Implied Question: The Gemara says in Nedarim (54b) that one should not bloodlet when eating birds and fish. (How can we reconcile this with our Gemara that apparently holds fish is good for bloodletting?)

Answer: This refers to eating it immediately before bloodletting (as opposed to our Gemara which advises eating fish the day before or day after).

Explanation: This means that in a place where people do not usually go. This is like the case of Rav Chana in the streets of Neharda. However, the fact that one cannot take a haircut when totally alone with a Nochri goes without saying. Even if he was not getting a haircut it would be forbidden to be secluded with him due to the suspicion that they will murder him. This is also how we can understand the previous Gemara (26a) regarding a nursemaid.

Observation: The Tosefta (3:5) and Yerushalmi here state that if a Jew takes a haircut from a Nochri, he should use a mirror. If he takes a haircut from a Kusi, he does not have permission to use a mirror. This is because the Kusim are not suspected to be murderers. They permitted the people of the house of Rabban Gamliel to use mirrors. This means they even permitted them to use mirrors when taking haircuts from Kusim, being that they needed to deal with royalty. This implies that it is forbidden for a man to look in a mirror.

Observation (cont.): It appears that the reason for this law is the Pasuk, "A man should not wear the dress of a woman." The Targum translates this as, "A man should not prepare himself as does a woman."

Implied Question: The Mishnah states in Shabbos (149a) that one cannot look in a mirror on Shabbos. The Gemara explains that this is regarding a metal mirror, as a person might use it to cut hairs that are sticking out. This implies that it is only prohibited on Shabbos, but permitted during the week (unlike the Tosefta and Yerushalmi above)!

Answer: The Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) is referring to a woman. When it says "Adam," it does not literally mean a man, as a man is generally forbidden from using a mirror (as stated above).

Proof: This is also implied by the Yerushalmi, as it explains that the reason why one cannot look in a mirror is because sometimes a woman will see a white hair and will pluck it out on Shabbos, and thereby be obligated to bring a Chatas. The Yerushalmi concludes that this is forbidden for a man even during the week, as it is not honorable (for a man to look in a mirror, and is therefore considered beautification which is prohibited).

Observation: The Yerushalmi continues that they permitted three things for the people belonging to the house of Rebbi. They permitted them to look in a mirror, have a Kumi haircut (cutting the hair in front and leaving a lot in the back), and to teach their children Greek wisdom, as they needed to communicate with royalty.

Implied Question: One cannot push this aside by saying that when the Yerushalmi says that this is even permitted during the week, it is referring to cutting off the loose white hairs from among black hairs (but not looking at the mirror itself).

Implied Question: This would be akin to what we say in Shabbos (94b) that if someone gathers (i.e. cuts) white hairs from amongst black hairs, even if he only cuts one such hair, on Shabbos he is liable (for transgressing Shabbos). This is even forbidden during the week due to the prohibition of Lo Yilbash.

Answer: Being that they quoted the permission given to the house of Rebbi to look in the mirror, the implication is that this is prohibited during the week due to looking in the mirror.

Opinion: However, Lo Yilbash only prohibits looking in the mirror in order to look handsome. However, to look in the mirror in order to take a haircut and shave so that one will not injure himself, or in order to heal one's eyesight (see Avodah Berurah) is certainly permitted. The One Who checks hearts knows what a person's intention truly is when he looks in the mirror.

Opinion (cont.): The law is that it is forbidden to take a haircut from a Nochri unless one can look in the mirror. This even applies to taking a haircut from a Nochri in the public domain. This is apparent from Rav Chana's statement that he deserved what he got because he transgressed the words of Rebbi Meir.

Opinion (cont.): This is only if he is using a razor, as it is easy to hurt oneself in this way. However, it is not common to be injured from a scissors, and it is therefore permitted for a Nochri to give him a haircut with a scissors if someone else is with him. (The Avodah Berurah understands Tosfos holds that one must only take a haircut from a Nochri in a relatively public place with a scissors but without a mirror if there is someone else with him. If the Nochri is using a razor, he must be in a totally public place with a mirror.)

Question: This is difficult. What is the question, "how do we know this?" Our Mishnah is discussing regular wine of Nochrim. The prohibition against this is a Rabbinic decree due to intermarriage (and clearly not a Pasuk)!

Answer: Certainly, the main decree against regular Nochri wine is due to intermarriage (see 36b). However, they did not forbid it from benefit due to this, just as they did not forbid their bread or oil from benefit. Being that Nochri wine is similar to wine poured for idolatry, they forbade regular Nochri wine from benefit was so that it should have the same law as wine poured for idolatry, which is prohibited from benefit according to Torah law. The Gemara therefore asks, how do we know that Yayin Nesech is prohibited from benefit according to Torah law?

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach the source prohibiting wine poured for idolatry from benefit? Why isn't it like any other sacrifice?

Answer: Sacrifices and wine poured for idolatry are two different categories. We include (51a) from "Zevach" anything that is like a sacrifice, such as breaking a stick in front of the idol, and from Nisuch (pouring) we include sprinkling of blood that breaks up in midair. (The Rashash notes (as does the Avodah Berurah) that this must be the explanation of Tosfos, although the wording reads differently.)

Observation: According to the opinion that this Pasuk is referring to idolaters, this is understandable.

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Gitin (56b) that Titus said this Pasuk regarding Bnei Yisrael. Similarly, in the Sifri we find an argument betwee Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemiah where one of them said that this is regarding idolaters, and one said it is about Bnei Yisrael. (How does the opinion that this is regarding Bnei Yisrael understand the teaching of our Gemara?)

Answer: It must be that the idolaters denigrated Bnei Yisrael for their service on the Mizbe'ach based on how they sacrifice to their idols. "Eating and drinking" refers to the Mizbe'ach that eats Menachos and drinks libations.

Question: This is difficult. Instead of learning Tikroves Avodah Zarah from a dead person, and a dead person from Eglah Arufah, we should derive a dead person from idolatry itself, using a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Sham-Sham." This is as stated in Sanhedrin (47b) regarding someone who weaves clothing for a dead person. Rava derives there that merely preparing these shrouds do not make them prohibited from benefit, as we derive "Sham-Sham" from idolatry. This is as the Pasuk states, "You should surely destory all of the places that they worshipped there (Sham)."

Answer: In Sanhedrin (ibid,), the Gezeirah Shaveh is understandable, as the Gemara is deriving things that serve a dead person from things that are used to serve idols, as the Pasuk of "You should surely destroy etc." is discussing vessels used for idolatry, as stated later (51b).

Question: This is difficult. In Kerisus (6a), we derive from "And they will behead it there" that it should be buried there. (Why do we need to derive both this teaching and the teaching of our Gemara?)

Answer: Both teachings are needed. If the source is because the Pasuk states it atones like Kodshim, after it is beheaded it should be permitted for benefit. This is because we have a rule that after something is used for a Mitzvah (and no longer has a Mitzvah use), one is allowed to benefit from it. If we would just know the Pasuk, "And they will behead there," I would think that it is only forbidden from benefit after it is dead. The teaching that atonement implies it is like Kodshim teaches that it is even forbidden from benefit when it is alive.

Answer (cont.): The Pasuk also must compare it to Kodshim to teach us that it must be done during the day, and that it is invalid if it is a Treifah, as stated in Chulin (11a).

Implied Question: Rav Ashi also could have answered that this only applies to vinegar that was poured for idolatry when it was wine. However, if it was our vinegar in the hands of a Nochri, there is no problem, as the Jew clearly did not pour it for idols when it was wine. (Why didn't Rav Ashi give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, he told us one answer which would lead us to derive another answer as well.

Opinion#1: It would seem from our Gemara that if a Nochri touches our vinegar there is no prohibition on the vinegar. Rabeinu Meshulam indeed permitted such vinegar.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam was upset that Rabeinu Meshulam was lenient in this matter. He said that we do not know the definition of vinegar well enough. It is fairly common that that what some people call vinegar others call wine. (This leniency in practice will lead people to drink wine touched by a Nochri.)

Opinion#2 (cont.): In Bava Basra (96a), there is an argument regarding something that has a smell of vinegar but tastes like wine.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Meshulam permitted a young grape to be touched by a Nochri because the liquid that comes out of it is called water, not wine. This is as the Gemara in Gitin (31a) states, "from the time the water goes into the young grape."

Opinion#1 (cont.): Similarly, in Shevi'is (4:8) the Mishnah states that when a young grape starts to have water in it he can eat his bread with it in the field.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam was upset about this leniency as well, because we are not experts in when a grape is deemed young (and when it has the status of a regular grape).

Opinion#2 (cont.): He also wrote that one year the wines did not ripen. Just because the wines are not totally ripe does not mean that we will not say that this year Yayin Nesech does not apply!