Question: This is difficult. Let us put it back in the furnace, as stated in Zevachim (96a) regarding the earthenware vessels used in the Mikdash! The Gemara there answered that this is not done with the vessels of the Mikdash, because they instituted that there should not be furnaces in Yerushalayim. This implies that if there would be furnaces, this would be done!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this process is not one of taking out what is absorbed, but rather a process of making an entirely new vessel!

Question: If this is considered a new vessel, why does the Torah say that an earthenware oven and stovetop have to be broken? Let it say that we should merely return it to the furnace!

Answer: Rabeinu Shimshon from Shantz says that certainly it is possible to say regarding regular earthenware vessels that are not normally put back into a furnace that they are considered new vessels after being put in the furnace. However, an oven and stovetop that become forbidden due to the fires on/in them that cause this forbidden absorption cannot be considered a new vessel when they are put into a furnace.

Text: Rashi explains in Tanis (11b) that the correct text is Mar Ukva, as Heaven forfend that Rebbi Akiva would not be able to answer these questions.

Text (cont.): Additionally, the Gemara should have quoted this as a Beraisa if it involved Rebbi Akiva.

Implied Question: This is not difficult (i.e. a proof to Rashi's text), as in many places we find incidents involving Rebbi Akiva or other Tannaim (without it being quoted as a Beraisa).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the case is where he accepted upon himself a fast after the sixth hour of the day. He had not eaten anything during the first six hours of the day, but not because of any intent to fast.

Opinion#1 (cont.): This is also implied in Tanis (11b). The Gemara there says that when you say one can fast for hours, the case is where he did not taste anything the entire day. The Gemara asks, this is a good Ta'anis! The Gemara concludes that it is necessary to say this in case he changed his mind. (Does this mean he originally ate on this day and then changed his mind and concluded the day fasting?)

Opinion#1 (cont.): It must be that the Gemara is also referring to a case where he accepted yesterday to fast an entire day tomorrow until nightfall if he does not eat for the first half of the next day. If he did not accept to fast tomorrow at all this could not be considered a fast day, as Shmuel says in Ta'anis (12a) that any Ta'anis that a person did not accept the day before is not considered a Ta'anis. If he fasts, it is considered like a billows that is full of air (he is putting air instead of food in his body and not even getting rewarded for this).

Opinion#1 (cont.): One cannot explains that Shmuel only said his law regarding saying the special prayer (i.e. Aneinu) said on a Ta'anis, but regarding the Ta'anis itself he still receives reward, even if he ended up eating. This is because these laws are connected, as we say that the law is that one can fast for hours, and that if he does this he says the prayer said on a Ta'anis.

Opinion#2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that the case is where he did not accept the fast on the previous day. This is the simple meaning of the Gemara's answer, "he changed his mind."

Opinion#2 (cont.): Shmuel's requirement to accept the fast on the previous day is only Lechatchilah. Accordingly, if he fast it is like blowing air as he does not receive reward for fasting, and is instead called a sinner who pains himself. Even so, his vow is valid.

Opinion#3: The Yerushalmi in Nedarim (8:1) explains that "fasting for hours" means that if a person ate during the first half of the day, he can decide to fast for the second half of the day until nighttime, and it is considered as if he fasted. This is as the Gemara says there that from the words of Rebbi Yochanan we see that one can fast for hours. Rebbi Yochanan says that a person can say, "I am fasting until I finish learning a certain chapter or Parshah." This implies that one can fast for hours. We can also derive this from Rebbi Yonah. When Rebbi Yonah went to Tzur, he heard that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's son had just died. Even though he had already eaten cheese and drank water on that day, he finished the day by fasting the entire rest of the day. This implies that one can "fast for hours," even though he will eat later that day (after he finishes his chapter or Parshah) or he ate earlier.

Implied Question: The Gemara asked in Ta'anis (ibid.) regarding the statement that any Ta'anis that does not conclude with sunset is not a Ta'anis from a common statement of Rebbi Yochanan. He used to say, "I will fast until I come home." The Gemara does not answer that this is because one can fast for hours. (If this is correct, why doesn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: Even without giving this answer the Gemara has a good answer, as Rebbi Yochanan only used to say this to push aside invitations to sit and eat with the Nasi.

Implied Question: We have the custom to fast until "Tzeis ha'Kochavim" -"when the stars come out," even though we say in Ta'anis that any fast that is not until sunset is not a Ta'anis. This implies that it is sufficient to end a fast at sunset which is earlier than Tzeis ha'Kochavim by the amount of time it takes to walk five Mil. (Why are we more stringent than the letter of the law stated by the Gemara?)

Answer#1: We do not want to be involved in a doubtful situation. (The Beis Yosef in Orach Chaim 582 explains that being that Bein Hashemashos starts after the end of sunset (known as "Sof Shekiah," as opposed to our commonly referred to Shekiah) and people do not always know the difference between this time and nightfall, we do not want to follow the letter of the law as people might end up eating too early.)

Answer#2: Additionally, it is possible that the term "set" refers to total sunset, meaning nightfall (Tzeis).

Observation: However, if someone fast on Erev Shabbos, even though we rule in Eiruvin (41b) that the law is that one must complete his fast, he does not have to be careful to wait until Tzeis ha'Kochavim.

Opinion: There was an incident where someone who had fasted many times, but did not accept the fasts on the previous day, came before Rabeinu Tam. Rabeinu Tam said that he did not lose his fasts, being that he had intent to fast in his heart. This is included in the Pasuk, "the generous of heart" (Shemos 35:22) as the Gemara in Shevuos (26b) states that if someone had in mind but did not verbalize his thoughts, they are considered to be valid (regarding certain topics).

Implied Question: Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan require accepting the fast previously. (Isn't it apparent that they would hold these are fasts are not considered fasts?)

Answer: They only require acceptance of the fast Lechatchilah.

Opinion (cont.): Rabeinu Tam also stated that even if someone did not accept to fast until the previous night, he can he can fast and say the prayer for fasting on the next day, and he fulfills his vow as if he accepted the fast on the previous day. However, he did not have a clear proof for this.

Opinion (cont.): In any event, it is certainly a choice Mitzvah to accept a fast during Minchah of the previous day.

Observation: When the Ri would want to fast on Sunday, he would accept his fast on Shabbos during Elokei Nitzor.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that Moshe did not use the priestly garments, as the Pasuk says, "for Aharon your brother" and he was a non Kohen compared to Aharon and his sons.

Question: This is difficult according to the opinion in Zevachim (101b) that Moshe Rabeinu was a Kohen Gadol and he served as such for forty years. According to this opinion, they should have asked what clothing Moshe used for forty years. They could not have said that he served in a white robe without any hems, as the phrase "he served as a Kohen Gadol" implies with the eight garments like a Kohen Gadol.

Answer#1: The Gemara is asking specifically about the seven days of the Miluim, as the Bigdei Kehunah were not sanctified yet, as the Pasuk says, "And you will sprinkle on Aharon and on his clothing" (Shemos 29:21).

Answer#2: Rabeinu Yakov from Orleans explained that even if they were sanctified, all of the seven days of the Miluim that Moshe built and took apart the Mishkan it had the status of a Bamah (private altar). One does not wear Bigdei Kehunah when doing service on a Bamah, as stated in Zevachim (119b).

Implied Question: One cannot ask that a Chatas cannot be offered on a Bamah, yet the Chatas of the Miluim was offered there. (How could it have had the status of a big Bamah?)

Answer: We can say that it was a temporary ruling that this should be permitted, just as it was a temporary ruling that the Chatas was completely burned. We never find a private Chatas, besides this one, that was completely burned.

Explanation#1: This term is found in Shabbos (105b) where it says that one who weaves on a place where there is already a lot of woven material or on the Imra. This is (the beginning) part of the clothing. Sometimes it is not part of the actual clothing, as the Mishnah states in Nega'im "Imraos of Argaman."

Implied Question: There was no hem on Moshe's clothing. (Why was it different than the Bigdei Kehunah?)

Answer#1: This way it was more obvious that it was new. It must be new (i.e. not used), as we require that Bigdei Kehunah cannot be used by a regular person. They therefore made it noticeably different than other robes.

Answer#2: Rabeinu Moshe explained that this was in order that people should not say afterwards when Aharon started serving that Moshe received a blemish (and therefore could not serve). This is why it was made without a hem, so that everyone should know that his serving was not meant to be permanent.

Explanation#2: Some say that Imra means Amra (wool), as the Bigdei Kehunah contained Kilayim (a mixture of wool and linen). This is why the Gemara has to tell us that Moshe's clothing did not have Kilayim.

Observation: In Nazir (34b), the Tannaim argue regarding the definition of the word Chartzan and the word Zag. Is Chartzan a peel and Zag the seed, or is a Chartzan the seed and Zag the peel?

Observation (cont.): It is apparent from the Targum that Rebbi Yosi's opinion, that Zag is the peel, is correct. This is apparent from the Targum's explanation of "from Chartzanim until a Zag" - "from Purtzanin until Itzurin." The outer peel that is squeezed is likely called Itzurin (which according to the Targum corresponds to Zag), as it can stop the juice from coming out.

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi made a sign that this is the proper definition by calling these parts of the grape the bell and the clapper. A bell is the exterior, and the clapper knocks around (i.e. rings) inside of it. Similarly, the Targum for Pamon (bell) is "Zaga" - "bell," as the bell is the outer part of the bell in which lies a clapper.

Observation: The Gemara generally calls the outer part Chartzan, as is evident from the Gemara in Chulin (82b), "(One only transgresses Kilayim) if he plants wheat, barley, and Chartzan." The seeds are called "Zera."

Explanation: These are sediments belonging to Nochrim.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Efraim said that it is logical that if sediments are dried in an oven they should be permitted, just as we know that sediments are permitted if they sit for twelve months. Due to this leniency, he permitted bread of Nochrim that became sour through oven dried sediments of wine.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam was upset at Rabeinu Efraim for permitting this. He said that when the Gemara permits sediments after twelve months, this is only after they were soaked in water, as people often do with sediments. This is evident from the Gemara in Bava Basra (96b), which says, "Both sediments of wine etc." The Gemara explains that in a case where he poured three cups of water into the sediments and came out with four cups, the mixture is considered wine.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Similarly, in Pesachim (42b) regarding grape juice mixtures, the Gemara says, "This is regarding Ravka and this is regarding Purtzani." A grape liquid made from sediments is called Ravka, due to the bag in which the sediments are placed in order to make the grape juice. This is as the Gemara later (75a) calls grape juice of Nochrim, "Ravka d'Aramai."

Opinion#2 (cont.): Before the sediments are used to make grape juice the Gemara calls them sediments. This is as the Gemara states in Bava Metzia (40b), "there is the barrel and sediments" (the case there is clearly before the sediments were made into grape juice). After they were made into grape juice they are called Durdiya. Durdiya is the topic of our Gemara, which the Gemara wants to say are permitted after twelve months.

Opinion#2 (cont.): There are two reasons for this. Their taste has already been nullified in the water, and twelve months have passed by. Additionally, the peels of the grapes that are permitted after twelve months are after they have been put in water. However, sediments that were never put into water cannot be permitted, and dough that turned sour because of them before they were put in water is forbidden.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Even if it was put in water, they are forbidden if twelve months have not passed since then. They are not even nullified by one thousand parts of permitted food or liquid, being that they are added to a mixture to give taste. This is as stated in Chulin (6a, not Pesachim 44), leave yeast and spices (out of this conversation) as they are made for giving taste, and therefore cannot be nullified.

Opinion#2 (cont.): Rabeinu Tam writes that the one who rules leniently is like a rebellious son, and on me will blow the wind of Hash-m.

Proof: The Tosefta indeed writes that sediments that have dried out are forbidden from benefit. (This indicates that if they were just dried out and never put into water, they remain forbidden.)

Text#1: The Aruch has this text, with a Chaf (instead of a Veis, as is the text of Rashi.)

Explanation: The Aruch explains that flour, grass, and spices are soaked in milk, and wine is sprinkled on it.

Text#2: Rabeinu Chananel has the text, "Avta," from the word "Avatiach."

Explanation: This refers to a hollow "Dila'as" - "gourd" which is filled with wine.

Question#1: This does not seem correct, as we do not find any vessel that is not permitted through pouring water in it (and waiting twelve months, see Avodah Berurah at length).

Question#2: Additionally, an Avatiach and Dila'as are not the same thing.

Implied Question: Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue in our Mishnah regarding whether or not Mori'is (fish oil or fish fat of Nochrim) is forbidden from benefit. (This implies that everyone agrees that it is forbidden to eat! How can our Gemara say that if it is made by an expert it is permitted?)

Answer#1: Our Mishnah was only discussing homemade Mori'is.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case of the Mishnah is after the fish was already processed twice for Mori'is. This is why they put wine in the third processing for Mori'is, which is clearly (i.e. people can differentiate between this last processing and the first two) a third processing. (The Ritva explains that Rebbi Meir therefore forbids this Mori'is. The Rabbanan permit it, as they say that the wine is just to take away any unwanted parts of the Mori'is.)

Answer#2 (cont.): The Mori'is discussed later that is brought in a boat belongs to an expert, and it was clearly from the first and second processing (which does not contain any wine, see Maharsha).

Question: This is difficult. If most calves are slaughtered for idolatry, why don't we consider them to be a "Mi'uta d'Mi'uta" - "small percentage of a minority?" Being that there is a majority and status quo to permit this, namely that most animals in general are not slaughtered for idolatry, and even the majority of calves that are slaughtered for idolatry are considered to have a status of being permitted until they are slaughtered for idolatry, this should be a Mi'uta d'Miuta!

Question (cont.): Similarly, we say in the Mishnah in Yevamos (119b) regarding a woman who has a mother-in-law overseas and her husband dies that she does not have to suspect her mother-in-law had a child (which would make her have to wait to receive Chalitzah or Yibum), as we consider this a Mi'uta d'Mi'uta. This is because there is a majority in her favor (as even if her mother-in-law were pregnant, she might have had either a girl or a Neifel, which is a majority of births versus boys). Additionally, there is a status quo that her mother-in-law did not have any boys when she left. (We therefore see a precedent to permit based on Rov plus Chazakah.)

Answer: It is possible that our case is different, as after slaughtering the status quo is no longer valid, as these stomachs that are in front of us after being slaughtered have a doubt that they were slaughtered for idolatry.

Answer (cont.): There, too, sometimes we (the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Yevamos) suspect she had a boy, for example in a case where she (her mother-in-law) was pregnant. This is because there is a problem with saying that she did not have a boy, as she was pregnant.

Answer (cont.): Even according to Rebbi Yehoshua (in the Mishnah there) who does not suspect anything, even when the mother-in-law was last seen when pregnant, he would forbid the stomachs in our case. In Yevamos (ibid.) there is no certain prohibition, even if she was pregnant, as it is possible that she had a miscarriage. However, in our case, being that there are some stomachs that are prohibited, there is a small suspicion of prohibition.

Question: This is difficult. What kind of proof is this? Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish did not mention animals slaughtered in order to have their blood sprinkled, but rather animals that were slaughtered for idolatry, meaning that the slaughtering itself was the act of worship! (This is why the case regarding the cheese is worse than the case of slaughtering in order to get the blood to sprinkle for idolatry!)

Answer: It is possible to answer that their entire slaughtering (regarding the cheese as well) is for the purpose of receiving the blood (to sprinkle) and fat (to burn). This did not need to be said.

Proof: This is as stated in Chulin (39b) regarding the Yishmaelim who went to Tzikunya. They gave a ram to a Jew to be slaughtered to a Jewish butcher saying, "Just give us the blood and fat (and you can keep the meat and skin)." This is why the Gemara concludes that this is referring to a case where the slaughtering was finished, and not regarding the slaughtering itself. (Tosfos Rabeinu Elchanan explains that being that the main service is for the sprinkling of the blood, their intent is not to serve when slaughtering in general. Rather, their intent is to serve at the end of the slaughtering when they are close to doing the sprinkling for idolatry.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that Reish Lakish even allows this animal to be eaten.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he is a Mumar (blatant sinner) for idolatry. (Isn't the slaughtering of such a Mumar invalid?)

Answer: In Chulin (5a), the Gemara proves that there are three different categories of Mumar. People can eat the meat that is slaughtered by certain Mumarim. Other Mumarim who slaughter make the meat forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit, while other Mumarim even forbid the meat from benefit.

Explanation: It appears that Rebbi Yehoshua intended to push him aside, as Rebbi Yehoshua himself is not suspicious of a minor suspicion, as is evident from the Mishnah in Yevamos (119a) quoted above (in Tosfos DH "Iy Amrit"). This is also evident from his position in Bechoros (20b).

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, even Rebbi Meir who is suspicious of a minor suspicion (29b) only forbade cheese of Beis Unayki. However, cheese in other places was considered a Mi'uta d'Mi'uta (which he did not forbid).

Explanation#1: This comes from the term "he gave him advice." (In other words, he changed the topic for his best interests.)

Explanation#2: Some have the text, "Hi'shio" (with a Shin). We will explain this text to mean that he persuaded him (as in "ha'Nachash Hishi'ani va'Ochel" - "the snake persuaded me and I ate").

Explanation: He relied on the end of the Pasuk that states, "Therefore the girls loved you" (Shir Ha'Shirim 1:3, which is obviously a male term).

Implied Question: In Bava Kama (41a), the Gemara derives from the Pasuk, "from his meat" that even though he slaughtered it (instead of it being stoned by Beis Din) it is forbidden. (How can we use this Pasuk in our Gemara for a different teaching?)

Answer: Both lessons are implied by this Pasuk.

Explanation#1: It appears that this is a statement that is peaceful (not attacking), as Rav did not answer it with a Pasuk or logic.

Explanation#2: We also find many places in the Gemara where this term, "They both have taught this" is a question. (The Avodah Berurah understands that Tosfos is saying that it is still possible that this is a question.)

Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text of the Mishnah, "Hi'sio l'Davar Acher" before this Gemara, and the Gemara proceeds to ask, "And let him (Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah) answer that the prohibition is not clearly present (and therefore they did not rule it is forbidden from benefit)! This is because Mori'is according to the Rabbanan is not prohibited from benefit, as the prohibition is not clearly present." The Gemara answers that here, being that the prohibited matter establishes the mixture (known as a "Ma'amid"), it is as if it is present.

Text (cont.): Rabeinu Chananel mentions this text in his commentary.