Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this means they honor you, with the root of the word being "Yakar."

Opinion #2: However, in Rashi's commentary on Tehilim (45:10) he explains that this is a word referring to "Bikur" -- "checking/visiting." This is similar to the word "it will be to me "to check/visit."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the letter Yud is seemingly extra if the root of the word is Bikur. (How can we explain the Yud in this word?)

Answer: It is similar in our tradition (of language) with the Yud in the Pasuk, "[Mi Nasan] l'Mishisah." (Rashi in Tehilim explains that in this way the Samech is stressed. It is possible he means that it is therefore beneficial for the root of these words to have this Yud, even though it is not inherent in the root of the word.)

Explanation: In other words, the Pasuk is saying that they are visiting you and waiting to serve you.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not answer that the Mishnah is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that all of it should be sold besides the value of the Yayin Nesech in it, and that here too the wages are permitted besides for the money paid to move the barrel of Yayin Nesech. (Why doesn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer #1: It is better for the Gemara to say that the Mishnah is according to the opinion of the Rabbanan.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Mishnah says the wages are permitted, it implies that all of the wages are permitted.

Answer #3: Alternatively, in this case even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel admits this is forbidden. In his case, it is abnormal to buy wine from idolaters. However, in our case it is normal to take wages from an idolater. This is why all of the wages should be forbidden.

Answer #3 (cont.): This difference is mentioned in the Yerushalmi. It is also found earlier in the Gemara (49b) regarding weaving a garment.

Observation: According to the first answer given above that it is good to say that the Mishnah is according to the Rabbanan, it is understandable why we do not ask that the Mishnah should be according to Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer stated earlier that one can redeem benefit from idols and throw the benefit from them into the Dead Sea (and continue to benefit from the item, i.e. bread baked by using wood of idolatry), even if it is not a case where two things, one forbidden and one permitted, contributed to this item. We hold like Rebbi Eliezer.

Observation (cont.): According to the second answer we can also answer that "his wages are permitted" implies without (the forbidden part) being redeemed.

Explanation #1: The Beraisa forbade such wages when the employer did not tell him this towards evening. This is because as long as he did not move all of them the employer will not pay him anything. Therefore, all of the wages are dependent on this. This is the language of Rashi.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This indicates that if he told him towards evening it would be permitted, even if the barrels are from the barrels which he originally made up with him that he should move.

Question: This is difficult as even so, the wages that are forbidden are mixed into the permitted wages!

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the explanation is that the employer only told this to the employee after he finished his work.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This teaches that it is the law even though no new condition was made, and he is only moving the barrels based on the original condition of one hundred barrels for one hundred Perutos. One might think that all of the wages are one payment, and wages due to the benefit from Yayin Nesech are mixed into the permitted wages, causing it to be forbidden. This is why the Beraisa teaches that it is permitted and it is like moving the forbidden barrel the next day, being that he already finished his work.

Text: Rabeinu Tam understands the text is as follows. The renter puts "Kisto" meaning "his pillow" on the donkey. The text is not "Kesuso" -- "his clothes," as it is obvious that he is not going to be naked! If you will say it refers to a spare set of clothing, if he normally wears it then it is clearly permitted for him to put it on the donkey.

Text (cont.): If it is coming to permit putting these clothes on the donkey even though he does not normally wear them, it should have explained this. Rather, the correct text is Kisto which means a small pillow used to sit on or to put under his head. A Kar is a large (body) pillow upon which one lies down.

Observation: People mistakenly think that a small pillow is called a Kar while a big pillow is called a Keses.

Proof #1: This is clearly a mistake, as the Mishnah in Tamid (1:1) states, "Each person would put his pillow on the ground." (The Seder Yaakov explains that the proof is that they must not have taken big body pillows to the Beis Hamikdash.)

Proof #2: In Keilim (28:5), the Mishnah states that a Kar that was made into a sheet and a Keses that was made into a head scarf etc. (This indicates that a Kar is bigger, as it can be made into a large sheet.)

Proof #3: Similarly, the Pasuk states, "To sew Kistos by all of his armpits." (This indicates that the Keses was a small pillow appropriate for only one part of the body.)

Proof #4: A Kar is meant to lie down on, as indicated by the Gemara in Gitin (47a) that says that Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish was lying down on his stomach and he said, "My daughter, my stomach is my pillow." Similarly, in Eiruvin (100b) the Gemara states, "and she must be a pillow (implying a full body pillow) for her husband."

Implied Question: The Pasuk states, "and she put them in the pillow of the camel." (This seemingly is a small pillow atop the camel!)

Answer: This usage of Kar refers to the Torah's way of referring to the pillow on a camel, as the Targum explains "b'Avita d'Gamla." (The Avodah Berurah explains that Tosfos is answering that the Kar referred to in the Torah is different than the Kar referred to by Chazal.)

Proof: The words "v'Chur Karpas" mentioned in Megillas Esther which refer to a pillow are referring to a Kar that is as big as the beds that are made to honor the house. (Some say this is another proof that a Kar refers to a big pillow, as this is the root "Kar" in Karpas. The Avodah Berurah gives another explanation of this part of Tosfos.)

Explanation: This means that they went from journey to journey, from going on a one day journey to another one day journey. This is akin to the phrase (found in the Targum), "he went and passed the three stops in the journey (i.e. travels) of Sancheirev."

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (94b) states that this evildoer went on ten journeys (i.e. through ten cities) on that day, yet the Targum only counts the major cities.

Implied Question (cont.): Moreover, when the Pasuk states, "Geva Malon Lanu," the implication is that they slept overnight in Geva! (This means it was not a minor stop. Why wasn't it counted as a stop by the Targum?)

Answer: Perhaps some of his army went earlier and slept in some of these places, while he and the rest of his army who came after them went to Yerushalayim in one day, as he was in a hurry to get there that day (as explained by the Gemara in Sanhedrin 95a).

Explanation: Rashi explains that the wine is not Yayin Nesech until it reaches the bottom of his container.

Implied Question: The top container of wine is not prohibited due to Nitzuk. (Why aren't the contents of the top container forbidden when the wine hits the bottom of the bottom container if we hold that a stream is deemed connected?)

Answer #1: This is because we hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who states later (74a) that when Yayin Nesech gets mixed with kosher wine, one is allowed to sell all the wine as long as he does not benefit from the value of the Yayin Nesech that is contained in the mixture. We hold like Rabban Shimon.

Answer #1 (cont.): This is even if some of their wine was left in their vessels. There is no reason to forbid the barrel of the Jew's wine which he is pouring from due to Nitzuk and to say that he is dealing with things that are prohibited from benefit. (The Bach understands that this entire phrase should actually be part of the Implied Question above. In any event, Tosfos is saying that Nitzuk will not cause the Jew's wine to be forbidden enough that he cannot sell it to a Nochri, as there is really no value of actual Yayin Nesech in it.)

Observation: According to Rabeinu Tam who rules that Nitzuk is not considered a connection there is clearly no question. Later, when the Gemara (72a) discusses Nitzuk, we will deal with this at length with the help of Hash-m Yisbarach.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case here is where the Nochrim emptied their vessels very well, and the wine is therefore not considered Yayin Nesech until the Nochri touches it.

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this means empty barrels of earthenware.

Explanation (cont.): We do not suspect they will both crack (causing his vessel to be used by the Nochri for the Yayin Nesech). (If we did suspect this, there could be an argument to say that the father of Rav Acha had a forbidden interest in wanting the container of Yayin Nesech to remain whole, known as Rotzeh b'Kiyumo.)

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that the grapes are connected to the cluster. However, if the stem is taken away they are considered cracked due to the resulting hole.

Text #1: This is the text of the Mishnah. Yayin Nesech that fell onto grapes should be rinsed off from the grapes, and they are permitted. If the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden. There was an incident regarding Beitus Ben Zonan that he was bringing dried figs etc. This is the rule: Anything that one benefits from...such as vinegar that fell into beans...If a Nochri was passing etc. This is the text of Rabeinu Shmuel.

Text #1 (cont.): According to this text, one must explain that when the Gemara asks that the Mishnah seems to be quoting an incident which contradicts its previous statement regarding wine falling, it must be referring to the case of the grapes, as dried figs are already considered cracked.

Text #2: However, some Sefarim have the text in our Mishnah that if the wine fell on dates and figs they are forbidden if they were given a wine taste...and there was an incident with Beitus etc. The Gemara asks that this incident contradicts the Mishnah, as it is asking from an incident regarding dried figs on a law about figs. The Gemara answers that wine falling on dried figs gives a negative taste.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara should have answered that the Mishnah is missing words and should read that this is only regarding dates and figs that were wet. However, dried ones give a bad taste. There was an incident etc.

Text: Rabeinu Tam did not have this text.

Implied Question: Rabah bar Livai asked Rava as similar question in Pesachim (40b) regarding a boat that sunk in Chishtah. Rava permitted selling the wheat that was on the boat to Nochrim (even though it had become wet and it was right before Pesach), and then retracted his ruling. (How could Rava have made the same mistake twice?)

Answer: It must be that the question was only asked to Rava after both incidents occurred. However, the Gemara stated the question was asked in both places. It is clearly not appropriate to say that Rava made the same mistake twice.

Question: Why don't we say that the thread is Batel b'Rov (nullified by a majority of the other types of thread)? This is as the Gemara asks in Temurah (34a) regarding the hair of a Bechor or Nazir that (is forbidden from benefit and) was sewn into clothing. It would have been nullified there if it were not for the fact that the Gemara established the case as being where he wove a nice design with it making it into an important thing which is not nullified.

Answer: Rebbi Yosi bar Yom Tov answers that Kilayim is different (than hair of a Bechor or Nazir), as they are only forbidden due to being mixed together, as both threads separately are permitted. This is why their being mixed causes them to be forbidden, and they cannot be nullified.

Question: Milk and meat is permitted separately, while mixing it is forbidden. Even so, we find that one can be nullified by the other, as the Gemara states in Chulin (108a) that if a drop of milk falls onto a piece of milk it is only forbidden if it gives a taste etc.!

Answer: Mixtures of meat and milk are different, as the Pasuk explicitly states that they are nullified. This is as the Gemara states there (ibid.) that the Torah only forbade them if they are cooked together. (In other words, being that they are only forbidden if cooked together, it must be that the Torah only forbade an actual transfer of taste, not merely their being physically together.)

Explanation: Only if it was lost do we say that there is a decree he should not sell it, lest the Nochri sell it to a Jew. Similarly, he cannot make it into a saddle (made of material) for his donkey, as his garment might tear and he will use the material from the saddle as a patch.

Explanation (cont.): However, if something is clearly Kilayim there is no problem. This is as the Mishnah states in Kilayim (9:4) that the saddle of a donkey and the shrouds of a dead person do not come under the prohibition of Kilayim. This is specifically regarding sitting on something that is spread out, like a saddle made of material that he sits upon.

Explanation (cont.): The reason is because the entire prohibition in this case is only Rabbinic in nature. This is as stated in Beitzah (14b) that the Torah says, "It should not go upon you." You are allowed to spread it underneath you (according to Torah law), just not upon you. This is as the Mishnah states, "And he should not put it on his shoulder, even in order to put on it fertilizer."

Explanation (cont.): Even sitting upon it can only be done in a way where his actual flesh does not touch it. Although the Chachamim also decreed that sitting upon it is forbidden, even if there are ten mattresses one on top of the other and Kilayim is underneath them, due to the possibility that a thread might go onto his skin, in this case they did not make this decree. (The Kesef Mishnah in Hilchos Kilayim 10:25 explains that being that this type of material for donkey saddles is hard and does not warm up the body, they did not decree that he cannot sit on top of it, as is the Rabbinic law by other such Kilayim things such as soft sheets.)

Explanation: The same is regarding a case where the thread was not lost, as stated by the Mishnah in Kilayim (9:4) I quoted earlier.

Question: Isn't there a prohibition of "Lo'eg l'Rash" -- "scorning the dead" as stated regarding Tzitzis in Menachos (41a)? At that time we certainly put Tzitzis on him due to Lo'eg l'Rash! This means that at the time that they bury him they put Tzitzis on him due to Lo'eg l'Rash, as it appears he is no longer obligated in Mitzvos!

Answer #1: Tzitzis is different, as it is equal to all of the Mitzvos, and there is therefore more scorn.

Answer #2: Rebbi Yehudah used to say that the Gemara in Menachos (41a) is according to Shmuel who bases himself on his opinion that Mitzvos are not defunct in the next world. Accordingly, (they need to be buried with Tzitzis as otherwise) when the righteous ones will rise they will be without Tzitzis and will transgress a prohibition.

Answer #2 (cont.): The reason that the Gemara mentioned Lo'eg l'Rash (when the reason is in fact that they require Tzitzis when they are resurrected) is that it is explaining that the people who are alive do have Tzitzis, creating scorn for those who are resurrected as if they are unimportant etc., as they do not have the ability right away (after they are resurrected) to make Tzitzis. (In other words, even though they would technically be a victim of forced circumstances when they are resurrected until they are able to make Tzitzis, it will be denigrating for them during this time. This is what is meant by Lo'eg l'Rash.)

Answer #2 (cont.): Shmuel established this Gemara according to Rebbi Yanai that it is only permitted to eulogize him, but not to bury him, when he is wearing Kilayim for the reason we have just stated.

Observation: According to this difference, our custom that we take off the Tzitzis from the Taleisim of the dead is valid. This is because we hold like Rebbi Yochanan who argues on the house of Rebbi Yanai, and who permits burying in Kilayim as well. This is based on his understanding that Mitzvos will not have to be performed in the future.

Proof: There is another support to our custom from the Beraisa in Meseches Semachos (ch. 12) that Abba Shaul commanded that people remove the Techeiles from his garment (after he died).

Proof (cont.): Based on the Sefarim Chitzonim we do many things, such as reading "va'Yichal Moshe" towards evening (meaning during Minchah, or in the reading) on fast days. In Megilah (31a) the Mishnah states that we should read the curses or blessing (and yet we read va'Yichal).

Opinion: Rabeinu Yitzchak differentiated between those in the early generations who were careful in the Mitzvah of Tzitzis during their entire lifetime and those who did not. If the former would not have Tzitzis on when they are buried it is considered scorning them, as if to say that they did not fulfill the Mitzvah in their lifetime.

Opinion (cont.): However, now that people are not so careful about wearing Tzitzis, on the contrary, if we put Tzitzis on them it is considered scorning them. This is because it is as if we are saying that he was careful about this Mitzvah when in fact he was not.

Opinion (cont.): Even for those who did keep the Mitzvah we should not put on Tzitzis, in order not to embarrass the others who did not keep it. This is as we state in Nidah (71a) that originally they would immerse the vessels of Nidos (in a Mikvah) when they died. This caused embarrassment to the ones who were alive. They therefore decreed that the vessels of all who died should be immersed.

Implied Question: There is no reason to suspect that the Nochrim and Jews will eat together using one plate while eating bread separately, as stated earlier (see Tosfos 35b, DH "mi'Chlal") that bread of Nochrim (when mixed with permitted food) is not more stringent than a mixture of Dmai which is permitted. (Being that this is permitted, the Nochri who buys this bread will end up having it go into the dish they are eating from, causing the food to be a mixture of Yayin Nesech and permitted food, the Jew being unaware that there is Yayin Nesech in the bread. Why, then, do we permit the bread to be sold to the Nochri?)

Answer: Being that this is an uncommon scenario, we do not decree that one cannot sell the bread.