Question: What is the difference between this law (Tosfos seems to understand that Abaye indeed holds this is forbidden even if a Jew is in and out, see notes of Rebbi Elazar Moshe Horovits), and other prohibitions that are permitted by having a Jew go in and out?

Answer#1: When we generally permit a Jew going in and out it is because the Nochri will be caught like a thief if the Jew finds him doing anything (that causes his food to become forbidden), and he will bring him to court. However, here he can put his Neveilah spoon in the Jew's pot and can explain, "I just wanted to stir your food for you, to ensure it does not burn."

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara's case here is regarding the cooked food in an inn, where the Nochri is not scared of the Jew.

Opinion: According to Rava, it is possible to say that this is permitted if the Jew is going in and out, even in an inn. This is why the Gemara does not bring proof from Neveilah meat to money of idolatry in the hands of idolaters. This is because in the case of the Neveilah the Nochri is scared, as perhaps the Jew will see him and bring him to court because he made his food forbidden.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Nochri will throw his weak meat and take the fatty meat of the Jew in order to profit. However, we do not suspect that he will switch meat just in order to make the Jew sin, even if the Jew goes far away.

Proof: A proof to this is that the Gemara later (34b) regarding the boat of fish brine says that there is no suspicion that there is wine mixed into the fish brine. The Gemara explains that this is because a barrel of fish brine cost one "Luma" meaning a Zuz, while a barrel of wine cost four Luma/Zuz.

Opinion: This is why we always leave our pots with our Nochri maidservants, and do not suspect that they might have put something forbidden in the food.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the parallel is to say that the money that he receives in exchange for his animal is from the people inside the city. They were already brought for idolatry (as a sacrifice of sorts), and are therefore forbidden from benefit according to Torah law. This is as the Pasuk says, "And nothing should stick to your hand."

Explanation (cont.): This implies that according to Abaye, if we would be certain that these monies were offered to an idol they would be forbidden. This case is different, as we do not suspect this is the case. According to Rava, even the suspicion makes it forbidden.

Question: This is difficult. Later (64a), the Gemara says that they later sat down and asked, are the monies of an idolatry in the hands of an idolater forbidden or permitted? Rav Nachman concludes there that they are permitted.

Question (cont.): He proves this from our Mishnah that says that if a Jew was claiming a Manah from an idolater and the Nochri sold an idol and gave the proceeds to the Jew, the Jew may benefit from the money.

Answer: Perhaps due to this question Rashi explains that the money of idolatry means money that was offered to an idol.

Answer (cont.): This is unlike the case later (64a), as that case is one of exchanging something for an idol. Items exchanged for an idol are only forbidden from benefit when a Jew exchanged them for an idol. However, when an idolater exchanged them, they are permitted.

Question#1: However, there is a difficulty. Even if they would be brought as a sacrifice they would not be forbidden, as we require that the sacrifice should be akin to the manner that a sacrifice was brought in the Beis Hamikdash. This is as the Gemara states later (51a) that if a person threw a stick before an idol he is liable, as this is the normal way to serve it.

Question#1 (cont.): Some other explanations that Rashi quotes say that Abaye does not hold of the Mishnah later (64a). It is very difficult, however, to say that Abaye, Rava, and Rabah bar Ula do not hold of this Mishnah.

Question#2: There is another difficulty from this Mishnah. Later (33a), regarding idolaters who are going to serve an idol, the Beraisa states that the monies of a Jew who goes and comes back from a market of idolatry is forbidden. However, the monies of a Nochri who goes and comes back from this market are permitted. This is because we say that the Nochri merely went to sell some wine or shirts. This implies that if he were to sell an idol, the money would be prohibited. Accordingly, this should teach us that what is exchanged for an idol is prohibited from benefit.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Mishnah later (64a) that permits benefiting from items that were exchanged for an idol is regarding an idolater who pays his debt from the proceeds of selling his idols. When we say that idols take their money (i.e. their prohibition transfers to the money they are exchanged for), this is from the Pasuk, "And it will be a Cheirem like it." This is specifically discussing a case where a Jew did the exchange. However, when the Nochri did the exchange it does not apply.

Answer (cont.): However, in our Gemara and later (33a), the case is where the Nochri sets aside the monies for another idol. This is why the money is forbidden.

Question: Abaye here says that they did not suspect the people outside the market as having monies of idolatry. This implies that the people inside the city were suspected as having monies of idolatry. Why is this different from the Gemara later (33a) where we rule that the Nochri was just selling wine or shirts at the fair? Why don't we say here that they were just selling mundane things, and that even the money of the people of the city should be permitted?

Answer: The Ri says that the case here is referring to a permanent fair that is dedicated to buying things used for idols and their needs. Therefore, the monies of the people inside are forbidden, as one must suspect that their money is from idolatry. However, the case later (33a) refers to a fair that does not always have items used for idolatry. This is why it is possible to say that he must have merely been selling wine or shirts.

Answer (cont.): Rava argues and says that if we should have suspected monies of idolatry, as the fair was made for this, we would even suspect this regarding the people outside the city. However, Rava says that the fair is not made specifically for idolatry. His question is specifically if there is a holiday for the idol.

Opinion#1: Rav Nissim Gaon explains that the law does not follow Rav.

Proof#1: This is apparent from the Mishnah in Chulin (41a) that says that one should not do so (slaughter with the blood going into a ditch) in the marketplace, in order that the heretics should not copy him. (This implies that if he was in a private area where nobody would see him do this, it would be permitted.)

Proof#2: It also states in Shabbos (146b) that a person may spread out his clothes to dry in the sun (in his private courtyard), but not opposite the public. This implies that they did not prohibit this action in a courtyard, even though in the marketplace it would be forbidden due to Maris Ayin. This is what I accepted on Shabbos from the mouth of my teacher, the pious one.

Opinion#2: In Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah, I found that he writes that it appears to the Ri that the law follows Rav, as I have explained in Shabbos (65a, DH "Amar").

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Tannaim argue about this in Shabbos (64b). (Why didn't the Gemara merely answer that there are other Tannaim who argue on this Beraisa, and whom Rav Yehudah can hold like?)

Answer: The Gemara did not want to answer that the Beraisa argues on Rav Yehudah.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that someone who kisses idols is not as stringent as one who bows down to them. (Why, then, do we forbid this due to Maris Ayin?)

Answer: Even so, being that that there is also a Torah prohibition to kiss idols, we understand from the previous laws that this should be forbidden.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Bechoros (44b) the Gemara implies that even after he drank this leech he can live a long time. (Why, then, can one desecrate Shabbos to save him?)

Answer: Even so we desecrate Shabbos to save him, being that there is danger to his life. This is similar to a case later (28a) where one has an injury on the back of his hand or foot. We consider a deathly blow which permit Shabbos desecration to heal it, even though it sometimes will heal on its own.

Text#1: The Aruch has the text, "Arka." This means a small worm that is commonly found in water. When it falls on flesh, it hangs on it and sucks out the blood. As long as it is sucking, it gets filled up from the liquid it is sucking. It can blow up to be as big as a small barrel. When a person swallows one of these bugs in the water, it sucks out the liquid from his intestines. It grows in his intestines, and ends up causing his stomach to bloat.

Text#2: Other texts say that the proper text is "Alka." The Pasuk in Tehilim, "Krum Zlus" is translated by the Targum to mean, "like an Alka that sucks the blood of people."

Text#1: Rashi explains that we do not have the text, "Not from the rivers and not from the ponds." This is because it even applies to vessels. He explains this according to the Sefarim that have the text immediately afterward, "Afterwards we should bang with the cover on the (stone) vessel."

Text#2: The Ri explains that in Pesachim (112a) we have the text regarding Shavriri, "From the rivers and from the ponds at night." We do not have the text, "We should bang with the covers on the vessel." We also do not have the text, "If there is someone else there with him he should say to him, Planya etc." However, there is another Beraisa earlier in Pesachim (ibid.) which has the text, "on Wednesday and Shabbos nights" and the text, "We should bang with the cover on the vessel."

Explanation: Rashi explains that it is normal for them to have a market and fair on their holiday. The reason that it is permitted to shop in the stores that are not adorned is because no benefit is gained by the idols from these stores. The only problem in dealing with them on their holiday is if one sells them things. This is either because they can use the object as a sacrifice, or because it is normal for a purchaser to be happy, causing him to thank his idol. However, to buy from them is permitted, as most sellers are sad.

Observation: This implies that Rashi retracted his earlier statement (2a) that "Lases v'Lases" refers to both buying and selling.

Question: However, this is difficult. If the market specifically takes places on the holiday, how can we purchase from them? We say earlier (6b) that we do not buy things that spoil from them. Yet in our Gemara (13b), we say that Rav Yirmiyah bought a Pita (which spoils, at an idolatrous fair). The Yerushalmi records regarding this incident that one of them said to his friend, "And did you never buy a loaf of bread?!"

Answer: Rabeinu Meir therefore explains that the Gemara here is referring to a fair that is made to pay taxes (towards the idolatry and to give discounts on the taxes to those who show they worship it) that does not take place on their holiday. This is why there is no problem purchasing from stores that are not adorned.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks, why is this different from the case later (66b) of a hole in the cover of a barrel of wine (made in order that a person can smell the wine to see if it is able to be preserved for a long time)? This is permitted (according to Rava it is even permitted for a Jew to sniff Yayin Nesech which is forbidden from benefit) because smelling is not considered a significant act.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that roses and myrtles are different, as they are primarily used for their good smell. They are like incense. Even after the Mitzvah is done with the incense (it is burned on the Mizbe'ach) and therefore there is no regular law (i.e. punishments) of Mi'eelah, there still is a prohibition of Mi'eelah against smelling it.

Answer (cont.): Even if they are not primarily for smell, perhaps they should be forbidden. This is because the rule stated in Pesachim (24b), that one is only given lashes for all prohibitions in the Torah if they are done in the way where one normally would benefit from them, is only regarding lashes. There is still a prohibition (even if the sin is not done in the normal way).

Answer (cont.): Perhaps the fact that the prohibition is idolatry will mean that he also receives lashes (even if the benefit is not in the normal way). This is similar to Kil'ai ha'Kerem where one does receive lashes even if he benefits in a way that is abnormal. This is because the prohibition of Kilai ha'Kerem does not include the word "eating." The prohibition against benefiting from idolatry stated in the Torah similarly does not include "eating." It only includes this term in the Pasuk in Tehilim, "And they will eat from the sacrifices of the dead."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk says, "That the fat of his sacrifices they will eat." (This refers to eating from animals sacrificed to idols using the word "eating." The prohibition therefore should follow regular laws.)

Answer: Even so, eating was only stated regarding the prohibition itself in Tehilim, where the Pasuk compared this sacrifice to a dead person. The Gemara later (29b) notes that the Pasuk makes this comparison when it says, "And they will eat from the sacrifices of the dead."

Answer (cont.): Even if you will say that there is no lashes, there is a prohibition. However, regarding the case of the hole in the barrel of Yayin Nesech, even though Chazal were stringent regarding this prohibition akin to their stringency regarding idolatry, there is no real benefit. On the contrary, the strength of the wine goes into his nostrils, and damages him.

Answer (cont.): The reason that Abaye (64b) says this is prohibited is not because of the good smell, but rather because he considers this akin to drinking, as the strong smell enters his body. Even though it is possible that drinking something forbidden from benefit to the point of disgust is permitted, in this case it should be forbidden (according to Abaye). Being that if he would drink the wine itself he would not be disgusted, the smell that resembles it should be forbidden despite the fact that he does not benefit. [See Tosfos 66b, DH "Abaye."]

Explanation: According to Rebbi Yochanan, the stores that are not adorned at all are permitted.

Question: The Gemara later (33a) states that if a Jew goes to the idolatry fair, money that he has on his way back from the fair is presumed forbidden. This is because we assume that he sold an idol. The Gemara concludes that if he had sold a shirt, he would have sold it in the Jewish neighborhood. In other words, he would not have went to the fair which is prohibited. This implies that he is forbidden from going to the fair altogether. Why should it be prohibited? We should assume that he is going to the stores that are not adorned in honor of the idol!

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that the case there is when all of the stores in the city are adorned. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish they are adorned with roses and myrtles, and according to Rebbi Yochanan they are adorned with fruit.

Answer#2: Alternatively, this Beraisa later is referring to a fair which takes taxes from anyone who does not want to put on a crown (in honor of the idol). This is like the opinion of Rebbi Nasan later, who forbids both having benefit from an idol or giving benefit to an idol.

Question: Why doesn't the Beraisa later (13a) assume that he is buying from a non-permanent seller from whom it is permitted to buy? It is even permitted to buy bread and shoes from such a person, as is implied later in the Gemara.

Answer: It is possible to answer that in the Beraisa it is referring to a Jewish merchant in a place where there is always taxes taken, either from the buyer or the seller.