Explanation: This means that we hold that even with other Sheratzim bad taste would be permitted. Alternatively, it is possible that Rav held the mouse soaking in the beer improved the taste of the beer.

Question: We should be able to figure out Rav's reasoning from the following Gemara in Chulin (8b, DH "ha'Shochet"). The Gemara states that if someone slaughters with a knife of idolatry, Rav says that one must peel away the first layer where the knife slaughtered. Shmuel states that one must merely wash the area. This is despite the fact that most vessels of idolatry are not considered to have the status of a Ben Yomo, meaning there is a bad taste (caused by the knife). (This indicates that Rav holds Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is forbidden!)

Answer #1: The case there is when we know for sure that the knife was used that day.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the reason there is due to the sticky substances that are stuck to the walls of the knife. These substances which are physically present could cause a good taste, even if the knife is not a Ben Yomo.

Question: What does the Gemara mean here when it says that we are unsure if the mouse gives the beer a good taste? We should just have a Nochri baker taste it and let him tell us if it has a good taste!

Answer: It is possible that the mouse in the beer strengthens the beer and makes it ferment. When the beer ferments, it is difficult to know if this is because of the properties of the beer or the mouse.

Observation: We hold like Rava who says that Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted, even regarding Sheratzim. The difference is that when a vessel is not a Ben Yomo and in similar cases, even if the taste comes from Sheratzim it is permitted (as it is Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam).

Question: What is the difference between this and other prohibitions, as in the case of beer (68b)? (The Maharsha explains that Tosfos is asking why the Gemara thinks vinegar should be unique, and why a mouse should be different if it falls in vinegar than other prohibited items that fall in vinegar.)

Answer: Being that vinegar is very strong, due to its sharpness it often gives a good taste, as we saw earlier (on 35b) regarding the Chiltis fruit. On the other hand, the perhaps the amount of improvement is minor (see text of the Bach who replaces "ha'Sheretz" with "ha'Shevach") relative to the amount of liquid, and therefore we should not forbid it. This is why he asked specifically what the law is in this case.

Question: One must ask how we can eat bee honey. Aren't the feet of the bees mixed into the honey? Even though they make the taste of the honey worse, we say the Sheretz itself is forbidden according to everyone even if it tastes bad!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam understands that certainly the feet of bees, which are merely bones, are permitted. This is because bones are permitted, as stated in the Mishnah in Yadayim (4:6) that the bones of a donkey are permitted. Feet of a bee are like the bones of a donkey.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say that limbs have no amount required, and therefore even less than a Kzayis from a dead person and less than a lentil from a Sheretz are considered impure if they are a whole limb. (There are whole legs in the honey!)

Answer #1: This is only regarding impurity, and for example where there is meat on these limbs. Otherwise, they are pure. (Bee legs in honey have no flesh on them, and therefore they are permitted.)

Answer #2: Regarding eating, there is an amount required (unlike by impurity). (This is the understanding of the Mahari Shapira in Tosfos.)

Question: This is difficult. Even if something is Terumah, when it is in a pot with a wet item it is Batel b'Shishim. This is as the Gemara states in Chulin (94a) that a pot that had Terumah cooked in it should not be used to cook Chulin. If he did cook Chulin in it, it is dependent on whether or not the Terumah is Nosen Ta'am (i.e. Batel b'Shishim). (Why does Ravina think that it should be Batel only in one hundred and one?)

Answer: He understands that being that the mouse causes a strong taste in the beer, it should be compared to Terumah falling into a dry item (not a wet item).

Question: Why isn't it nullified by one to two hundred, as is the law regarding Orlah and Kilayim?

Answer: The case regarding Orlah is different because it is forbidden from benefit. This is why one cannot derive from there regarding Sheratzim from which one can benefit. However, one can benefit from Terumah.

Explanation: The spices are not nullified with sixty or one hundred, being that a small amount of spices gives a taste to a large pot of food (even though it is less than one hundredth of the amount of food in the pot).

Explanation (cont.): However, one cannot say that it is not nullified at all.

Explanation (cont.): This is because it is included in being Nosen Ta'am, and not in those things that forbid a mixture if even a little bit is put in that mixture. This is as stated earlier (66a) that three different types of spice are forbidden and combine etc.

Question: This is difficult. Why did the Gemara earlier want to be stringent and say that it is not even Batel b'Shishim (60) or b'Ma'asayim (100), and Rav Achai wants to say it is Batel b'Chamishim (50)?

Answer: This is because he holds that the improvement is less when the mouse is in vinegar than when it is in beer.

Explanation #1: This means that both regarding beer and vinegar we say (the Sheretz is) Batel b'Shishim. This is the ruling of the Bahag (based on our Gemara).

Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi says that a Sheretz is only Batel b'Elef (1,000).

Opinion: Our Gemara is the main opinion, that it is Batel b'Shishim like other prohibitions.

Explanation: The case is where he can come in a roundabout way (in which they will not realize he is coming until it is too late to the location of the workers). Here, as well, this is the case.

Question: This is difficult. Why does the Gemara ask, "What is the case?" Being that the second part of the Mishnah states, "And if he informs him that he is leaving etc.," the implication is that the first case is when he did not inform them that he is leaving! This is what is meant by the fact that it is considered guarded (i.e. it is considered guarded because they do not know that he is leaving).

Answer: It is possible to answer that the opposite is correct. Being that the second part of the Mishnah states that if he informed the worker he was leaving it is forbidden, the implication is that in the first case which states that it is considered guarded the status of being guarded is better than not informing the worker he was leaving. This is because the Mishnah states it is considered guarded.

Answer (cont.): If the first case of the Mishnah meant to say that he did not inform the workers he was leaving, it should not have said, "it is considered guarded," and we would have understood this from the second part of the Mishnah.

Answer (cont.): Rather, it must be that the Mishnah is saying that even if he did not tell him he was leaving there is a suspicion, being that the Nochri sees him going further and further away.

Proof: It is clear that a different type of guarding is required (than not saying one is leaving), as the Gemara asks what exactly this type of guarding is. The Gemara answers that it is as the Beraisa states...that he can come in a roundabout way.

Explanation: This means, why aren't the Taharos discussed in the first part of the Beraisa considered impure, just like those in the second part of the Mishnah?

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the first case is where he did not inform them he was leaving, and it is therefore permitted? This is as the Beraisa states that if he left it in a way that it was considered guarded, it is permitted. This is in a case where he did not tell them he was leaving. (The Maharsha explains that even though the previous Tosfos said this is an incorrect interpretation in our Mishnah, it could be the interpretation of the Beraisa, being that the Beraisa did not say the words "a status of being considered guarded" as did our Mishnah.)

Opinion #1: Rashi answers that the Beraisa is unlike our Mishnah, as it is referring to Taharos such as fruit that he holds in his hands and touches all the time. This is why the Gemara asks its question, as one cannot make such a difference.

Question #1: Even so this is difficult, as we should establish the Beraisa as discussing barrels which would take away our ability to ask a question from the Beraisa. This is because Taharos also implies barrels (meaning that he did not touch the fruit directly).

Question #2: There is an additional difficulty. If the case is as explained by Rashi, the Gemara should not have asked a question from the first case to the second case. Rather, it should have asked a contradiction in the first case. Why are the Taharos pure in the Mishnah? It is because he is holding them and touching them, as Rashi explained. (In other words, how can the Beraisa imply that the Taharos are pure because they are being held?)

Opinion #2: It therefore appears to the Ri that the case is regarding barrels. However, they are open barrels which are easy to access. This is why the Gemara cannot answer that the case is when he did not tell the workers he was leaving, as it would still be forbidden. This is incomparable to the case of our Mishnah that permits wine when he did not tell the workers he was leaving, as our Mishnah is referring to closed barrels.

Question: Why not say the case is when the barrels are closed as in our Mishnah, and therefore avoid having a contradiction between the first and second part of the Beraisa?

Answer: The Beraisa is clearly not referring to closed barrels, as it says that being that the Taharos were not being seen by him, they are impure. If they were closed barrels, the Mishnah states that (it is only forbidden) if he is gone for the amount of time it would take for them to pierce the cover of the barrel, fix it, and wait for it to dry. This is even if he would have told them he is leaving.

Question: This is difficult. The case is clearly when he did not tell him he was leaving, being that the wine is permitted if it was on the leather table. If so, why should the wine be forbidden when he tells him to pour and drink?

Answer: Being that the Nochri was told to pour and drink, he is not scared at all of being caught. This is why what is on the table is also forbidden.

Implied Question: This is even if he is caught like a thief for the clear forgery, and is despite the fact that we say later (70a) that if he would be caught like a thief (around) the wine (it) is permitted.

Answer: Even so, this case is different, as he said to him, "Pour and drink." This is why he is not so scared, as he allowed him to pour and drink.

Question: Let us say that Rebbi Yochanan argues regarding plaster, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel opinion is explained as implied!

Answer: The Gemara knows that the answer given is correct.

Explanation: (The Bach takes out "And Rashi explains" from the text, and inserts instead, "And we hold.") We also hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that did not suspect that the amount of time includes fixing the hole that was made, both opinions are necessary. It is important that we rule both according to Rebbi Eliezer and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Explanation (cont.): If we would only hold like Rebbi Eliezer and not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, I would think that even though we do not suspect a forgery, this merely means that we do not suspect he will take off the entire cover and make another one instead. This is according to Rebbi Eliezer's opinion that a person will not bother to forge a cover. Even so, there is reason to suspect that he will merely plug up a hole, which is not a forgery.

Explanation (cont.): If we only hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, I would think that even though we do not suspect that one will plug up a hole, we do suspect that he will take off the cover and forge an entirely new cover, as this is easier (i.e. less recognizable) to do than plugging up a hole which takes much effort. This is why we say we hold both like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and like Rebbi Eliezer.

Text #1: Rashi's text is "Shaycha" with a Chaf, meaning that the wine can be pulled out of there.

Text #2: The Aruch's text is Shiva with a Veis, meaning a small spout that is used to close up the hole. This word is used in Sanhedrin (7b) in the phrase "Shiva d'Keshura" -- "a small piece of wood out of a big beam." This spout covers a small hole used to smell the wine. This hole is known as a Shutiel.

Observation: This Gemara implies that the cover of the barrel itself is considered one seal. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara says the problem with not letting Nochrim handle our closed barrels of wine is the hole or spout. This indicates that without this hole or spout, the cover of the barrel would be considered a seal as it sealed with plaster.

Proof: This was also implied earlier by the Gemara (31a) when it said, "if a jug was sealed with plaster over the mouth (i.e. cover) of the barrel, it would be considered a seal within a seal." This indicates that the seal of plaster around the cover of the barrel is also considered a seal.

Opinion #1: However, Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Yehudah sent a message to Rashi that the sealed cover only helped for their barrels that were made of earthenware. However, it does not apply to our barrels that are made out of planks that are connected to each other, even though there is one seal by the mouth of the barrel.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Even so there is reason to suspect that the Nochri will stab the point of a knife between the planks or between the boards at the bottom of the barrel or even in the middle of the plank itself, and take the wine out of this hole by placing a cup next to the hole.

Opinion #2: However, it appears to the Ri that one should not differentiate between our barrels and their barrels, as we did not find that the Talmud was stringent in this regard. Even the opinion that suspected the Nochri would make a hole only suspects this regarding making a hole in the cover of the barrel, not making a hole in the walls of the barrel.

Opinion #2 (cont.): One cannot say that this suspicion was specifically regarding the cover of plaster, but not in earthenware, as a cover generally means a cover made of earthenware.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Rather, the reason must be that we do not suspect the Nochri of ruining the walls of the barrel. Similarly, regarding our barrels, one can send wine with one seal on the mouth of the barrel with a Nochri.

Opinion #2 (cont.): This is only if the person who sends the barrel will see it when it gets to its destination, and recognize the seal is intact. However, if he sends the barrel to his friend and does not intend on seeing it, it requires a seal within a seal.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, if he sends a letter to the recipient detailing how the seal should look one seal is sufficient, just as it would be enough if the person would recognize the seal. This is because the Nochri is scared if a letter is sent, as he knows it is as if the sender will see the barrel when it arrives. This is also implied earlier.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we hold like Rebbi Eliezer who holds that one seal is enough. (Why, then, does the recipient have to recognize the seal?)

Answer: Even so, we require recognizing the seal being that we answered the contradiction in Rav with this fact, as stated earlier (see Tosfos 31a, DH "d'Amar").

Proof: This is also implied in the Beraisa (31a) that says that a person who sends wine in the hands of a Kusi, or brine or fish fat in the hands of a Nochri, if he recognizes his seal and he seals it, it is permitted. If not, it is forbidden. This indicates that the seal must be recognized by the recipient.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rabeinu Tam says this is according to the Rabbanan, being that this Beraisa does not state wine regarding a Nochri as I explained earlier. (How can this Beraisa be a proof if we hold like Rebbi Eliezer?)

Answer #1: Even so, being that the Rabbanan hold this way regarding brine and fish fat, Rebbi Eliezer will clearly hold this way regarding wine. The Rabbanan said in this Beraisa that brine and fish fat require one seal that is recognized. It must be that Rebbi Eliezer will also hold this regarding wine.

Answer #2: It is also possible to explain that the Beraisa is indeed authored by Rebbi Eliezer, as stated earlier according to Rashi.

Opinion #3: However, being that our Gemara says that we rule like the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer that we do not suspect forgery, the indication is that we do not suspect a forgery at all because one seal is enough, even if the recipient does not recognize it. This is because we do not think that he will bother to forge the seal that was made.

Proof: Additionally, the common custom is to send wine that has one seal with a Nochri even if the recipient will not recognize it.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that according to Rav the recipient must recognize the seal as I explained earlier (Tosfos 31a, DH "d'Amar"), as otherwise there is a contradiction is Rav.

Answer: Even so, we do not rule like Rav in this matter, and rather rule like the implication of our Gemara as I have explained.

Implied Question: The Beraisa I quoted earlier regarding brine and fish fat implies otherwise.

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Beraisa did not forbid without recognizing the seal, as it only said if he recognizes the seal it is permitted, and otherwise it is forbidden. This does not mean that the sender has to recognize it or it is forbidden.

Answer (cont.): Rather, it means that if he did not see it and did not understand that it was like he made it, or he forgot how he sealed it and does not know whether or not it is like he sealed it, it is forbidden. This is worse than the sender not having gone to check if his seal remained intact at all, as now he sees it and is in doubt whether it is intact or not. This is somewhat of a proof that it was forged.

Answer (cont.): However, certainly if the sender did not go and see it at all after he sealed it, rather the recipient found it sealed, it is permitted as I have explained.