Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this was not originally wine when it was in the Nochri's possession. He bought it ready made from a Jew. One can therefore have benefit from it, as the Nochri will not pour it for idols.

Opinion#1 (cont.): This is proof that a cooked dish that had wine mixed into it before it was cooked is permitted to be eaten even if a Nochri touched it. Being that the wine was already mixed into the food, the Nochri would not pour it for idolatry.

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam asked that term "like it was created" does not imply this definition.

Question#2: Additionally, in Chulin (6a) the Gemara implies that this is called Aluntis before wine was put into it. This is as the Beraisa states that if someone buys wine to put into Aluntis. It does not state to make Aluntis. (This implies Aluntis does not have to contain wine to be called Aluntis.)

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explained that Aluntis is normally made first without wine. It is stored in this fashion. When people take part of it out of storage to eat, they mix in some wine. If they would store it with the wine, it would get ruined.

Opinion#2 (cont.): The Beraisa therefore means that Aluntis taken out of the barrel by Nochrim in order to drink it, without the Jew seeing them take it out of the barrel, is prohibited. This is because it is possible the Nochri mixed in wine. However, if he took out the original Aluntis mixture, meaning that the Jew saw him take out some of the Aluntis before mixing in any wine, this is permitted. This is because he certainly did not yet mix any wine into the mixture.

Proof: However, there is proof to permit this (a cooked dish that had wine mixed into it before it was cooked, as stated in a1 above, even if we do not define Aluntis like Rashi). This is apparent from the Tosefta that states that Aluntis of Nochrim is prohibited because it starts off as wine. This means that it starts off as wine of Nochrim. This implies that if it starts off as wine of Jews, a Nochri can touch it, as other liquids are mixed in.

Opinion: The Ritzba says that this is specifically in a cooked dish, as the wine is not even apparent. However, if it is mixed with garlic or mustard it is possible we should suspect it is prohibited if a Nochri touches it, being that it is more apparent. This is indeed the law.

Opinion: This is the law. It is also permitted to be touched by a Nochri, as is apparent from the fact that Shmuel and Avlat drank it together.

Text: The text is not "for thirty days" (rather it is "for three days").

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Basra (96a), where we find that the first three days are different. The Gemara there says that during the first three days, the wine is considered to definitely have gone bad in the possession of the seller. Afterwards, it is considered unclear (if the wine was originally bad or not at the time of the sale).

Explanation: Rashi explains that this means cress that are mixed up in a vessel, ground, and wine or water is put into the mixture.

Question: This is difficult. In Nedarim (91b), the Geara implies that there is a problem of leaving such a mixture uncovered. The Gemara there discusses an adulterer who warned the husband of the woman who he was having an affair with not to eat from the cress mixture, as a snake had eaten from it. (He wanted to keep the husband alive, as he enjoyed his sin more because the woman was married.)

Question (cont.): One cannot explain that cress here is a bean dish, like the Gemara later (67a) that says that in Tzipori they would put vinegar in beans and call it cress. (Why not?)

Question (cont.): This is because the Gemara there only calls this cress after the vinegar is put in. Our Gemara is referring to the stage before the vinegar is put in, as we say later that this is only if the vinegar was not yet put in.

Answer: The Gemara here and in Nedarim is the same (in the definiton of Shechalim). Once in a (long) while a snake will happen to taste from a cress dish, as evident from the incident in Nedarim. This is why the people of the exile used to be stringent and not permit cress that was left out uncovered.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Chulin (9a) that if a person sees a bird who is pecking at a fig, we suspect that he may have pecked in the hole left by the snake, and it is therefore still forbidden to eat that fig. (This clearly shows that there is a problem of eating such a fig, unlike the statement of our Gemara!)

Answer: The case in Chulin (ibid.) is different, as there is a weakness in the fact that there was an unnatural hole made in the fig (as opposed to the natural hole by the mouth of a fig which is found in every fig).

Implied Question: One cannot deduce that if this is true regarding his animal, it should certainly be true regarding his friend's animal.

Answer: This is because it is saying one case, and certainly the next case. It is normal way for the Tana to state these cases (his animal and his friend's animal) together.

Implied Question: Even Beis Hillel who require a Revi'is in Shabbos (77a) regarding Neveilos, as Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah states there that even when Beis Hillel said it is impure they only said this regarding a Revi'is being that it can harden and become a k'Zayis, will admit here that a k'Zayis is good enough. (Why is the amount regarding Neveilos different than the amount for Yayin Nesech according to Beis Hillel?)

Answer: Being that Yayin Nesech is forbidden because it is a sacrifice to Avodah Zarah, it becomes impure with only a k'Zayis, just like a sacrifice.

Opinion#1: This means that Stam Yayin makes food and liquid impure like impure liquids that have been touched by a Sheretz. They do not make a person or vessels impure, but do make food or liquid impure. They must have a Revi'is of a Lug to have this status, like all impure liquids. This is Rashi's explanation.

Opinion#1 (cont.): His language indicates that Stam Yayin does not have any intrinsic impurity unless it receives impurity from another source.

Question: This is difficult. What kind of novel teaching is this that we state that it is like it receives impurity from a Sheretz? Is it worse than other liquids?

Answer: However, it is possible to answer that this teaches us that because of their stringency they do not receive impurity if there is less than a Revi'is of Stam Yayin.

Question: There is another difficulty, as this implies that regarding other liquids we require a Revi'is to accept impurity. On the contrary, we do not require a Revi'is!

Question (cont.): This is as stated in Pesachim (17b) that the liquids from the slaughterhouse (i.e. water and blood) are only pure if they have a Revi'is, as one can immerse needles and small pipes in them. However, if they are less than a Revi'is they are impure. (The Avodah Berurah explains that this is because a Revi'is is enough water to be a valid Mikvah for these vessels according to Torah law, and a Mikvah does not become impure. The Rabbanan therefore established their laws regarding these liquids around what would be true according to Torah law.)

Question (cont.): Even to make others impure a Revi'is is not required, as is implied in Pesachim (14a) regarding the fact that they did not refrain from burning the meat etc. The Gemara establishes the case as being when there is liquid together with the meat, causing the meat to become impure due to the liquid. It must be that the water that is left on the meat after it is washed is not a Revi'is.

Question (cont): This is also implied in Berachos (52a), as the Gemara there says that we suspect that the water will go on the back of the cup and make his hands impure. This amount of water is clearly not a Revi'is.

Question (cont.): Even to make vessels impure, as liquid does make vessels impure according to Rabbinic law, a Revi'is is not required. This is as the Mishnah states in Taharos (3:2) that if a bunch of olives [that are stuck together and impure] fall into an oven, and the oven burns exactly a k'Beitzah of these olives, the oven remains pure. This is because once the first amount of oil comes out, the olives are no longer the size of a k'Beitzah. Being that this is the case, they cannot make the olive oil impure, as food is only impure if it is the size of a k'Beitzah. The olives do not make the oven impure, as a bunch of olives do not make a vessel impure.

Question (cont.): There is no reason to say the oven is impure because of the drop of oil that becomes impure together with the olives. This is even according to the opinion in Pesachim (33b) that liquid is considered part of the solid that it comes from. This would seem to mean that when the olives become impure the liquid also becomes impure, as where did the impurity go?

Question (cont.): Even so, being that the impurity happened when it was still part of the food and it was absorbed in the olives, it is not considered stringent enough to be considered liquid and make the oven impure.

Question (cont.): However, if there was more than a k'Beitzah of olives in the bunch, the oven is impure. This means that the oven should be impure, as the first drop that goes out is considered to be impure due to its receiving impurity from the bunch of olives that were the size of a k'Beitzah. It then went and made the oven impure. This implies that a Revi'is of liquid is not necessary to make other things impure.

Opinion#2: It therefore appears that the impure decreed upon Stam Yayin is not relative to being touched by a Sheretz. They were not stringent to decree impurity on less than a Revi'is. This is like the liquids mentioned in Nidah (55b), such as tears, blood from a wound, and a woman's milk, that are only considered to have the impurity of liquids according to Rabbinic law if there is a Revi'is of these liquids, as stated in Chuli (87b). The Pasuk brought in Nidah (ibid.) is merely an Asmachta.

Question: Why did they have to decree that Stam Yayin is impure? We should know it is impure, as it was touched by Nochrim, and there is already a decree that they are considered to have the status of Zavim!

Answer: This is required to forbid even wine prepared by a Nochri who is less than nine years old, as the decree of Zavim does not apply to him, as stated later (57a).

Question: This Revi'is of Stam Yayin and liquids from a Zav in Nidah (ibid.) should be considered as part of the list in Nazir (38a) which list ten items that have a certain status when they are a Revi'is. (Why aren't they listed in this list?) One cannot say that they are not listed because they are only impure according to Rabbinic law, as this list contains the fact that a Revi'is of impure liquids causes a person to be unable to eat Terumah, which is also only a Rabbinic law.

Answer: All laws regarding the impurity caused by a Revi'is of liquids are included in this listing of making one unfit to eat Terumah due to impure liquids.