Question: Perhaps this is referring to after the war, as they now have time!

Answers: The Beraisa implies that this is even true before the war is over.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains in the name of Rabeinu Yechiel that when he says it in this way it is permitted, because he can remove him by paying the policeman money. Accordingly, even if the Nochri gave wine to the policeman, the Nochri is not the Jew's messenger. It is therefore permitted to ask in this fashion.

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, when he says to him, "Go up instead of me" the implication is he will be instead of the Jew, and whatever he gives it is as if the Jew gave, as he said he should be in his place. This is the explanation of Rashi.

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as if so, it is obvious that saying, "Save me from the policeman" is permitted, as the request is that he should remove him in any way possible (not that he should be as if he is doing whatever the Nochri is doing).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears to me that the case is where the Jew is obligated to give wine to the king. Even so, it is permitted to say, "Save me from the policeman," as this merely implies that he should remove him in any way he can. However, he is not commanding him to pay with Yayin Nesech. This is why it is even permitted if it turns out in the end that he can only remove him by giving him Yayin Nesech, and through paying him money.

Implied Question: This is even if he gave the Nochri a Dinar. Despite the fact that the Gemara earlier (63b) said that doing so is forbidden regarding workers (who receive forbidden food from a storeowner because their employer gave a Dinar given to the storeowner), here it is permitted. (Why?)

Answer: The reason the case there is forbidden is because he is giving a Dinar to the storeowner in order that he should give Yayin Nesech to the workers. However, here he is saying that the Nochri should remove the policeman through money if he can. This is why it is not considered as if he paid wine that is Yayin Nesech.

Answer (cont.): However, when he says, "Be instead of me" it is as if he says, "Pay the king instead of me (paying the king), just as I am obligated to give him wine (you pay wine instead)." This means he ends up paying his debt from Yayin Nesech even if he did not give an advance of a Dinar for the reason I have just explained.

Opinion: The Ri says that this is not the main reason. Rather, Ameimar holds like Rebbi Yochanan who says that paying money is a mode of acquisition. He derives from "to your friend" as teaching that money is a mode of acquisition amongst Jews, but Meshichah (i.e. pulling) is a mode of acquisition when dealing with Nochri, as stated in Bechoros (13b).

Implied Question: He is bringing proof from the presents given by the Persians. (Why does he need this proof if he derives this law from the Pasuk?)

Answer: This is only an incidental fact, as the custom of the Persians is that they do not retract after Meshichah has been done. This teaches that this must be the law.

Explanation #1: This indicates that they acquired the present with Meshichah.

Explanation #2: Another explanation of our Gemara is quoted by Rashi from the Teshuvos Ha'Gaonim. Someone who has a Kur of wheat etc. (See Rashi at length.)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this second explanation is the primary explanation. According to the first explanation, the Kinyan is regarding a present. This does not prove what Ameimar is coming to say, that Meshichah is effective regarding business transactions.

Observation: The Ri states that even according to Rav Ashi's opinion stated later in the Gemara that a transaction with a Nochri cannot be done with Meshichah, this is only when money is supposed to change hands. However, in cases such as the acquisition of lost objects and gifts where no money changes hands, everyone agrees that acquisition can be done with Meshichah or Hagbahah (picking up the object).

Observation: Rav Ashi is not pushing aside Ameimar's statement. Rather, Rav Ashi indeed holds this way, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bechoros (13b). This is as Rav Ashi said that being that the first part of the Beraisa holds that Meshichah is not a Kinyan, the second part of the Beraisa holds this way as well. This indicates that Rav Ashi indeed holds this way.

Observation (cont.): Therefore, we do not have the text in Rav Ashi, "Really I will tell you" (which is indicative of a possibility, not a position).

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam says that even though Rav Ashi is a later authority, the law does not follow his opinion in this matter. Rather, we hold like Ameimar who says that Meshichah can be used when dealing with a Nochri. This is because Ameimar holds like Rebbi Yochanan, as I have explained, and the law follows Rebbi Yochanan over Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish argue in this matter in Bava Metzia (47b). Rebbi Yochanan holds that money acquires according to Torah law. If so, he must hold that "to your friend" teaches that money is a mode of acquisition amongst Jews, but Meshichah (i.e. pulling) is a mode of acquisition when dealing with Nochri,

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that Meshichah is explicit in the Torah regarding Jews. If so, he must derive "to your friend" regarding Meshichah and regarding a Jew one can use money (for a Kinyan). This is apparent from the Gemara in Bechoros (ibid.).

Opinion #1 (cont.): We therefore rule that Meshichah is used in transactions with Nochrim, as is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rava says in Bava Metzia (ibid.) that the Pasuk and Mishnah support the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. (Doesn't this indicate we should rule like him?)

Answer: This is not because Rava rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish (he is merely making an observation that the simple explanation of these texts is like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish). Moreover, the texts themselves are not difficult according to Rebbi Yochanan, as Rebbi Yochanan was able to push aside these questions as the Gemara explains there.

Proof: There is clear proof that Rava did not say this because he holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Proof (cont.): Rava himself rules in Yevamos (36a) like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish in three cases when he argues against Rebbi Yochanan. The cases are stated in the Gemara there. However, Rava generally rules like Rebbi Yochanan when he argues with Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. If Rava held like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish regarding Meshichah being explicitly stated in the Torah, he should have counted this as one of the cases regarding which he holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish over Rebbi Yochanan.

Implied Question: One cannot say that Rava did not count this case (as one of the three) because in this case the Mishnah supports Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. (Why not?)

Answer: In these three cases, some say the Beraisa follows Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish, and even so they are considered one of these three cases.

Proof (cont.): Rather, it must be that he holds like Rebbi Yochanan regarding money being used as a mode of acquisition regarding Jews. If so, Meshichah is used as a mode of acquisition for Nochrim, as I have explained.

Opinion #1: If so, someone who gives an animal to a Nochri in order to exempt it from having a Bechor must make sure the Nochri does Meshichah to the animal. This will be enough without requiring money.

Opinion #2: However, Rashi explains that only money, not Meshichah, acquires in a transaction with a Nochri. This is because the law does not follow Rebbi Yochanan in this case, but rather follows Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. This is because Rava says in Bava Metzia (ibid.) that the Pasuk and Mishnah are like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Implied Question: One might ask that if this is so, why isn't it considered among the three cases listed in Yevamos (36a) where we rule like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish over Rebbi Yochanan?

Answer: It must be that being that in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (47b) Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish makes this statement in the name of Rebbi Oshiya, it is not listed in Yevamos (36a). The Gemara in Yevamos only quotes those cases where Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish's own opinion is codified as the law when he argued against Rebbi Yochanan.

Proof: The Gemara in Yevamos (36a) also does not list the argument regarding Shechitah occurring from beginning to end that appears in Chulin (29b). This is because Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said his opinion in the name of Levi Saba.

Observation: Whoever wants to ensure that they fulfill the opinion of both Rashi and Rabeinu Tam in this matter, and they are giving an animal to a Nochri in order to exempt it from having a Bechor, should accept money from the Nochri and make sure the Nochri pulls the animal in a side street or into the Nochri's own domain.

Observation (cont.): If the Nochri does not have a domain, the Jew should give him a room in his house which the Nochri should proceed to lock and open, as in this fashion he acquires it as his domain. This is as the Gemara states in Gitin (77b), "Let her close the door and open it." Afterwards, the Nochri should pull the animal into that room.

Observation: In Bechoros (3a), the Amoraim argue regarding how much exactly must the Nochri acquire from the animal in order to cause a Bechor to be exempt. One opinion says he must acquire a part of the animal which would cause the animal to be a Treifah without it. One opinion says that even acquiring its ear would be sufficient.

Opinion: It appears one should be stringent and give the Nochri something that makes the animal a Treifah, such as a lung or head of the animal or from the fetus, if the animal is already pregnant.

Opinion (cont.): However, one does not need the Nochri to give the Jew money equivalent to the value of the head and/or lung. Rather, it is enough that he buys them with a Perutah (small copper coin), even though it is worth many times more. Even so, one should not worry that the sale is invalid, as we have an Anan Sahdi (we are witnesses) that the Jew wants to give the possession of these parts over to the Nochri to ensure that a Bechor would be exempt from the status of Bechor.

Explanation: If you think that Meshichah acquires with a Nochri, being that the Nochri did Meshichah he acquired etc. The Gemara answers that this is only necessary in a case where he poured the wine into the barrel of the Nochri. This means that Meshichah is indeed a mode of acquisition with a Nochri, as I have explained (in the previous Tosfos).

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks a question. Being that Meshichah is a mode of acquisition with a Nochri, it must be that money is not. If so, why would the money he originally gives help? The wine is still considered Yayin Nesech in the possession of a Jew when he touches it, and it does not belong to the Nochri until he does Meshichah being that only Meshichah acquires for him, not money. Once the Nochri touches the wine, it should be considered Yayin Nesech in the domain of the Jew!

Question (cont.): The money that is in the hands of the Jew should be considered retroactively as money of Yayin Nesech.

Question (cont.): One cannot say that the Nochrim would give the Jews money as a present (i.e. they would make it as if it were unrelated to the sale), as we are not dealing with fools.

Answer #1: The Ri states that when the Nochrim would give the money to the Jew, they would state that we are giving you the money to acquire now, and the wine will be ours now. The Nochrim would believe the Jews, and were not scared that they would steal from them (and not give them the wine), even though they did not yet receive the wine.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one can say that the Gemara's answer indeed holds that either money or Meshichah is a valid mode of acquisition when dealing with Nochrim. This opinion understands that the Pasuk, "to your friend" means that one must only do Meshichah with a Jew, but can do either Meshichah or use money as a mode of acquisition with a Nochri.

Observation: This opinion would not hold of the Gemara's statement in Bechoros (13a) that being that the Pasuk says a Jew only has one mode of acquisition, it must be that a Nochri also only has one mode of acquisition.

Question: Why weren't Jewish sellers taught to either wash out the vessel of the Nochri or to measure out the wine in their Jewish owned vessel? (Both of these actions would prevent the wine from becoming Yayin Nesech at an early stage in the sale.)

Answer: One can make a mistake many times if this is their standard practice (i.e. not wash out the barrel well or forget to put it in the vessel of the Jew). However, he will not make a mistake regarding taking money first, being that they instituted a standard practice of paying first.

Question: Why didn't Rav tell the wine sellers that they should pour in a manner where they stop the flow of wine coming out of their barrel before the flow hits the vessel of the Nochri's barrel? This would be permitted even if we rule Nitzuk is a connection, as stated later (72b)!

Answer: Being that they sold a lot of wine, it would be very difficult to constantly pour in this fashion.

Question: Why isn't this small amount Batel b'Shishim?

Answer: This is because it is a case of Min b'Mino, and this opinion holds that no nullification takes place in such a case.

Question: At this point, the Gemara seemingly must hold that money is a mode of acquisition when dealing with a Nochri. If so, there is a difficulty from the second part of the Beraisa. The Beraisa says that if after the money was given he did Meshichah, the benefit from idolatry should be thrown in the Dead Sea. Why should Meshichah make a difference if the Beraisa in fact holds that money is a mode of acquisition when dealing with a Nochri?

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Bechoros (13a) similarly asks that if one holds money acquires, why is Meshichah necessary?

Answer: Both the questioner in our Gemara and in Bechoros (ibid.) are of the opinion that we require that a Nochri to do both Meshichah and Kesef (money).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara says here that if one thinks that Meshichah alone acquires without money, why should he give it back? The Gemara there also means that if you think money alone acquires etc.

Question: What is the reason of the questioner to say that both Meshichah and Kesef must be done?

Answer: This is because he understands that "to your friend" teaches that either Meshichah or Kesef can be done with a fellow Jew, depending on which opinion one follows (i.e. Rebbi Yochanan or Reish Lakish). However, for a Nochri both modes of acquisition are necessary.

Question: There seems to be a contradiction in the position of Rav. In our Gemara we say according to Rav that Meshichah is a valid mode of acquisition for a Nochri. However, in Bava Metzia (48a) the Gemara implies that Rav holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish that Meshichah works for a Jew but not for a Nochri.

Question (cont.): This is indicated when the Gemara (ibid.) discusses the case of a person who accidentally gave a Perutah that was Hekdesh to a bathhouse attendant in order that he would be attended to in the bathhouse. (The question is regarding when exactly Meilah happens.)

Question (cont.): Rav said regarding this that Meilah only happens immediately in the case of a bathhouse attendant who is not missing Meshichah (as the only thing that applies here is Kesef). However, Meilah does not apply to a barber until the client does Meshichah (to the barber's tools). This indicates that Meshichah acquires regarding a Jew, and that therefore it does not acquire regarding a Nochri. This means there is a contradiction in Rav!

Answer: However, there are Sefarim that have the text in the Gemara earlier that "Rava" (not Rav) said this to the wine sellers. (This would mean there is no contradiction in Rav.)

Question: However, this does not appear to be correct, being that the Gemara says here that this reason is only according to Rav. (The Gemara then asks) Didn't Rav say the law follows etc.? This must be referring to what Rav (not Rava) said later (74a), being that Rebbi Yochanan is quoted after him. (Being that Rava is a later Amora, it would be out of character and out of chronological order for the Gemara later to quote Rava's opinion before that of Rebbi Yochanan.)

Question (cont.): If so, when the Gemara earlier quotes someone regarding the incident with the wine sellers, the text should indeed be Rav and not Rava. We therefore still have an apparent contradiction in the opinion of Rav!

Answer: It is possible to answer that the case of the bathhouse attendant is referring to a Nochri. Rav said that the person (who gave the Perutah of Hekdesh) did Meilah specifically because the attendant was a Nochri. However, if he would have been a Nochri barber he would not have done Meilah until he would have done Meshichah to the barber's tools. This is because he holds that one can do Meshichah with a Nochri, as Rav states in our Gemara.

Answer (cont.): One must also establish that the same applies to Rebbi Yochanan's statement (74a), as I explained there.

Implied Question (cont.): This is despite the fact that the Gemara uses this as a proof to Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish in Bava Metzia (48a). (How can it bring proof to Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish if it is talking about a Nochri?)

Answer: The proof is according to the simple explanation of the statement that it is referring to a Jew.

Explanation #1: A Nochri is warned (by the Torah) not to steal, and their being warned makes them liable to be killed if they steal (they do not require being warned before they commit the theft).

Explanation #1 (cont.): This is specifically if a Nochri steals from a Jew, as a Jew forgoes payment of such a small amount (less than a Perutah). However, if the Nochri steals from another Nochri he does not forgo payment (and therefore he can return it and avoid being killed).

Explanation #2: Rashi explains that it cannot be returned because of the rule "Kim Ley b'd'Rabah Mineih."

Question: This does not seem correct, as this would mean that a Nochri would never have to pay back the money he steals! (He will always claim that he only is liable to receive the harsh punishment of death, which overrides the light punishment of paying back money. Nowadays that he does not practically receive a punishment of death, this would provide him with a license to steal.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Nochri never acquired the money, and it therefore is still is in the domain of the Jew wherever it is!

Question: This is difficult, as a Jew who steals also does not acquire a stolen object and make it his. Even so, he does enough of an acquisition to be liable for any O'ness that happens to the object. We should similarly say that the Nochri does enough of an acquisition when he steals it to make him liable to be killed for theft!

Answer: This logic is certainly valid if the Nochri stole a Perutah, which is deemed money, and therefore made the Jew lack money due to the theft. However, being that we are discussing less than a Perutah which is not deemed money, and the Nochri is not deemed to have more money due to the theft, the Gemara asks why the Nochri should be killed. The Gemara's answer is that it is due to his causing the Jew pain.