(Mishnah): If an idolater is found standing next to a vat of wine, if there was a lien on the wine (that the Jew owed money to the idolater and the wine could be collected as payment if the debt was not paid), the wine is prohibited (as the idolater might have touched the wine and will claim that he justifiably wanted to taste its qualify). If there is no lien, it is permitted.

If an idolater fell into the vat (and died) and was brought out, or if he measured (the wine level in the vat) with a reed, or if he took out a hornet using a reed, or if he tapped on a bubbling barrel; all of these cases once happened and the Rabbis said that it may (not be drunk but may) be sold. R. Shimon permitted it.

If he took a barrel and threw it into the vat (in anger) - such a case happened and they ruled that it is kasher.

(Rav Sheshes citing Rav): The Mishnah is referring to when he had a lien on that particular vat; but if not, the wine is permitted - although it is normal for lenders to stand and inspect the presses and granaries, but they would not actually drink from the wine (unless that particular vat was designated for payment, if necessary).

The Yeshiva students suggested that this leniency (of Rav Sheshes citing Rav, above) would also extend to only prohibit wine in a place where it was possible for the gentile to reach out and touch the wine from where he was standing, but if he could not reach it without walking, it is permitted. However, the other opinion, that even if there was no lien, the wine is prohibited, would similarly say that it is prohibited even if the gentile could not reach it from where he was standing.

Question: Did R. Ba not say in the name of Rav Sheshes that just as the Mishnah (in Maseches Taharos) teaches that if one left a sleeping ignoramus in his house and then came back and found him awake, we only render tamei the utensils that he could reach from where he was actually positioned; so too all should agree that only the wine that the gentile could reach should be prohibited?

(The above statement (e) should read like this -) whether according to the opinion who said that it is prohibited only if there was a lien, or according to the other opinion that it is prohibited even without a lien, only the wine that he could reach is prohibited.

(R. Avin citing R. Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Shimon (above (b)).

(R. Avin citing Shmuel): I should atone for R. Shimon (a phrase of great respect); he is correct - either we should also permit drinking or we should also prohibit gaining benefit? (How could the Rabbis say that drinking is prohibited but gaining benefit is permitted?)

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Abahu): There was once such a case (as in our Mishnah) and they permitted it to be drunk, like R. Shimon.

Question (R. Shmuel citing R. Abahu): A gentile cannot make wine into Yayin Nesech by throwing something into it. But does he make it Nesech when he touches it in anger?

Answer (from the following case): An Aramean had containers in a certain olive press. A Jew came and sprayed his wine into the containers without the Aramean's permission. The Aramean was angered and lifted up the containers and threw them into the wine vat. The case came before the Sages and they said that the wine in the vat is not Nesech, as this was not his intention.

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Chiyah bar Ba): If a gentile diluted a Jew's wine with hot water, it is prohibited; but if with cold water, it is permitted.

And when R. Yirmiyah heard this from R. Chiya bar Ba, he said, "I should be rewarded for not relying on this (leniency)".

R. Yasa once went to Tzur and he saw the people there drinking wine with hot water which had been poured by an Aramean. He asked them. "Who permitted you to do this?!" (Not even R. Chiya bar Ba permitted it!)