Explanation #1: This incident occurred after Abaye already caused Rava to retract his opinion through his replies. This is why Rava said that he only said this (that the wine could be sold) if the value of the wine shaken by the Nochri is excluded. This was indeed his position after Abaye made him retract. However, he originally permitted the wine entirely, and only said this here due to his embarrassment.

Proof #1: This certainly is the correct explanation according to this text. If you think that he originally forbade the value of the wine that was shaken and only permitted the value of the rest of the barrel, what was Abaye's question from Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan who forbade the wine? They only forbade the value of the shaken wine, as they hold later (74a) like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that the entire barrel should be sold to Nochrim, besides for the value of the Yayin Nesech in it. Rather, it must be that Rava only held this way after Abaye made him retract his original position.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi also explains later regarding Agardimim (the Nochri in charge of making sure the measurement of wine is correct) that the case is where the Nochri returned the wine to the barrel. If you think that it is when the Jew returns the wine to the barrel, and the entire barrel is forbidden because of the small amount of forbidden wine that is mixed in it, what is the question on Rava? He should merely say that he holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that it should be sold excluding the value of the Yayin Nesech in it! We indeed rule that this is the law.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi also explains that Rava told them to close the door because he was scared that Rav Huna would hound him with halachic questions regarding this argument. Rav Huna went to him anyway and asked him, what is the law in this case etc.

Question #1: There are many questions on this text and its explanation. Firstly, the incident with Abaye quoted later should have been quoted before this incident, being that Abaye caused him to retract.

Question #2: Additionally, it is bewildering that Rava commanded that the doors should be closed in order that Rav Huna who argues on him cannot come and argue with him in Halachah. Even though Rava already retracted his opinion, he should have heard what Rav Huna wanted to say.

Question #3: Additionally, the Gemara should have noted that "even so" Rav Huna was able to get to Rava, meaning that he pressed himself in somehow and entered.

Question #4: Additionally, the phrase "in order that people should not come in and bother him" is difficult. It should have said, "in order that this person will not come and bother him."

Question #5: Additionally, was it really so embarrassing for Rava to explicitly say, "I made a mistake, and I retract my opinion?" In many places we find that Rava said, "What I have said before you was mistaken" (i.e. see Eirvin 104a).

Question #6: Additionally, Rashi explained that the case of Agardimim must be where the Nochri put the wine back in the barrel, as if the Jew put it back Rava would be able to answer that he holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. How could he have given this answer? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not permit the value of the Yayin Nesech in it, and Rava originally permitted everything!

Question #7: Additionally, what would the Gemara have asked on Rava from the case of Agardimim? The Gemara could have answered that the case of Agardimim is different as a Nochri put the wine back, as opposed to Rava's case where the Jew put it back.

Question #8: Additionally, Rashi implies that the Nochri returned the wine, and it becomes forbidden due to the fact that the Nochri returned it to the barrel. The Tosefta indeed states because this drop of wine is forbidden, and it forbids other wine (that becomes mixed with it) due to its small amount. This seemingly implies that the prohibition is due to the shaken drop of wine.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Rava even allowed selling the wine that was shaken to Nochrim because the shaking was poor, as it was clearly not done to pour for idolatry. Rather, it was to ask if he had wine in there. Once it becomes mixed with the other wine, it becomes totally nullified.

Implied Question: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel later (74a) a least forbade having benefit from the value of the wine. (Doesn't this contradict Rava's opinion?)

Answer: This was specifically regarding Stam Yayin, regarding which we are more stringent, and it therefore is not nullified when mixed with regular wine. However, this wine that was shaken was not shaken with intent to be poured.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav Huna bar Chinina and Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman argued on Rava, and they forbade the wine. They compare the Yayin Nesech that was shaken to the argument of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan regarding the Agardimim, from which a strong question was asked on Rava.

Text: This is the text in the old Sefarim, and is the text of the Bahag (see Avodah Berurah). Rav Nachman, the teacher of Rava, went to Mechuza. Rava went to ask him a question. Rava said to his helper, Rav Elyakim, close the door after me when I enter to see Rav Nachman, in order that people should not come to disturb us. This means that they should not come to disturb me when I ask him about this law.

Text (cont.): He went before him. This means that Rava went before Rav Nachman. He asked Rav Nachman, what is the law in this case, meaning in the case that happened. Rav Nachman answered, the wine is forbidden from benefit, referring to the shaken wine. Rava replied, is this according to everyone? Don't you yourself say that shaking does not make Yayin Nesech? This means that when a similar incident would occur (where this wine would become mixed with a lot of permitted wine), you would say that shaking does not make Yayin Nesech to cause the wine to be forbidden from benefit. I have ruled based in this incident based on your previous rulings! Rav Nachman answered, I meant that the value of the wine that was shaken is forbidden from benefit, but I did not forbid the value of the permitted wine.

Text (cont.): When I got to Pumbedisa etc. and Shmuel said it was forbidden, just as in Teverya it was prohibited by Rebbi Yochanan. This means that similar incidents were brought before Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan, and they forbade the value of the wine that was shaken. However, certainly the rest of the wine was not forbidden.

Text (cont.): Even regarding Stam Yayin we rule later like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that it should be sold, besides for the value of the Yayin Nesech in it. Rava was indeed asked a strong question from the case of Agardimim that it must be that all of the wine was forbidden from benefit due to the wine of the Agardimim being mixed with it.

Text (cont.): This is as the Tosefta states that Agardimim who are Nochrim who taste from the cup and they return it to the barrel, or if they put (i.e. bore) a straw through (the barrel) and a drop from the straw falls in it, it is forbidden. This is because a drop of this wine is forbidden, and it forbids the entire barrel with a small drop. This is like the opinion of the Rabbanan, who forbid the entire mixture.

Text (cont.): The Rabbanan teach us that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion is that at least the value of the wine of the Agardimim itself is forbidden. This is a strong question on Rava, as he even permitted the value of this small amount of wine (saying it was nullified), as we explained above.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he made a hole in the cover of the barrel and drew the wine through a Meinekes, which is a hollow straw which one sucks on, causing the wine to rise up to his mouth.

Question #1: This is difficult. Why should he have to draw up the wine (to his mouth)? Even if he did not do so the wine should be forbidden from benefit, as he touched the wine with the straw! This is unlike measuring with a reed, as there he does not intend to shake the wine at all. However, here he intends to drink, and the wine should therefore be forbidden from benefit.

Question #2: Additionally, how can Rava think that it is only forbidden for drinking (but permitted for benefit)? If so, why say that he drew the wine up to his mouth? Even if he did not do so it would be forbidden to drink, if it will at least be similar to the Mishnah's case of measuring it with a reed. It is difficult to say that the Beraisa is according to Rebbi Shimon (and unlike the Mishnah), and that we therefore do not follow his ruling.

Explanation #2: The Rashbam's explanation in the name of Rashi seems correct. He says that a Meinekes is a hollow straw that is put during harvest time in the mouth of the barrel, and its head sticks out of the barrel. When the wine ferments and comes out of this hole, it does not fall to the ground. After it ferments, the straw is not taken out of the barrel, but rather the top is cut off and is made equal to the surface of the barrel. The top of the barrel and this straw is then sealed. When they want to open the barrel (to get a little of the wine), they bore a hole in this area of the Meinekes and suck on it, thereby getting some wine. (Accordingly, the Nochri never placed a straw into the wine, as it was already placed there by the Jew. He only forbids the wine due to his raising it to his mouth.)

Answer: However, if you would like to answer Rashi's explanation (in our Gemara), you can say that Rashi understands that it was normal that when one bored a hole he did not insert a straw directly into the wine. Rather, when he wanted to bring the wine up he tipped the barrel until the wine would touch the straw. This is why he must suck the wine up with the straw (in order for it to become forbidden).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that even though we establish the case as the Nochri emptying the cup, even so we suspect that he might have touched it and poured it for idolatry without us realizing. This implies that if he would just empty the cup it is not considered that he poured it (for idolatry) thereby making it forbidden from benefit.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rabeinu Tam also wrote that emptying a cup does not make the wine inside forbidden from benefit.

Question #1: This is difficult. In the conclusion of the Gemara later at the end of this chapter, most of the commentaries say that if a Nochri uses his force to move wine such as emptying a container of wine, as long as he realizes that it is wine it becomes forbidden from benefit. They base this on the statement of Rebbi Yochanan ben Arza.

Question #1 (cont.): This implies that in the incident here the problem is his force, not the suspicion that he physically touched the wine. Later (60a), as well, when the Gemara states that if the Nochri is pouring from the barrel and the Jew is holding the jug the wine is forbidden, Rashi explains that it is even forbidden from benefit. This is because wine that a Nochri pours becomes totally forbidden.

Question #2: Additionally, on the contrary, in such a case emptying the vessel (into another vessel) should certainly be prohibited, as in this fashion they used to pour wine into bowls for idolatry!

Answer: The need to say that the Nochri touched the wine is to forbid the wine that is still inside the barrel and was not yet poured. This is as we say later (72b) regarding a Nochri who pours wine, that whatever leaves the barrel is decreed forbidden, as opposed to what stays in the barrel that is not decreed forbidden.

Opinion #2: The Ri explains that when the Gemara says he poured it, it means that he intended to pour the wine for idolatry.

Question: This is difficult. If Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like Shmuel who even permits wine touched by a day old Nochri for drinking, if so the touching of an adult without intent, even if done with his hand, should have the same law!

Question (cont.): This is because earlier we compared these two cases (a day old Nochri and touching without intent) according to the text that does not include "the tip of the palm branch" in the text of the Gemara (see Tosfos 57a, #4 (j)). If so, what is the Gemara's question, as our case should be deemed without intent, being that he thought it was beer and not wine!

Answer: Earlier, the Gemara asked a question on Rav's law (regarding a one day old child causing wine to be forbidden) from the Beraisa by saying that the Beraisa would certainly argue on Rav. The question was that if Rav forbade wine touched by a day old child who has no intent at all, he should certainly forbid the touching of an adult without intent, as he is someone who can possibly have intent and can end up pouring wine for idolatry. However, certainly the touching of an adult is worse, even without intent, in order to forbid the drinking of the wine, even according to Shmuel.

Explanation #1: The Nochri mixed the wine in order to make it taste better. This causes the wine to be forbidden from benefit, even if he did not touch the wine (as he merely poured water into wine), due to it being important to distance oneself from sin, as we say to a Nazir that he should stay away from the vineyard.

Explanation #2: However, it is found in other versions of Rashi that it is forbidden to drink because one should distance himself from sin, but it is certainly not forbidden from benefit. This is because it is not worse than wine touched by an object held by a Nochri without him having intent that the object should touch the wine, as in the case of the Nochri who inadvertently touched wine with the tip of a palm branch that he was holding (see 57a).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rabeinu Tam also writes that anything forbidden due to distancing oneself from sin is not going to be forbidden from benefit.

Implied Question #1: This does not seem correct (the Chasam Sofer and Rashash say Tosfos should read, "v'Ain Nireh"), as later we say, "One should go out and announce that their wine is Yayin Nesech." This indicates that it is a fine due to distancing oneself from sin, just as we tell a Nazir to stay away from the vineyards.

Implied Question #2: When the Gemara later (59a) says that Rebbi Chiya bar Abba saw wine being poured by Nochrim and being drunk by Jews and he forbade it to them, it means that it is forbidden even from benefit due to a fine, as we have explained. Even though this was not stated explicitly as the reason, it must be similar to water that a Nochri bowed to and that a Jew drank as this water is forbidden from benefit due to idolatry. (It is therefore understandable that this is also a fine due to idolatry.)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk states, "The dilution ("Mazeg") should not be lessened." (We see that the Pasuk uses the word Mazeg as well!)

Answer: This Pasuk only refers to dealing with the wine itself (i.e. pouring the wine into water, mixing wine with water). However, Masichah is fixing wine by pouring water into it (similar to this case, where he is not directly touching the wine).

Opinion: Nowadays, if a Nochri shakes the wine of a Jew, one is permitted to sell it to a Nochri, as they do not know how to shake it (in a way that serves idolatry), as I have explained earlier (see Tosfos 57b, DH "la'Afukei"). However, it is forbidden to drink such wine.

Opinion (cont.): This is specifically if he did not intend to touch the wine in order to make the Jew angry due to the fact that he will have to dispose of the wine. However, if we see that the Nochri touched the wine (with an object, as is apparent from the conclusion of Tosfos) on purpose in order to make the Jew dispose of the wine, such wine is even permitted for drinking, as the Rabbanan did not decree in this case that the wine is forbidden.

Opinion (cont.): If the Nochri threw an object into the pit of wine in order to make the Jew angry, and even if he rolled the item directly into the pit, for example while holding onto it (see 61a), it is permitted to drink this wine. This is the ruling of the Teshuvos Rav Hai bar Nachshon Gaon, the Piskei Riva, and seems to be apparent from our Gemara.

Opinion (cont.): It seems to me that even if the Nochri touched the wine with his hand in order to make the Jew angry, it is still permitted to drink this wine.

Proof: This is indeed stated in the following Teshuvah. Once there was a Jew who had a pit full of wine, and a bandit came and put his hand into the wine in order to make the Jew angry. There was an elderly pious Jew present who ended up being killed by sanctifying the name of Hash-m due to our great sins, and we heard that this Jew took some of this wine in a cup and drank it in front of this bandit, in order that the bandit should not continue to do this to other Jews. This is all stated by the Ri.

Explanation: Rashi explains that (Rebbi Yochanan told Reish Lakish) while your clothes are still upon you, go back to them and permit this. Do not even wait to rest from the difficulty of your journey.

Explanation (cont.): This explanation is correct. One cannot explain that he meant you should not lose your clothes due to your mistaken ruling, meaning that because you ruled mistakenly you will have to pay, as stated in Sanhedrin (7a).

Explanation (cont.): This is because we say in Sanhedrin (ibid.) that one would only have to pay if he took the money with his own hands (and gave it to the wrong party).

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish was an expert judge, and therefore would be exempt from paying.

Implied Question: Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said in Makos (12a) that the angel in charge of Rome will make three mistakes etc. One of them is that he will think that he is exiled to Betzer, when in fact he will be exiled to Batzrah. (How could Reish Lakish have said this if he himself thought this was Betzer?)

Answer: Reish Lakish said this after he heard from Rebbi Yochanan that Betzer was not Batzrah. He then realized that this mistake will also be made by the angel in charge of Rome, as Betzer is not Batzrah. This means that Batzrah is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore its produce is not obligated in Ma'aseros. This is why Rebbi Yochanan told him he should permit the produce (without requiring the taking of Ma'aseros).

Observation: The implication of our Gemara is that the produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not obligated in Ma'aseros. This is also indicated in Chulin (6b, see Tosfos DH "v'Hitir" there), as Rebbi Meir ate a leaf of a vegetable in Beis Shan, and Rebbi permitted all of Beis Shan due to this, as he held that Beis Shan is outside of Eretz Yisrael.

Question: This is difficult, as the rest of the Talmud implies that one is obligated in Ma'aseros even outside Eretz Yisrael. This is as the Gemara states in Bechoros (27a) and in Beitzah (9a) that one can take off Terumah outside of Eretz Yisrael by eating from it and then separating the Terumah afterwards. Similarly, Rabah used to nullify Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz (outside of Eretz Yisrael) by mixing it with a majority of regular grain, and he would eat it while impure. (While this shows leniencies regarding the Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, it also shows that it was taken.)

Question (cont.): The Gemara there also states that Rav Tuva had a barrel (see Avodah Berurah that the correct text is "Garva") of wine of Terumah. In Nidah (32a), the Gemara records an incident in Pumbedisa where a woman went to the Mikvah before her mother (in order to eat Terumah).

Opinion #1: Some want to say that this refers to grains, grapes, and olives. Being that in Eretz Yisrael they are obligated in Ma'aseros according to Torah law, it was decreed that in Chutz la'Aretz that it should be obligated according to Rabbinic law. Our Gemara and the Gemara in Chulin (6b) are discussing Ma'aseros of vegetables, which even in Eretz Yisrael is only obligated in the taking of Ma'aseros due to Rabbinic law. Accordingly, they did not decree that it should be obligated in Ma'aseros at all in Chutz la'Aretz.

Question #1: This does not seem to be correct. Regarding Tzlaf, we see that it is only obligated in Ma'aseros according to Rabbinic law. Yet we say in Berachos (36a) that it is even obligated in Ma'aseros in Chutz la'Aretz.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that we say regarding Tzlaf that is Orlah, that outside of Eretz Yisrael one must throw away the fruit but he can eat the shell of the fruit.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara there asks, why doesn't Rav Yehudah just say the law follows Rebbi Akiva (who says that only the fruit, not the shells, are obligated in Ma'aseros)? The Gemara answers that if he would say this, I would think that even in Eretz Yisrael the law follows him etc. The Gemara asks, why doesn't he say that whoever is lenient in an argument of this sort regarding Eretz Yisrael that the law follows him in Chutz la'Aretz? The Gemara answers, if he would say this one would think that this is only regarding Ma'aser, which even in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in nature (accordingly the law is like him regarding the Ma'aser of these things in Chutz la'Aretz which is also only Rabbinic in nature). However, regarding Orlah etc.

Question #2: Additionally, we say in Beitzah (12b) that one can roll kernels of wheat in his hand and take out the legumes from their shell on Yom Tov. The Gemara asks, if so we find Terumah that one should be able to take on Yom Tov (as it probably becomes obligated in Terumah at this point, see Gemara there)! This indicates that one must take Terumah from legumes, which are like other fruits, in Chutz la'Aretz.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam answers that in our Gemara and in Chulin (ibid.) the Gemara is discussing Dmai (produce regarding which it is unclear whether or not it has had Ma'aser taken). This is as the Mishnah in Dmai (1:3) states that from Keziv and on one does not have to take Ma'aseros from Dmai, as they were lenient regarding Dmai.

Question: The Mishnah in Dmai (2:1) states that regarding the following, one must take Ma'aser due to the status of Dmai in every place. They are: fig cakes, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin. If so, Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish should have told Rebbi Yochanan that he only mandated taking Ma'aser regarding these fruits (which one must always take Ma'aseros from if they are Dmai, even in Chutz la'Aretz)!

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan knew that Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish did not mandate that they take Ma'aseros only on these specific fruits.