Question: However, Rabeinu Elchanan asks a question on the opinion of Rabeinu Tam from a Yerushalmi in Dmai (3:3). The Yerushalmi says that one is allowed to feed poor people Dmai. Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel states that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi (see Rashash) sent me an Esrog, and said that it came from Kisrin. I realized three things from him: This is certain, it is "impure" (see below), and that another Esrog did not come into his hand (i.e. his possession). (Note: Tosfos discusses this Yerushalmi for quite some time before he asks his question on Rabeinu Tam in 6 below.)

Question (cont.): The fact that the fruit of Kisrin are definite means that they certainly require the taking of Terumos and Ma'aseros (and are not Dmai). They were either all not careful about impurity (to the point where it was known they did not take Ma'aseros), or they were careful but it was known that they had not taken Ma'aseros on this fruit. It is impure means that they had sprinkled water on it, causing it to be able to become impure.

Question: Doesn't it say in the Tosefta in Taharos that one does not spray water on Esrogim?

Answer: They do not spray the Esrogim that are sold in the city. However, if someone comes from a long journey, it is understandable that people spray water on them in order that they should not become dry.

Answer: Alternatively, it is possible that this is only during the other days of the year. However, during Sukos water is sprayed on them in order that they should be Hadar (beautiful), as stated in Sukah (42a).

Question: If so, how can the Yerushalmi say afterwards that he should take Ma'aser from it? How can he do this if it was on the Yom Tov of Sukos (and taking Ma'aser from it would make him unable to fulfill the Mitzvah of Esrog with it, as it is now missing part of it)?

Answer: This happened on Chol ha'Moed (and one may use an Esrog that has part of it missing on Chol ha'Moed), as stated in Sukah (36b) that Rebbi Chanina bit into his Esrog and then fulfilled the Mitzvah with it.

Question (cont.): He did not have another one, as if he did he would not tell him that it did not have Ma'aser taken, but rather he would have taken Ma'aser from the other one to exempt this Esrog.

Question: Perhaps he did have another Esrog, but told him it came from Kisrin because it had been made able to accept impurity?

Answer: If he only wanted to tell him this he would have explicitly stated it was able to accept impurity. Being that he wanted to imply two different laws he merely stated that it was from Kisrin (and rightfully depended on Rabban Gamliel to understand both laws).

Question (cont.): The Yerushalmi asks, why didn't Rebbi Yosi take Ma'aser from it? In other words, why did Rebbi Yosi send him an Esrog that requires the taking of Ma'aseros? Let him slice off a piece for Ma'aser! The Gemara answers, it is not normal to send a friend something that is not whole.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, isn't this a Mishnah? The Mishnah in the Yerushalmi in Dmai (3:3) states that Rebbi Yosi permits sending clearly untithed fruits to a friend, as long as he tells him they are untithed! In other words, the Gemara is asking why did he specify he did not have another Esrog. Even if he did have another one, it would be permitted for him to send him an Esrog that did not have Ma'aseros taken as is apparent from the Mishnah!

Question (cont.): The Mishnah answers that one can say that even though Rebbi Yosi argues on the Rabbanan, he would not have actually acted based on his own minority opinion. In other words, one would think that he would not act based on his ruling, but rather like that of the Chachamim who argue on him. This is similar to the fact that we find many Tannaim in the Yerushalmi in Berachos (1:1) who did not act based on their own minority opinions.

Question (cont.): Rebbi Yosi asked Rebbi Zeira, isn't this a fruit that is exempt from Ma'aseros being that it is from Kisrin (as opposed to certain types of fruit that were commonly found in Kisrin but originated in Eretz Yisrael)? Didn't Rebbi permit Kisrin? The Gemara concludes that being that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived before Rebbi, it was still obligated in Ma'aser (according to Rabbinic law). This indicates that after Rebbi permitted Kisrin there was no prohibition of untithed produce there even regarding produce that certainly was not tithed, as this Esrog was certainly not tithed. (This is therefore a question on Rabeinu Tam, as he stated that there is only an obligation to tithe produce in Chutz la'Aretz that certainly was not tithed.)

Answer #1: It appears that one can explain that the question, "Isn't this one of the fruits that are permitted in Tzipori" as follows. In Dmai (2:1), the Yerushalmi refers to the types of fruit that are forbidden in Kisrin, meaning they are Dmai. This is because these types of fruits in these places (like Kisrin) usually come from Eretz Yisrael. The ones that are clearly not from Eretz Yisrael are exempt from this status of Dmai, but are considered certainly obligated in Ma'aser according to Rabeinu Tam.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks, isn't an Esrog one of the fruits that are permitted as they are not brought from Eretz Yisrael, but rather are grown in Kisrin itself? The Rabbanan agree that one may send untithed produce of Chutz la'Aretz as long as one notifies the recipient that it is untithed. They only argue on Rebbi Yosi that one cannot do so if the produce is from Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, how do we know that he did not have another Esrog? The Yerushalmi answers that Kisrin had not yet been permitted in the times of Rebbi Yosi, and they therefore held it was like Eretz Yisrael (and one would not have been allowed to send a fruit that had not been tithed even if they notified the recipient).

Opinion #3: Rabeinu David from Meilan answers (Tosfos' original question) that when the Gemara says that Reish Lakish saw them eating fruit that had not been tithed, it means that they did not take off Ma'aser in the stringent fashion one would have to take off Ma'aser from fruit of Eretz Yisrael. Rather, they took Ma'aser like the leniencies of Chutz la'Aretz, such as eating and taking of Ma'aseros at the end of eating. Reish Lakish therefore forbade them to do this, due to his mistakenly thinking that the name of the city indicated it was part of Eretz Yisrael.

Opinion #3 (cont.): Similarly, in Chulin where we say that Rebbi permitted Beis Shan, it does not mean that they did not have to take Ma'aseros there at all. Rather, it means he permitted them to use the leniencies of Ma'aseros in Chutz la'Aretz, such as nullifying the Ma'aser with a majority that is not Ma'aser and the other leniencies listed in chapter "Ad Kamah" in Bechoros.

Opinion #3 (cont.): Similarly, when the Yerushalmi implies (see Shevi'is 6:1) that what is in Keziv is exempt whether it is Dmai or certainly untithed, it means that it is exempt from the stringent laws of Eretz Yisrael. However, the leniencies of Eretz Yisrael (and the obligation to take Ma'aser) apply in all places.

Implied Question: Nowadays, we do not take off Terumos and Ma'aseros at all, not even using the leniencies of Chutz la'Aretz. (How can this be if according to all three opinions just quoted in Tosfos there is at least some obligation of taking Terumos and Ma'aseros in Chutz la'Aretz?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that our land is indebted to the officers of the land to ensure we pay taxes (see Bach), and the law of the land is that if the taxes are not paid, the land reverts to the ownership of the Nochrim and they are considered his investment. This is why they are not considered ours (to create an obligation of Shemitah).

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this, as also in the days of the Chachamim they had land that was indebted for taxes. This is as stated in Bava Basra (54b) that someone who does not pay his taxes cannot benefit from his land.

Question #2: Another difficulty is that we have in our possession many properties that are not indebted to taxes, (and yet we still do not take Terumos or Ma'aseros from the produce of these properties).

Opinion #1: One can rely on the words of the Yerushalmi in Chalah. Rebbi Yochanan says in Chalah (4:4) that our Rabbis in Chutz la'Aretz used to take off Terumos and Ma'aseros until the Rovim came and nullified this. Who are the Rovim? Rebbi Ze'iri says that they were great scholars, though it is not known who. In conclusion, being that the law is unclear, you should follow the custom. These are the words of Rabeinu Yehudah. (There are many explanations of the phrase "Targumya etc.," see Avodah Berurah.)

Opinion #2: However, the Ri says that only the cities that were close to Eretz Yisrael were obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, such as Egypt, Babylon, Moav, and the sons of Amon. They instituted that people should take off Terumos and Ma'aseros there in order that they should not come to be lenient regarding the Ma'aseros of Eretz Yisrael. However, in the far away places, the Chachamim never obligated the taking of Ma'aseros, even in grains, grapes, and olives (which one is obligated to take Ma'aseros from according to Torah law).

Observation: In the close places (to Eretz Yisrael) as well, the Yerushalmi discusses a custom that was done before the Rovim stopped this custom. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that Chalah and Terumah from Chutz la'Aretz can be eaten until one takes what is left as Terumah. Rebbi Ba states in the name of Shmuel that they only worried (instituted the taking of Ma'aseros in Chutz la'Aretz) about Terumah of grains, grapes, and olives.

Implied Question: Rebbi Ila states in the name of Shmuel that they only worried about Terumah Gedolah, but not about vegetables, being that Isi taught that the taking of Ma'aser from vegetables in Eretz Yisrael is a Rabbinic decree. The Yerushalmi implies that any Ma'aseros that were only a Rabbinic decree in Eretz Yisrael were not taken at all in Chutz la'Aretz. (This is unlike previous opinions quoted in Tosfos.)

Answer: Perhaps this is only regarding vegetables, as it (the Rabbinic decree that Ma'aseros should be taken) does not even have a Pasuk that it leans on.

Observation: The Gemara here implies that Rebbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak was Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbi. This is also implied in many places where Rebbi Yochanan said teachings in his name.

Question #1: This is difficult, as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (26a) that Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak went to discuss the making of a leap year in Asya. Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish joined them etc. (Rebbi Shimon held they acted extremely incorrectly and told this to Rebbi Yochanan in no uncertain terms. They came to complain about this to Rebbi Yochanan.) Rebbi Yochanan told them, "if he would call you shepherds of sheep, what can I tell you?"

Question #2: If he was Rebbi Yochanan's teacher, Reish Lakish should be considered on the level of a student! (In other words, how could Reish Lakish have made this attack if he was attacking Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbi, as this means he himself was essentially Rebbi Shimon's student, being that he was considered Rebbi Yochanan's student (to an extent)?)

Explanation: The case must be where the source of the water is in his land.

Question: The Gemara says in Bava Kama (81a) regarding the ten conditions that Yehoshua made that a spring that comes out of someone's property can be used by the people of the city. If so, how can this be considered a private spring?

Answer #1: The Ri says that Yehoshua was referring to a case of a spring that came out by itself, and our Gemara is referring to a person who dug a pit and water proceeded to come out.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case here is where the entire city belongs to him.

Explanation #1: The Aruch explains this is referring to Mount Sa'ir. This is also the translation of the Targum Yonasan, "Har Sa'ir" - "Mount Gavla."

Explanation #2: The Targum Yerushalmi says, "He appeared from Har Paran" means that he appeared from Mount Gavlahon to the people of Yishmael.

Explanation #3: However, truthfully this appears to be a city in Eretz Yisrael, as stated in Kesuvos (112a) that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi went to Gavla and saw calves amongst the vines etc.

Question: Why in Yevamos (68b) and Kedushin (75b) was it necessary for Rebbi Yochanan to quote in the name of Rebbi Yishmael the Pasuk, "A daughter of a kohen who will be with a strange man" in order to teach that if a Nochri or slave had relations with a Jewess it causes her to be unable to eat Terumah? This is obvious! If they hold the resulting child from such a union is a Mamzer, it will obviously cause her to be unable to eat Terumah!

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan himself holds the child is a Mamzer, while Rebbi Yishmael does not (this is why Rebbi Yochanan required a Pasuk according to Rebbi Yishmael).

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam rules like both of these versions of Rav. (We rule like the second version as well being that) Rebbi Yochanan holds like the second version, and we rule like Rebbi Yochanan when Rav (in his first version) argues on Rebbi Yochanan. According to the second version, Rav is not even arguing on Rebbi Yochanan (and therefore we would certainly rule like both Rav and Rebbi Yochanan).

Opinion (cont.): We also rule like the first version of Rav that whatever is eaten raw is not included in the prohibition of Bishul Akum. This is because the Gemara earlier (39b) clearly holds this way, as it says, "What should we suspect? If it is a suspicion of Bishul Akum (there is no valid suspicion), it is eaten raw!"

Opinion (cont.): Similarly, regarding cooked oil (38b) the Gemara states that there is no suspicion of Bishul Akum as it is eaten raw, even though it is served at the table of kings.

Opinion (cont.): The second version of Rav here adds that even something that is not eaten raw is permitted, being that it is not served at the table of kings, such as the Turmus bean. He (Rav in the second version) would certainly agree that something that is eaten raw is permitted, even if it is served at the table of kings.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara earlier (38a) stated that the difference between them is small fish, mushrooms, and porridge that are not eaten raw and are not served at the table of kings. The Gemara did not say the difference is honey and fruit which is eaten raw and is served on the table of kings. This is because everyone agrees that something that is eaten raw is not prohibited due to Bishul Akum. The second version of Rav is therefore coming to add a leniency and say that there is no prohibition of Bishul Akum unless it is not eaten raw and it is served on the table of kings. (Being that we rule like this second version, it is clear that both leniencies apply.)

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains, and these are his words: "When the grapes are harvested and put into baskets to be brought to the press...

Explanation #1 (cont.): The grapes become crushed and squashed on top of each other, and the wine drips out. The basket is then emptied into the press. Can the Nochri take this basket to the press? Do we say that the wine that drips out is considered wine which is forbidden when touched by a Nochri or not?

Explanation #1 (cont.): When the Gemara asks if the wine can be brought to the press by a Nochri, it is not asking if he can put the grapes in the press, as if he there is wine in the basket it is clearly forbidden. If he puts the grapes in the press, all of the wine in the press becomes forbidden. This is because he pushes (while holding the basket) the contents of the basket into the press, as opposed to throwing them which is permitted as stated later in the Gemara.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This is indeed implied in the last chapter (of Avodah Zarah) that a Nochri who puts grapes or another vessel into a barrel of wine has made all of the wine in the barrel forbidden. If there is no wine in the press, it is obvious that he may do so without a problem.

Explanation #1 (cont.): When the Gemara says he is taking it to a press, it is merely giving the usual reason for why one would be carrying a basket of grapes. This is the main explanation." These (all of Tosfos until now) are the words of the Rashbam.

Question #1: This is difficult. Firstly, the Gemara should not have asked regarding carrying the basket, but rather it should have asked if a Nochri forbids wine that dripped out of harvested grapes if he touches it!

Question #2: Additionally, it is obvious that wine that drips out of grapes is not considered to be Yayin Nesech and it is rather like water. Even according to the Mishnah Acharonah one is allowed to buy grapes pressed by a Nochri as long as the wine did not start to be drawn away from the press! (See Gemara 55b and Tosfos there DH "Amar Rav Huna" at length.)

Question #3: Additionally, the Rashbam's difference between throwing close and throwing far is difficult. When the Gemara later discusses pushing, it means that when the barrel is falling into the pit he is still touching it and pushing it.

Question #3 (cont.): This is unlike Rashi's explanation that he pushes it close to the pit, and this type of throwing is forbidden, as this does not seem correct as I explained earlier. (Tosfos earlier on 57a, DH "Hachi Garsinan" asks questions on this position of Rashi. However, the Avodah Berurah on our Tosfos points out that while Tosfos understands that Rashi differentiates between throwing close and far, it is not clear from Rashi's terminology that he is in fact arguing on Tosfos.)

Explanation #2: It therefore appears to the Ri that the Gemara's case is where the wine started to be separated from the grapes. If it did not, it is obviously permitted. Carrying it without throwing it is also clearly permitted. However, we are discussing throwing it into the press. The question is if it is forbidden like wine mixed by a Nochri. When a Nochri mixes wine, he is usually careful to mix it correctly so that it will be good to drink. However, here he is not being careful (when he dumps the grapes into the press, and therefore it should be permitted). Alternatively, it might not make a difference whether or not he is careful.

Explanation #2 (cont.): He (Rav Kahana) answered that it is forbidden. Despite the fact that the Gemara later one to even drink with that is thrown, this is similar to mixing wine. It is therefore forbidden for a Nochri to take grapes to a press once the wine started to be separate from the grapes, and it is even forbidden for him to throw this basket. However, this is only Lechatchilah, as the Gemara continues to explain. B'Dieved, the wine is permitted.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The difference between different types of throwing, as explained by the Rashbam, is incorrect.

Proof: The Yerushalmi also indicates that there is no such difference, as it says that Rebbi Shmuel taught in the name of Rebbi Avahu that throwing does not cause wine to become Yayin Nesech. This implies that it does not matter what type of throwing is done.

Explanation #1: It must be that putting his hand into the wine, even though he knew it was wine, is not considered shaking the wine which causes it to become forbidden from benefit. This is because he was busy trying to take his Esrog in order that it should not become dirty (by falling to the bottom of the barrel and mixing with the sediments of the wine). This is similar to a Nochri who is measuring with his hand according to the Rabbanan who say earlier (57a) that the wine can be sold.

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, regarding taking out the Esrog, Rav Ashi said that one must hold his hand (while it is in the wine in order that he should not shake the wine for idolatry).

Implied Question: This is because he is no longer so bothered, as he is indeed when he takes his hand out of the wine when measuring in the case quoted earlier (57a). (Why is he less bothered here than when measuring?)

Answer: In that case, even at the end of his measuring he is careful to ensure that he is measuring correctly. This is why he is still considered too busy to shake the wine (as opposed to our case where once he has his Esrog in his hand, he is no longer bothered).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that in our case he stuck his hand in the barrel because he thought it was oil. This is like the case regarding the attacking Nochri earlier (58a) who stuck his hand in the barrel (thinking it was oil) and the ruling was that it could be sold. However, this is a forced explanation.

Explanation #3: The Rashbam explains that because he touched the wine originally in order to take his Esrog it does not become forbidden, as it is considered like a Nochri who touches wine without intent. Rather, his intent is to take his Esrog, and not to touch wine. This is similar to thinking it is oil and it was found to wine, as we said earlier it is permitted to benefit from this wine. However, after he takes the Esrog, we must suspect that he will think about the opportunity he has to shake the wine and he will do so.

Implied Question: Rav Ashi brings a proof from Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's opinion, despite the fact that Rebbi Yehudah even permits selling the wine to any Nochri. (If Rav Ashi holds like him, why doesn't he permit this as well? If he does not, he should not permit selling it at all!)

Answer: Rav Ashi understands that Rebbi Yehudah's leniency to sell to any Nochri must mean that when the Rabbanan say it is forbidden, they only forbid selling it to other Nochrim, not to the one who caused it to become forbidden.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that if the Jew himself would spill the wine, the Nochri would want to say he should not be held accountable to pay. This should mean that the money received from the Nochri is like money given in exchange for real Yayin Nesech! (The Avodah Berurah explains that being that one is allowed to accept the money of the Nochri because it is considered as if the Nochri damaged the possessions of the Jew, this has nothing to do with an exchange of the wine for the money. If the Jew would later spill the wine, the Nochri would still have to pay. Being that he is exchanging the wine for the money, it certainly appears more like a sale of Yayin Nesech for money than the Nochri paying for damaging the Jew's property!)

Answer: Even so, being that if a Jew would purposely pour another Jew's wine for idolatry he would have to pay him for damages even if the owner of the wine later spilled out the wine as stated in the Mishnah in Gitin (52b), we also consider the Nochri as having to pay the Jew for damages.

Explanation: The Rashbam explains that Rav Ashi is only quoting the Beraisa of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah as an Asmachta to the logic, "you cannot totally (forbid my wine)." (The Rashbam is arguing on (b) above.)

Explanation (cont.): Even though we do not rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, as the Nochri certainly can make it forbidden from benefit against his will as implied later (72b), even so we see from here that the Jew has a logical claim to the Nochri when he says, "You should not have caused my wine to become forbidden." This is why he can take money for the damages from this Nochri.

Explanation: He puts his hand opposite the spigot and holds back the wine from flowing. This is therefore compared to holding the side of the barrel discussed regarding a Tevul Yom.

Explanation (cont.): However, if he put his finger in the hole in the barrel, the wine under his finger is comparable to the case of a Tevul Yom touching the mouth of the barrel. The wine above his finger is considered like the case of a Tevul Yom touching the bottom of a barrel, regarding which we say later that everyone holds the barrel is impure.

Opinion: The Rashbam indeed says this in the name of Rashi. He says that if the Nochri stuck the spigot in the barrel or removed it completely from the barrel, all of the wine is forbidden. This is because it is impossible that he will not shake the wine using the head of the spigot which he jams into the barrel. Even though this will cause great loss, all of the wine is forbidden to drink.

Explanation #1: This means (the Bach's text is, "Rashi explains") that the flow that is close to the hole is forbidden to drink, but not forbidden from benefit. This is because no shaking is done, as the hole is narrow, and therefore he cannot shake the wine. The rest of the wine is even permitted for drinking, as Rav Chisda understands that there is no connection from the side of the barrel to the rest of the wine in the barrel that will cause the rest of the wine to become forbidden.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Some say that all of the wine above the hole is forbidden. Being that all of this wine naturally would go out of this hole, it is considered connected to this hole, and therefore is forbidden. The rest of the wine in the barrel is even permitted for drinking.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara explains that these versions of Rav Papa are involved in an argument between Tannaim in a Mishnah in Tevul Yom (2:7). The Mishnah states that if a barrel of Terumah had a hole in it, whether the hole was by the mouth of the barrel, on the bottom of the barrel, or on the sides of the barrel, if a Tevul Yom touched it the Terumah becomes impure.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Their barrels would sit on the bottom of the barrel. When this was the case and the hole was on top of the barrel, all of the wine on the bottom of the barrel was a "foundation" for the wine at the top of the barrel. When the hole was on the bottom of the barrel, all of the wine in the barrel is considered to flow towards the hole. The side of the barrel is also considered to be like the top and bottom of the barrel, and is therefore impure. (This last sentence, and the beginning of the next paragraph, is based on the text of the Bach in Tosfos.)

Explanation #1 (cont.): It must be that the reason why the wine is impure is not due to Nitzuk (a direct stream of liquid). This is apparent from the Mishnah (72a) that states that Nitzuk does not cause a connection for impurity nor purity.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rather, the reason is because that depending on where he sticks his finger, that is where the impurity will be. If so, what is above and below his finger in the barrel is considered the mouth and bottom of the barrel respectively.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rebbi Yehudah says that from the mouth of the barrel and bottom of the barrel it is impure, as we have explained (that this all gravitates towards the hole). The side of the barrel is pure, as it is not considered like the mouth and bottom of the barrel.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This means that Rav Papa, in the version where he says that the stream of wine near the spigot is forbidden while the rest is permitted, clearly holds like Rebbi Yehudah. Being that the Nochri did not put his hand into the barrel but rather placed it over the hole in the barrel, the other wine is considered on the side of the barrel and is therefore permitted.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to the version of Rav Papa that the wine above the spigot is forbidden, one must also say that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah. This is why the rest of the wine is forbidden. He only forbids the wine above the spigot because Yayin Nesech is different and the Rabbanan were stringent regarding its laws. This is the explanation of Rashi in our Gemara.

Question: Rashi's explanation of the version of Rav Papa that everything above the spigot is forbidden is difficult. How can it be that the wine is completely mixed together, and half of it will be forbidden and half of it will be permitted?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that when Rav Papa says that everything until the spigot is forbidden, he means that one cannot even have benefit from this wine. The reason for this is because once the hole is opened, all of the wine near the hole moves around in an attempt to leave the barrel. When he puts his hand over the hole, all of this wine is stopped from leaving the barrel, and it is considered as if he touched all of this wine. One may have benefit from the rest of the wine, but one may not drink it, as the forbidden wine is lying together with the rest of the wine.

Opinion #1: Rashi rules that the law does not follow Rav Papa. This is because we see that Rav Papa shares the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who is a minority opinion. The law follows the majority opinion that we do not differentiate between the mouth, bottom, or sides of the barrel.

Question: This is not a logical reason to rule this way, as we often find in many places that the rule is like a minority opinion and not like the majority.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that the law certainly does not follow the opinion of Rav Papa. This is because Rava argues on Rav Papa. Even though Rav Papa was a later Amora than Rava, Rava was his teacher, and he was also considered a later Amora. Rava was also greater than Rav Papa in wisdom and the number of students/sages that he had with him while learning (this law).

Answer (cont.): Rava argues on Rav Papa later (72b) regarding the Nochri who put his hand on the Bas Gishta. This was a part of two straws that were hollow, and were jammed one on top of the other at an angle (like an upside down letter V). (One of these straws was longer than the other.) The long straw was placed into the barrel of wine, and is called a Gishta. The second shorter straw that is attached to it is called a Bas Gishta. If one sucks on the second straw one time, all of the wine in the first barrel, as deep as the long straw reaches, starts to flow out of the second straw. If a person then puts his finger over the Bas Gishta, no more wine will flow out of it unless someone sucks on it again.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara (72b) discusses an incident where a Nochri put his hand over the Bas Gishta, and Rava ruled that all of the wine in the barrel was forbidden. Rav Papa asked Rava, why is all of the wine forbidden? It must be due to Nitzuk! Rava answered that this case is different, as all of the wine was being sucked out of the barrel into (and through) the Bas Gishta.

Answer (cont.): Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gishta did not reach the bottom of the barrel, and even so Rava forbade all of the wine in the barrel because all of the wine in the barrel moves when some of the wine leaves the barrel.

Answer (cont.): Rav Papa asked why this is forbidden, and said it must be through Nitzuk. He was asking regarding the wine that was not going to leave through the Gishta (or Bas Gishta) as the Gishta did not reach it. He was showing that he did not think this wine should be forbidden. This is similar to his opinion here that only the wine that is above the hole should be forbidden. However, the rest that was not going to leave the barrel is not prohibited, being that it was not pulled towards the hole.

Answer (cont.): If so, Rava who forbids all of the wine in the barrel in the case of the Gishta will also forbid the wine in the barrel in our Gemara. This is because all of the wine moves to go up and go out.

Implied Question: It does not seem correct to explain that their argument later (72b) was regarding the wine which the Gishta reached. The argument would be that Rava would forbid this wine because it was being sucked out the Bas Gishta, while Rav Papa would say it is permitted. (Why can't this be the explanation?)

Answer: If so, we would have to ask a contradiction in Rav Papa (from the Gemara later) on his statement in his second version here that the wine above the spigot is forbidden. (The logic is based on the wine being sucked out the spigot!)

Question: You might entertain that our Gemara is after Rav Papa agreed to Rava regarding the wine that was reached by the Gishta. However, Rava himself only forbade the wine that was going to leave through the Gishta.

Answer: The term "(Rava forbade) all of the wine" does not indicate that he only forbade the wine that was going to be sucked through the Gishta. The Gemara should have explained that. Rather, he certainly forbade all of the wine in the barrel, as we have explained, and the law follows his opinion.