Question: Rabeinu Moshe from Coucy asks regarding this ruling (of Rabeinu Tam) that it is entirely based on understanding the Gemara later (72b) as giving a case where the Gishta (straw) does not reach to the bottom of the barrel. He asks that the phrase "all of the wine in the barrel" (used in that Gemara) does not imply this, as it was made in order to empty the barrel of wine without needing to make a hole in it.

Question (cont.): Rashi also explains later that the Gishta reached the bottom of the barrel.

Question (cont.): Rabeinu Tam's question that we find in many places that we rule like an individual versus the majority is only when we rule explicitly like that individual. However, here it is possible that Rav Papa did not know about the Beraisa. If he would have known, perhaps he would not have retracted his opinion.

Opinion: It therefore appears to him that the law does not follow Rav Papa because he holds like the minority opinion in the Beraisa. Rabeinu Chananel also rules this way (so does Rashi, as stated above).

Question: According to what we have explained previously that the Gishta reached to the bottom of the barrel, why didn't Rav Papa want to say that the wine in the barrel is forbidden?

Question (cont.): This is understandable according to the version of Rav Papa that only what is near the spigot is forbidden, even though the rest of the wine was also going to flow out. Even in that case, Rava Papa only wanted to forbid what was in the spigot. However, according to the text that all the wine in the barrel above the spigot is forbidden because it will end up leaving the barrel through this hole, why didn't Rav Papa also forbid the wine that was going to leave the barrel through the Gishta?

Answer: It is possible to say that the wine above the spigot was going to leave the barrel naturally when the Nochri was going to remove his hand from covering the hole. However, regarding the Bas Gishta, the Nochri's hand is only stopping the wine from coming out if someone does not suck on the straw one more time. (Once the hole is covered, the wine stops flowing until someone else sucks on the straw again. Accordingly, the wine is not naturally going to flow through the Gishta, and there is no logic that all the wine should be considered to be flowing through the Gishta/Bas Gishta.)

Explanation: Both Rav Papa and Rava who do not forbid the rest of the wine from benefit hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel who says that the wine should be sold aside from the value of the Yayin Nesech in it.

Explanation (cont.): The case where one inserted a straw into the barrel and sucked up some wine (see Tosfos 58a, end of DH "Ikla") results in all of the wine being forbidden due to the little bit of wine that is mixed up in the barrel that is forbidden. This is according to the Rabbanan, as I explained earlier (Tosfos ibid.).

Explanation (cont.): What we have said is forbidden due to it eventually coming out of this hole in the barrel is only when a Nochri places his hand over the hole of the spigot or Bas Gishta, as this prevents the wine from leaving the barrel, and is considered as if he is touching all of the wine as I have explained.

Explanation (cont.): However, if he touched the flow coming out of the barrel, or if the Jew drew wine from the barrel into a vessel that has Yayin Nesech, everything in the barrel is permitted for drinking according to the opinion that Nitzuk is not a connection, which is the Halachah. This is because touching the flow is insignificant relative to what is inside the barrel.

Explanation (cont.): This is also indicated by the Halachos regarding pouring wine into a pit and taking the jug. According to the opinion that Nitzuk is not a connection, all of the wine (in the barrel) is permitted.

Explanation (cont.): It must be that according to the version of Rav Papa that only the wine by the spigot is forbidden, they should close up that spigot and make a different one somewhere else. Being that the first stream that came out of the inside of the spigot is forbidden, everything else that comes out of the spigot should also be forbidden because it touches the walls of the spigot which are always very wet. Accordingly, each drop that touches it becomes forbidden.

Explanation: This is aside from the wine that is in the thickness of the hole.

Question: Why shouldn't he make the rest impure?

Answer: This is because liquid that is touched by a Tevul Yom is made impure, but it cannot make other things impure.

Proof: This is clearly true, as the Mishnah states in Tevul Yom (2:5) that if oil is floating on wine and a Tevul Yom touches some of it, he only causes the area that he touched to become impure. Even according to the opinion that he makes the entire body of liquid impure, this is only because the liquids are considered to be connected. (See Avodah Berurah at length regarding what Tosfos is proving according from this Mishnah.)

Explanation: If the Jew was holding an empty jug in his hand, the wine poured by the Nochri is forbidden. Rashi explains that this means it is even forbidden from benefit, as the wine poured by the Nochri is coming from his force, and we therefore forbid it due to ensuring that one does not come to drink actual Yayin Nesech.

Explanation (cont.): According to the explanation Rashi gave earlier regarding why wine mixed by a Nochri is not forbidden from benefit, one can say that there is more reason to be stringent in this case, as one can assume that the Npchri emptied the barrel with intent to pour it for idolatry.

Explanation (cont.): However, the reason it is forbidden is due to the force of the Nochri. Accordingly, the decree is only regarding what leaves the barrel, while what stays in the barrel is permitted.

Explanation (cont.): This is specifically if the Nochri spilled the wine himself. The same is regarding the case later where he moved the jug by himself. However, if the Jew helped him do this, all of the wine is permitted for drinking. This is because whenever the force of a Nochri causes the prohibition, if another (non Nochri) force is involved there is no prohibition.

Explanation (cont.): However, Lechatchilah this is also forbidden (i.e. to ask a Nochri to help you pour the contents of a barrel of wine into another container). This is as the Gemara states later that Rava said to tell those who spill wine into the Nochrim's vessels that when you do so, do not allow the Nochri to come close and help you, as perhaps you might end up putting the entire vessel in his hands (resulting in him pouring it by himself).

Opinion: The Rivam understands that the explanation quoted by Rashi that this is even if the jug is not full is correct.

Opinion (cont.): Being that he is moving it purposefully, it is considered his force (moving the jug) purposely which causes the wine to be forbidden for drinking. This is similar to touching the wine with a reed, as why should it make a difference whether he touches it with a reed or touches the bottom of the barrel?

Opinion: The Ri says that there are people who allow the Nochri, by himself, to lift the cart which the barrel is on or to lift the barrel from which the wine is pouring in order that it should pour faster. They justify this by saying he is helping, but insignificantly, being that the wine would anyway end up being in the jug (just slower). The Ri did not want to say this is either forbidden or permitted.

Opinion (cont.): One should be stringent regarding people who tip the barrel to one side (where the spigot is in order to get the rest of the wine out) that they should not allow the Nochri to do this. Even if a small boy helps him, it is insufficient, as his help is clearly insignificant. This is like the case of one person who is able to do the Melachah by himself who is assisted by a person who cannot do it by himself, as stated in Shabbos (93a).

Explanation: It is not normal to shake wine for idolatry when one is carrying it.

Opinion: We rule this way, as Rav Ashi (who says this statement) is a later Amora. He is not arguing regarding the open jug, which indeed is forbidden. However, it is only forbidden if he is carrying it on his head or shoulders, as there is suspicion that he touched the wine. However, if he is carrying it using a pole or he is carrying a pail by its handle, it is permitted.

Observation: We see from here that if there is a skin of soft leather that is full of wine, even if the Nochri pushes the walls and they meet the wine inside is permitted, as it is abnormal to pour wine for idolatry in this fashion.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam used this as a source to permit a spigot and cover that was loose on a barrel which a Nochri fastened to the barrel. Similarly, there was a case where the bottom of a large earthenware vessel was not sealed well, causing a Jew to take some thin parts of the flax plant and hold it against the hole in the barrel (where it wasn't sealed). It only worked to prevent some of the wine from coming out. The Nochri carpenter then came and repaired the barrel completely with a knife. Rabeinu Tam permitted all of these cases, as he compared all of them to a skin of soft leather where it is not normal to pour wine to idolatry in this fashion.

Opinion (cont.): The Ri also permitted people to rely on this leniency if they wished, even though one can differentiate these case and the case of the leather skin.

Proof: The Ri also proved this from the Gemara later (75b) that says that if an ignoramus put his hand into the press and touched the grapes, the grapes are considered impure while the press is considered pure. This is despite the fact that the wine is flowing. The reason for this is because the grapes separate between his hand and the wine.

Question: Rabeinu Tam rejected this proof, as this case is referring to when the grapes were already pressed, wine had been taken from the press, and the grapes were pressed together tightly as is done in our press. This is why the grapes are considered to interrupt (as they form a better interruption).

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Chananel rules this way, as when we find an actual ruling in the Gemara it is applied practically. Therefore, it is good that a Jew should help the Nochri turn the wheel which causes the beam to go down on the press of grapes.

Opinion #1 (cont.): We require that the Jew himself should be able to bring the beam down, or that both the Jew and Nochri cannot do it by themselves. However, if the Nochri himself can do it while the Jew cannot, it is possible that this should be prohibited. This is akin to a case regarding Shabbos where one person can do the Melachah himself and one cannot, where we say that the one who can is liable, as the help of the other is insignificant.

Opinion #2: However, the Rashbam explains that if the Nochri turns the wheel himself and there is great loss (if we prohibit what he has pressed) one can rely on the second version that permits Koach Kocho (force acting upon force, i.e. turning the wheel that lowers a beam that presses the grapes).

Opinion #2 (cont.): Our presses actually have three forces. There is a stick which turns a wheel which lowers a beam. There is even another force involved if one puts boards over the grapes. However, according to the opinion that says this is prohibited, we do not find a difference between three forces and two forces.

Explanation: This is also permitted for drinking.

Opinion #1: The Rashbam explains, "A Nochri who holds tight pieces of a barrel full of wine in order that the vertical crack that is in it should be shut is unlike a person who hugs a barrel closed that has a vertical split down the middle of it. This is because such a barrel is ready to have each half fall down. When he hugs it closed, he connects all of the wine together."

Opinion #1 (cont.): "However, when he is tightening the crack across the barrel, the barrel of wine will stay where it is without him. There is merely a small crack that he is holding tight. This is similar to our wooden barrels of wine. However, it is forbidden for the Nochri to put think flax pieces or a rag in the crack and where the bottom of the barrel is attached to the barrel to close cracks in these areas, being that he is touching the wine."

Opinion #2: The Ri says that it is permitted for a Nochri to stick flax pieces around the bottom of the barrel where there is a leak in the area where the bottom connects to the walls of the barrel. This is because the flax pieces that he sticks there are not opposite the wine inside the barrel, being that the top of the barrel interrupts between where he is sticking the flax and the wine. The top part of the barrel has pieces that stick into the walls of the barrel. (Accordingly, he is putting the flax in a leak below the lowest level of the wine.)

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Nochri may even do so if the flax is stuck in the middle of the connection where the two pieces of the bottom of the barrel meet, as long as he is not inserting the flax into the space inside the barrel.

Opinion #1 (cont.): The Rashbam says that if there is a drip from the bottom of the barrel, the Nochri can put some thin flax pieces in the crack, as this is like the case of a crack in the middle of the barrel, and is considered no more than putting a brick on the barrel. However, if it is dripping significantly one must be careful, as the Nochri will certainly touch the wine.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, if the Nochri is not touching the barrel with his hand but rather with a knife, being that he does not intend to do anything besides close the barrel, and he does not intend to touch the wine, it is considered like a Nochri touching wine without intent through using an object. This is permitted according to Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion #1 (cont.): It is good if the Jew can put a rag or flax in the crack at first in order to seal it first somewhat, and then the Nochri can tighten it further in a permissive manner according to Rabeinu Tam's opinion, as I have written above.

Implied Question: Rav Ashi apparently mentioned rinsing for no reason, as every drying first involves rinsing with water. (Why, then, did he explicitly mention rinsing?)

Answer: However, because he wanted to say, "And if not, rinsing is enough" he mentioned rinsing in the beginning of his statement as well.

Opinion: The Rashbam writes that we do not dry the presses of Nochrim. We only rinse them, and rely on the proofs brought later (74b, see Tosfos DH "Darash") that drying is not necessary.

Question: This is difficult. When the wetness is not enough to make something else wet, if it is considered wine it should require rinsing and drying, whereas if it is not considered wine it should not even need rinsing! (Why should only rinsing be required?)

Answer: The Rashbam explains that it clearly is considered wine which can be poured for idolatry. However, it is not considered connected to the wine that is absorbed in the press. This is as we say later that a surface that has wetness that does not cause other things to become wet is not considered to have anything prohibited absorbed in it.

Explanation: This writing takes away any lien he has on this wine. Therefore, even though he still is owed money by the Jew equivalent to the amount of the wine, the wine is permitted.

Opinion: Rashi here explains that this is only if a Jew has the key to where the wine is kept, or a seal on the wine showing it was not tampered with. This is also the opinion of Rabeinu Tam.

Question: This is difficult. If so, what proof is there to Shmuel? That case is different, as there is a key or seal in the hands of the Jew! However, here the Nochri is standing on the side of the pit without a key or seal in the hand of the Jew, and therefore it is understandable to say the wine should be forbidden!

Answer: The logic of the Gemara is as follows. Just as when the wine is in the domain of the Nochri and there is a key or seal by the Jew, the wine is considered as if it is the wine of the Jew if the Nochri allows him to take it, so too when the wine is in the domain of the Jew without a key or seal it is called the wine of a Jew, being that the Nochri has no lien on the wine. This is despite the fact that the Jew owes the Nochri money.

Explanation: This rule is only viable regarding permitting throwing. A Zav who sits on wine or carries wine in a stone container on his shoulder, causes it to become impure. A Nochri who sits on wine does not cause it to become forbidden, as we stated earlier (60a) regarding a skin containing wine whether it is full or empty. If he sits on a barrel he does not cause it to become forbidden wine, whereas a Zav would make the barrel impure.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the rule that whatever is pure by a Zav is pure regarding Yayin Nesech is also not absolute. If a reed is in a fold of skin (i.e. an armpit) of a Zav and he moves it onto a pure person, the person remains pure. This is as opposed to a Nochri, as if he would stir wine in this fashion he would cause it to be forbidden.

Opinion: The law is indeed that if a Nochri throws a stone or anything else into wine, even with intent, it is permitted to drink the wine. This is the ruling of Rav Yosef Tav Alam.

Opinion (cont.): Rav Moshe from Coucy wrote that the wine will similarly be permitted if the Nochri threw water into the wine without intending to mix the wine (to make it better to drink).