QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the case of a winepress where the Nochri workers do not stomp on the grapes with their feet, but rather press them with a beam. Rav Papa says that the wine is permitted, and Rav Ashi says that it is forbidden. The Gemara presents two versions of this argument. In the first version, the Gemara explains that everyone agrees that when Nochrim press grapes via a beam, the wine becomes forbidden, because the pressing is considered "Kocho" -- "his force." The argument involves a case in which the workers turn a wheel and the beam is lowered down onto the grapes. Since the pressing of the grapes is "Ko'ach Kocho" -- "a force of his force," Rav Papa permits the wine, while Rav Asi maintains that the wine remains forbidden.
The RAMBAN has difficulty understanding the Gemara. In the Gemara earlier (55b), Rav Huna explains that grape juice becomes fit to become forbidden as Yayin Nesech only when it begins to flow away from the grapes. (See TOSFOS, DH Amar Rav, who records an argument between RASHI and RABEINU TAM about when exactly this takes place.) However, in that case, where is the Nochri's force, Kocho, manifest on the grape juice? The beam does not press the juice which has drawn away from the grapes, but only on the grapes themselves. Accordingly, the wine should not become forbidden at all.
ANSWER: The RAMBAN explains that this is the very reasoning of Rav Ashi in the second version of the argument. According to that version, everyone maintains that "Ko'ach Kocho" is permitted. Rav Papa and Rav Ashi argue about whether Kocho is permitted. The Ramban explains that the reason why Kocho would be permitted is exactly this point: the Nochri's force, Kocho, is not on the wine, but only on the grapes. The one who maintains that it is forbidden (according to the Ramban, it is Rav Papa, while according to our text, it is Rav Ashi) understands that because the wine flowed from the grapes through an act of Kocho, the wine becomes prohibited even though it is not directly touched by an act of Kocho.
The SAMACHTI OMRIM says that there is another possibility for how the wine becomes prohibited through Kocho. Although the beam does not touch the grape juice which flows away from the grapes and from the press, it touches the juice which is on top of the grapes which is connected to the wine which is flowing away. Rav Huna (55b) says that once the juice starts to flow away, all of the juice in the press becomes forbidden.
It is possible that the Ramban does not give this answer, because he does not assume that there is always wine on top of the grapes, or because he maintains that even if there are drops of wine there, they are not necessarily connected to the wine in the press. (Y. MONTROSE)


QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah later (61a) which discusses the case of a Jew who makes a deal with a Nochri to press the Nochri's grapes and sell the wine to Jews. Obviously, in order for the wine to be permitted, the Nochri must have nothing to do with the wine as it is being processed, and the wine must be Jewish wine. May the Jew store the wine in the Nochri's domain? The Mishnah says that if the Nochri writes a contract of "Hiskabalti" in which he states that he has received payment for the wine (even though he actually has not received payment), the wine may be stored in the Nochri's possession. This contract is written in order to give the Jew complete ownership over the grapes. (See Insights to 61a.)
Does this mean that the wine may be stored in the Nochri's possession without a key or seal? RASHI (DH Mutar) says that the wine may be stored in the Nochri's domain only if it has a key or seal. However, Rashi on the Mishnah (61a, DH Mutar) says that in a case of "Hiskabalti," the wine may be stored in the Nochri's domain even without a key or a seal. How are the words of Rashi to be reconciled?
(a) TOSFOS (61a, DH ha'Mitaher) and the RITVA understand that Rashi in the Mishnah later (61a) indeed retracts the explanation he wrote in an earlier edition, which is the explanation which appears in his text here.
(b) The HAGAHOS HA'BACH (#4) explains that Rashi is not contradicting himself, but rather he is giving two possible cases of "Hiskabalti" which would be permitted. One case is where the house faces Reshus ha'Rabim. The Mishnah later (61a) says that when the house faces Reshus ha'Rabim, the wine is permitted. When Rashi (61a, DH Mutar) writes that this is applies in a case of "Hiskabalti," he means that when the house faces Reshus ha'Rabim a key or seal is unnecessary. However, Rashi on the Gemara here is saying that there are times when a key or seal is required. This is when the house, where the wine is stored, is not facing Reshus ha'Rabim. (Y. MONTROSE)