a) Question: There should be a difficulty from wine barrels of Nochrim where there is no physical presence of wine, and yet Rebbi Meir forbids their use!

וי"ל דהתם כיון דנפלט היין מן הקנקנים בשל ישראל הוה כמו בעין וידיע ממשן אבל יין לתוך הכבשים לא ידיע ממשן שמתבטל היין בכבשים

(b) Answer#1: In the case of the wine bottles, being that the wine is emitted into the wine of the Jew, it is as if it is physically present. However, wine that is put into these pickled vegetables is not clearly present, as the wine is nullified in the vegetables.

ולמאי דפרישית לעיל דלא אסר רבי מאיר קנקנים ניחא

(c) Answer#2: According to what I explained earlier, that in fact Rebbi Meir never forbade these barrels, this is understandable.


תוספות ד"ה אין לו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the derivation of "Ayin Alav.")

אומר ר"י דדריש אין לו עיין לו כלומר עיין עליו אם יש לו עכשיו או עתיד ליגדל לאחר זמן

(a) Explanation: The Ri explains that the Beraisa derives "Ain Lo" as "Ayin Alav." This means that one should analyze if the fish now has fins and scales or will grow them after a while.

והכי דרשינן ביבמות (דף כב:) ובן אין לו עיין לו

1. Explanation (cont.): In Yevamos (22b), the Gemara makes a similar derivation (regarding whether or not the dead husband has a brother) by interpreting the Pasuk, "And he does not have a son" as "Ayin Alav" (check to ensure he has no other sons, even a Mamzer).


תוספות ד"ה וסימניך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara's rule is only regarding the two fish being discussed.)

לכאורה לא קא יהיב האי סימנא אלא להני תרי מיני אחמרא ואתורא אבל אשאר מינין לא

(a) Observation: The Gemara is apparently only giving this sign (that a fish named for an impure animal is kosher, while a fish named for a kosher animal is unkosher) regarding these two fish. However, it is inapplicable to other fish.

דהא בפ"ב דקידושין (דף מא.) אמר רבא מלח שיבוטא והוא עז של ים כדאמר בפ' הפרה (ב"ק דף נה.) הנהיג בעיזא ושבוטא מאי

(b) Proof: This is evident from the Gemara in Kidushin (41a) that states that Rava salted a Shibuta fish, which is the "goat of the sea." This is evident from the Gemara's question in Bava Kama. The Gemara there asks if it is Kilayim for a person to have a goat and Shibuta fish (assuming he is on the beach and can harness the fish as well as the goat) pull his carriage.


תוספות ד"ה ה"ג

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel argue regarding the correct text of our Gemara.)

רש"י שפר נונא שרי קדש נונא אסור וסימניך קדש לה' ואיכא דאמרי קבר נונא אסור וסימניך קברי עובדי כוכבים

(a) Text#1: Rashi has the text that a Shafar Nuna is permitted, while a Kodesh Nuna is forbidden. The sign to remember this by is Kodesh la'Hashem. Some say a Kever Nuna is forbidden, and the sign to remember this by is Kivrei Ovdei Kochavim etc.

ור"ח גרס איפכא שפר נונא אסור קדש נונא שרי וסימניך (ירמיה ב) קדש ישראל לה' כלומר השם התירו לעמו ואיכא דאמרי קבר נונא שרי וסימניך קברי עובדי כוכבים אינם מטמאין באהל כלומר אינו טמא

(b) Text#2: Rabeinu Chananel has the opposite text. Shafar Nuna is forbidden, while a Kodesh Nuna is permitted. The sign to remember this by is Kodesh Yisrael la'Hashem. In other words (the sign means), Hash-m permitted the Kodesh Nuna to his nation. Some say that a Kever Nuna is permitted, and the sign to remember this by is that Kivrei Ovdei Kochavim does not make one impure if he is in an Ohel where they are present. This is why it is a sign that the Kever Nuna is kosher.

וכן משמע בסמוך דמייתי ההיא עובדא דאייתי ההוא נונא דדמי לשפר נונא בתר עובדי דההוא דדמי לחיפושא ולצלופחא דדגים טמאים הם משמע דשפר נונא נמי דג טמא הוא

1. Text#2 (cont.): The Gemara later indicates that this is the correct text. It quotes the incident where they brought a fish that looked like a Shafar Nuna after quoting the incident regarding the fish that looked like a Chipusha and Tzlufcha, which are unkosher fish. This implies that the Shafar Nuna is also an unkosher fish.


תוספות ד"ה אגב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that sometimes peeling off an outer layer is not enough, even after a single cut of a knife.)

וא"ת דלסגי ליה בקליפה כדאמר (חולין דף ח:) גבי שחטה בסכין טריפה

(a) Question: Why doesn't taking off the outer layer suffice, as we say in Chulin (8b) regarding slaughtering with a knife that had absorbed from a Treifah?

וי"ל דחורפיה דחילתיתא בלע טפי ולא סגי בקליפה

(b) Answer: The sharpness of a Chiltis absorbs a lot, and it is therefore not enough to take away the outer layer.

וי"מ כמו כן דבצל וקפלוט שנחתך בסכין של עובדי כוכבים דלא סגי ליה בקליפה דאגב חורפיה בלע טפי

(c) Opinion#1: Some similarly say that an onion and leek that are cut with a knife of Nochrim cannot merely have an outer layer taken off, as due to their sharpness they absorb a lot.

ושמעתי בשם הר"ם דחילתיתא דוקא דחריף טפי ולא בצל וקפלוט

(d) Opinion#2: I heard in the name of the Ram that this only applies to a Chiltis, as it is very sharp, not to an onion and a leek.


תוספות ד"ה אמר רב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes an argument regarding the reason some items are permitted with one seal.)

פרש"י לפי שדמיהן יקרים

(a) Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is because they are expensive (and we therefore suspect they will be switched for inexpensive unkosher substitutes).

והר"ר אפרים בר דוד היה אומר הטעם משום דאיתיה לאיסורא בעיניה אבל חמפ"ג אינו אלא תערובת

(b) Explanation#2: Rabeinu Efraim bar David used to say that the reason for this law is because the prohibited matter is present. However, Chamfag is only a mixture.

אבל אין לומר הטעם משום יוקר שהרי מורייס דמיה יקרים מיין

1. Explanation#2 (cont.): However, the reason is not because it is expensive (as stated by Rashi), as Mori'is is more expensive than wine.

ואין נראה לר' יהודה דהא ודאי דאיכא הרבה מקומות שהיין יוקר יותר כדאמר לעיל (דף לד:) קיסתא דמורייס בלומא קיסתא דחמרא בד' לומי

(c) Question: This does not appear correct according to Rebbi Yehudah. There are many places where wine is more expensive, as stated earlier (34b) that a Kista of Mori'is costs a Luma, while a Kista of wine costs four Lumi.

לכך נראה לו יותר טעם רש"י דפי' משום יוקר

1. Question (cont.): He therefore understands that Rashi's reasoning is correct that it is because these things are expensive.

וכן משמע בסמוך דקאמר מ"ש גבינה דלא טרח ומזייף כו' וכן גבי פת דאי איכא גביה כי האי לא טרח ומזייף

(d) Proof: This is also implied later, as the Gemara states why is cheese different, because a person will not bother to forge the seal etc. Similarly, regarding bread (the Gemara states), if he has it he will not bother to forge it.



תוספות ד"ה פת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding whether this text ("what should we suspect etc.") is in its proper place.)

בקונטרס לא גרס האי עד מילתיה דשמואל

(a) Text: Rashi does not have this text here, and only inserts it regarding Shmuel's law (stated later in our Gemara).

ונראה טעמא משום דלמה יקשה זה על פת יותר מן האחרים

1. Text (cont.): It appears that the reason Rashi did this is because there is no reason that this should be a question on bread more than by other things.

מיהו אין בשביל כך להגיה הספרים

(b) Text#2: However, this is not enough of a reason to change the text of the Gemaros.


תוספות ד"ה ימ"ח

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not cheese should be in this listing.)

ואע"ג דקא חשיב חלב הוצרך לחשוב גבינה

(a) Implied Question: Despite the fact that milk was mentioned, cheese also had to be mentioned. (Aren't they forbidden for the same reason? Why would both have to be mentioned?)

לפי שאין טעם איסורן שוה שחלב אסור משום עירוב חלב טמא אבל טעם גבינה הוא משום גילוי כדפרי' לעיל (דף לה.)

(b) Answer: This is because the reason for their prohibition is not the same. Milk is forbidden because we suspect that unkosher milk will be mixed in to the kosher milk, while cheese is only forbidden because it is left out uncovered, as we explained earlier (35a, Tosfos DH "Chada").

מיהו לרבי ירמיה דמפרש לעיל (שם) טעם גבינה משום צחצוחי חלב טמא לפרש"י קשה לרבי יהודה למה הוצרך לשנות כאן גבינה

(c) Question: However, Rabeinu Yehudah has difficulty with Rashi's explanation that Rebbi Yirmiyah explained earlier that the reason cheese of Nochrim is forbidden is because bits of unkosher milk might be in the kosher cheese. If this is so, why does cheese have to be mentioned here (as it is the same suspicion as milk)?

ובתוספתא קא חשיב בזאת הברייתא במקום חלב חתיכת דג שאין בה סימן

(d) Observation: The Tosefta here lists a piece of fish that does not have a sign instead of cheese.


תוספות ד"ה תנינא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Mishnah and Beraisa in fact do mean the same thing.)

תימה דהא תני במתני' וישראל רואהו משמע הא לא חזי ליה כל שעתא אסור

(a) Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah said, "And a Jew is watching him." This implies that if the Jew does not watch him the entire time, the milk is forbidden! (How the Gemara say that the Beraisa and Mishnah are saying the same thing when the Beraisa implies that he does not have to see the Nochri the entire time?)

וי"ל דרואהו לאו דוקא אלא ר"ל יכול לראותו

(b) Answer: When the Mishnah says he is watching him, it is not literal, but rather means he has the ability to watch him (from where he is, which is like the Beraisa).


תוספות ד"ה אי דליכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Gemara is addressing the concern of Giluy.)

דכיון דיושב בצד עדרו וליכא למיחש לגילוי כיון שכל שעה הוא תופסו בידו א"כ ליכא למיחש למידי

(a) Explanation: Being that he is sitting on the side of his flock and there is no suspicion regarding leaving the milk uncovered, as he could catch him doing this at any time, there is no reason to suspect (that the milk is prohibited).

מיהו היכא דיש לחוש לגילוי אסור כדפרישית לעיל דמסננת לא מהני מידי היכא דטרקי' כדאמרי' בהגוזל בתרא (ב"ק דף קטו:)

1. Explanation (cont.): However, whenever there is a suspicion of the milk being left uncovered it is prohibited, as explained earlier that straining the milk does not help if it is mixed, as stated in Bava Kama (115b).


תוספות ד"ה התם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara could have thought the Mishnah earlier was a question on our Mishnah.)

וא"ת ודקארי לה מאי קארי פשיטא דבוצר לגת תנן

(a) Question: It is obvious that the Mishnah there is a different case, as the Mishnah there states, "One who is harvesting grapes for his press" (as opposed to harvesting grapes in order to eat them).

וי"ל דס"ד דמקשה דה"ה בוצר לאכילה והא דנקט לגת לרבותא (דב"ה) [דהלל] דאפילו הכי לא הוכשר

(b) Answer: It is possible that the questioner thought that the same law would apply to a person who harvests for eating, and the reason that the Mishnah only stated that the grapes were for pressing was to show that even so Hillel holds they do not become ready to accept impurity.