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!

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?)

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").

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)?

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

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?)

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.