TOSFOS DH AIN ODRIN (Cont.)
תוספות ד"ה אין עודרין
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)
ואין לומר דלהכי שרי לפי שאין תופסין דמיהן
Implied Question: One cannot say that it is permitted to work with Kilayim because money exchanged for them are not forbidden from benefit. (Why not?)
דא"כ היכי מייתי ראיה מתחילה מכלאים ליין נסך
Answer: If so, how could the Gemara originally have brought a proof from Kilayim to Yayin Nesech?
אלא ודאי בכלאי זרעים מיירי
Explanation: Rather, this is certainly referring to Kilai Zera'im.
וכן משמע מדמייתי עלה קרא דשדך לא תזרע כלאים
Proof: This is also implied from the fact that the Beraisa quotes the Pasuk, "You field you should not plant Kilayim" (which refers to Kilai Zera'im) when discussing this law.
והלכך אין להביא ראיה מכאן דכלאים נוהגין בשל עובדי כוכבים דע"כ בארץ מיירי דאי בחוצה לארץ כלאי זרעים שרו אף לישראל ואם כן נוכל לדחות דאתיא כמאן דאמר אין קנין לעובד כוכבים בא"י
Observation: Therefore, there is no proof from here that Kilayim apply to produce of Nochrim, as this is clearly referring to Eretz Yisrael. If it were talking about Chutz la'Aretz, Kilai Zera'im are even permitted to Jews in Chutz la'Aretz. If so, we can push this aside by saying that it is according to the opinion who says that there is no acquisition by a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael (and therefore Kilayim applies because of Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that it is owned by a Nochri).
TOSFOS DH SAVRUHAH
תוספות ד"ה סברוה
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara at this point understands the Beraisa.)
פירוש אפי' לר"ע דאי לרבנן לחודייהו מאי איריא עוקרין אפילו מקיימין נמי שרי אלא תנא עוקרין לד"ה ואפילו לר"ע
Explanation: This means that it is even according to Rebbi Akiva. If it is according to the Rabbanan alone, why say that one can work to uproot it? He can even work keeping it extant! Rather, the Beraisa stated he can work to uproot it to be according to everyone, even Rebbi Akiva.
וכן רישא דתניא אין עודרין לד"ה ואף לרבנן דאי לר"ע ליתני אין מקיימין וכ"ש אין עודרין
Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the first part of the Beraisa which said that one cannot dig is according to everyone, and even the Rabbanan. According to Rebbi Akiva, it could have said one cannot work to keep the Kilayim extant, and certainly one cannot dig to help it.
TOSFOS DH REBBI AKIVA
תוספות ד"ה רבי עקיבא
(SUMMARY: Rashi and the Aruch argue regarding the definition of "keeping Kilayim extant.")
פירש בקונט' שעשה להם סייג וגדר בקוצים כדי לקיימן
Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he made a fence of thorns to keep them extant.
ויפה כוון דהא פ"ב דמכות (דף כא:) מוכיח דר"ע אית ליה לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו
Proof: His explanation is correct, as in Makos (21b) the Gemara proves that Rebbi Akiva holds that a negative prohibition that does not involve an action does not make one liable to receive lashes. (Accordingly, there has to be an action for Rebbi Akiva to say he receives lashes.)
ודלא כפירוש הערוך שפירש מקיים בהנחה דכלאים ליגדל בתוך שדהו לוקה ואית ליה לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו
Explanation #2: This is unlike the explanation of the Aruch who explains that allowing Kilayim to be extant means letting it grow in his field makes him liable to receive lashes. This is according to the opinion that a negative prohibition that does not involve an action does make one liable to receive lashes.
וא"ת היאך ס"ד להוכיח בלעקור היה אסור אי לאו למעוטי תיפלה לפי שרוצה בקיומן כדי להשתכר מדאסר לקיים התם הוא עושה מעשה באיסור שעושה הגדר אבל הכא אין כאן מעשה כלל באיסור
Question: How did the Gemara entertain proving that uprooting would be forbidden, if we discount the logic that getting rid of prohibited items is better, being that he wants the forbidden items to be extant so he can be paid to get rid of them because they are forbidden to keep? In this case he is doing an action by making a fence, as opposed to the case of Yayin Nesech where there is no action involving the forbidden item at all!
וי"ל דמ"מ מחשבתו משויא ליה מעשה כיון שהוא עושה מעשה לבסוף כשהוא עוקרה דודאי אם אינו עוקר אינו עובר כיון שאין עושה שום מעשה שיהא ניכר בו אבל עוקר מראה שרוצה במה שהוא ולכך היה אסור דדמי למקיים אי לאו טעמא דמעוטי תיפלה
Answer: Even so, his thoughts make this into an action, being that he is doing an action at the end when he destroys it. Certainly, if he does not uproot it he does not transgress anything, being that he is not doing any clear action with the item itself. However, if he uproots it he is showing that he wants it. Therefore, it would be prohibited as it is similar to keeping it extant, were it not for the logic that getting rid of prohibited items is better.
TOSFOS DH MID'REBBI YEHUDAH
תוספות ד"ה מדרבי יהודה
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehudah's statement was not chosen as proof by our Gemara.)
ה"ה דמרבי יהודה היה יכול להוכיח
Implied Question: It also could have proven this from Rebbi Yehudah. (Why didn't it?)
אלא בעי לאסוקי מילתיה על ר"ע דאיירי ביה
Answer: Rather, the Gemara wants to conclude with Rebbi Akiva, as it started saying this was according to Rebbi Akiva.
TOSFOS DH MISTAVRA
תוספות ד"ה מסתברא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that money exchanged for an idol is always prohibited if it belongs to a Jew and sometimes if it is that of a Nochri.)
ונראה הטעם כי מה שעבודת כוכבים תופסת דמיה משום דכתיב והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהיה ממנו כמוהו ובישראל דוקא נאמר ולא לבני נח
Observation: It appears that the reason for idolatry giving its status to the money exchanged for it is because the Pasuk states, "And it will be Cheirem like it." This indicates that whatever comes to a person because of it is forbidden just like the law of the idolatry itself. However, this Pasuk is specifically regarding a Jew and not a Nochri.
והא דאסרינן לעיל בפ"ק (דף יב. ושם ד"ה דכוותה) דמי עבודת כוכבים
Implied Question: Earlier (12a), we said money of idolatry (belonging to a Nochri) is forbidden. (How can we reconcile this apparent contradiction?)
היינו כשדעתו לקנות מן הדמים עבודת כוכבים אבל כשבא להתגייר או לפרוע חובו מותר
Answer: This is specifically when he intends to but another idol with this money. However, if he is coming to convert or pay back loans to a Jew, the money is permitted. (See Avodah Berurah at length regarding the logic behind this difference.)
TOSFOS DH ZAVINU
תוספות ד"ה זבינו
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the advice of Rabah bar Avuha.)
ומה שלא היה אומר להם לבטלה בשבירה ויוכלו למוכרה בגרות
Implied Question: He did not tell them to nullify it by breaking it and then selling it after they convert. (Why not?)
לפי שהיה דעתם למוכרה שלימה ביוקר לעובדיה
Answer: This is because their plans were to sell it whole to those who worshipped it.
והא דאמרינן לעיל פרק ר' ישמעאל (דף נג.) מכרה לעובדיה לא בטלה
Implied Question: The Gemara states earlier (53a) that if a Nochri sells an idol to those who worship this idol, he has not nullified it. (Why, then, is this considered nullification? See Maharsha who says that this question is only according to the Gemara's question later.)
שאני הכא כיון דדעתייהו לאיגיורי אינם חוששין בה ובטלה ולא הוו דמי עבודת כוכבים
Answer: Our Gemara is different. Being that their mindset was to convert, they do not consider it an idol and clearly nullify it. Therefore, the proceeds are not considered money exchanged for idolatry.
TOSFOS DH V'DILMA
תוספות ד"ה ודלמא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that money exchanged for idolatry is generally looked upon more stringently than money exchanged for Yayin Nesech.)
הקשה הרב רבי אלחנן תינח עבודת כוכבים דשייך בה ביטול היו יכולין למכור והיו הדמים מותרין אלא מיין נסך דלא שייך בה ביטול ואפילו הכי קאמר להו זבינו כל מה דאית לכו
Question: Rebbi Elchanan asked that this is understandable regarding idols that can be nullified. They can sell them, and the money is permitted. However, one cannot nullify Yayin Nesech. Yet we see that Rabah told them to sell everything they have!
ואם כן תפשוט בעיין דהא משמע מתוך הברייתא דישראל שנושה בעובד כוכבים שמזכיר עבודת כוכבים ואביא לך יין נסך ואביא לך אלמא דין אחד לשניהם והשתא ליכא למתלי טעם ההיתר משום ביטול דהא ביין נסך לא שייך ביטול
Question (cont.): If so, we should answer our question. When the Beraisa states that a Yisrael who is owed money by a Nochri who mentions that he has an idol or Yayin Neech that he is going to sell to pay the debt etc., it implies that idols and Yayin Nesech share the same law. One cannot say that the reason behind this leniency is nullification, as it is not possible to nullify Yayin Nesech.
י"ל דלעולם היה פשוט להן היתר יין נסך יותר מדמי עבודת כוכבים דחמירא איסורא
Answer: It was always more apparent to them that there is more room to be lenient with Yayin Nesech than with money of idolatry which is a more stringent prohibition.
TOSFOS DH AVAL
תוספות ד"ה אבל
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a Jew cannot collect when the Nochri states that his only source to pay are goods that are forbidden from benefit.)
רבינו יצחק היה מדקדק מזה הלשון המתן לי כלומר אינך יכול ליפרע ממקום אחר וצריך אתה להמתין עד שאמכור אז הוא ודאי אסור דרוצה הוא בקיומו כגון שאין לו ערב ממנו ואף אין לו נכסים אחרים שיכול ליקח חובו מיד עליהם
Observation: Rabeinu Yitzchak noted that the phrase, "Wait for me" implies that you cannot collect your debt from another place, and you must wait for me to sell these forbidden goods. This is certainly forbidden due to his wanting the forbidden items to exist. For example, the case could be where there is no guarantor on the debt, and he indeed has no other possessions from which he could collect the debt.
אבל אם יש לו ערב או שיכול ליפרע ממקום אחר אין אמירתו של עובד כוכבים מועלת כלום דאם לא כן כל עובד כוכבים יוכל להפקיע חובו מיד ישראל
Observation (cont.): However, if he has a guarantor or he can pay the debt from another place the statement of this Nochri is meaningless. Otherwise, every Nochri can get out of paying a Jew by saying this!
64b----------------------------------------64b
TOSFOS DH TANYA
תוספות ד"ה תניא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara had to quote another Beraisa to prove Rav Papa's teaching.)
פי' כמו שמתרץ רב פפא דירושת גר אקילו בה רבנן
Explanation: The Beraisa is similar to the answer of Rav Papa that the Rabbanan were lenient regarding the inheritance of a convert.
דאילו מרישא דגר ועובד כוכבים שירשו דיכול לומר טול עבודת כוכבים ליכא למשמע לזה
Implied Question: There is no proof to Rav Papa from the first part of the Beraisa quoted previously that if a convert and Nochri inherit their father together, the convert can tell his brother to take the idolatry as his portion of the inheritance. (Why wasn't this sufficient proof to Rav Papa?)
דהוה אמינא דבדין הוא מטעם ברירה אבל מברייתא דנשתתפו מייתי שפיר דודאי אין טעם ההיתר מכח ברירה דאם כן אף בשנשתתפו היה מותר
Answer: I would think that this law is due to the ability to choose retroactively (what each brother had passed down to him by his father). However, this Beraisa which discusses their being partners clearly shows that the leniency is not due to choosing retroactively, as otherwise even their partnership should be able to be split up in a retroactive manner (with the forbidden items belonging to the Nochri).
ומשום הכי בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף יז:) אחר שהוכיח ירושת גר דרבנן מההיא דגר ועובד כוכבים הוצרך להביא תניא נמי הכי שלא תדחה ראייתו אצל טעם ברירה
Observation: Due to this, we find that the Gemara in Kidushin (17b), after proving that the inheritance of a convert is a Rabbinic concept from the Beraisa involving a convert and Nochri inheriting their father, quotes another Beraisa showing that the first Beraisa cannot be brushed aside as being due to choosing retroactively.
TOSFOS DH MISTAVRA
תוספות ד"ה מסתברא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara differs with an earlier Gemara.)
והא דאמרינן לעיל פרק כל הצלמים (דף מב.) שישראל היה יכול לבטל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אי לאו טעמא דדלמא מגבה לה והדר מבטל לה
Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (42a) states that a Jew should have been able to nullify the idol of a Nochri, were it not for the suspicion that he will pick it up (i.e. acquire it) and only then nullify it. (This is against our Gemara's logic that only one who serves idolatry can nullify it. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?)
היינו דוקא לרשב"ל ור' יוחנן פליג עליה
Answer: This is specifically according to Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rebbi Yochanan argues on him (and our Gemara is according to Rebbi Yochanan).
TOSFOS DH EIZEHU
תוספות ד"ה איזהו
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that until judged by Beis Din, Nochrim are not liable to be killed by man for transgressing the seven Noahide laws.)
במסקנא קאמר דהיינו להחיותו
Observation: The Gemara concludes that this is regarding helping him stay alive.
וא"ת והלא מיד שעבר שבע מצות חייב מיתה דאזהרת בני נח היא מיתתן בלא עדים והתראה
Question: Isn't he liable to be killed right when he transgresses one of the seven Noahide laws, as the warning not to transgress them causes them to be killed, even without witnesses and warning? (How can there be an opinion that he only has to be careful not to serve idols?)
י"ל דכל זמן שלא דנוהו בית דין אינו חייב מיתה
Answer: As long as Beis Din does not judge him he is not liable to be killed.
תדע דהא אמרינן העובדי כוכבים לא מעלין ולא מורידין
Proof: This is clearly true, as the Gemara states earlier that idolaters are not saved nor killed. (It must be referring to those who have not been judged by Beis Din.)
TOSFOS DH ACHEIRIM
תוספות ד"ה אחרים
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Acheirim is not always Rebbi Meir, just as Yesh Omrim is not always Rebbi Nasan.)
על כרחך אחרים דהכא לאו היינו ר"מ דהא פליג עליה
Explanation: It must be that the opinion "Acheirim" found here is not Rebbi Meir, as Rebbi Meir argues on this opinion.
וכן מצינו בכמה מקומות אחרים במחלוקת אצל ר"מ וי"א אצל ר' נתן
Proof: We indeed have found in many other places that "Acherim" argue with Rebbi Meir. We similarly find that Yesh Omrim argue on Rebbi Nasan (despite the fact that "v'Yesh Omrim" usually mean Rebbi Nasan.)
TOSFOS DH AIN MAFKIDIN
תוספות ד"ה אין מפקידין
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses leaving wine with a Ger Toshav, the law of a Ger Toshav's wine, and his touching of our wine.)
פירש רש"י לפי שאין מקפיד על מגע עובד כוכבים
Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this is because he is not careful that idolaters should not touch the wine.
והקשה ר"ת על זה דא"כ אפילו ליחד נמי לפי שעה עד שילך כדי מיל או יותר כמו שפירש בקונטרס עצמו היה לנו לאסור
Question: Rabeinu Tam asked about this that if this is so, even to set aside wine by him for the amount of time that it takes to walk one Mil or slightly more, as (the term "Meyachdin" is) explained by Rashi himself, should be forbidden!
דע"כ בהודיעו שהוא מפליג מיירי דאי לא הודיעו אף בעובד כוכבים מותר ואם כן למה לא ניחוש למגע עובד כוכבים הרגיל בחנותו כיון שאינו מקפיד
Question (cont.): The Gemara must be referring to a case where he informed the Ger Toshav that he is leaving for a short while. If he did not tell him this, it would even be permitted to leave the wine by an idolater (as he thinks he is coming back any second)! If (Rashi's reason in (a) is) so, why shouldn't we suspect that an idolater who is often in the Ger Toshav's shop will not touch the wine, being that the Ger Toshav is not stringent about stopping an idolater from doing so!
לכן נראה לר"ת כמו שפירש רש"י והגיה בפירושים שלו ומחק הטעם לפי שאינו מקפיד וכתב אין מפקידין לזמן מרובה דאיכא למיחש לאיחלופי ביין שלו שאסור כדקתני סיפא יינו כשמנו
Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore understands that the correct explanation is the explanation that Rashi himself corrected in his commentary. Rashi erased his previous term "he is not careful," and instead inserted "he is not careful about a long time," as one must suspect that he will switch it with his own wine which is forbidden, as the second part of the Beraisa states that his wine and oil is forbidden.
ונראה שרש"י חזר בו מטעם ראשון משום דמדתלי איסור יינו בשמנו משמע שאין לאוסרו כ"א מטעם חתנות ואי לא היה מקפיד על מגע עובד כוכבים היה לאסור איסור גמור
Observation: It appears that Rashi retracted his first reason for the following reason. Being that we say that the reason his wine is forbidden is similar to why his oil is forbidden, the implication is that it is only forbidden due to a suspicion that a Jew will come to marry his daughter. If he was not careful about idolaters touching his wine, it would seem we should forbid his wine because it itself is prohibited!
אבל מייחדין אצלו יין ישראל מניחו בחנותו עד שילך כדי מיל או יותר מה שאין כן בעובד כוכבים דהא כיון שלא פלח לעבודת כוכבים לא נגע ולא מנסך עד כאן היה כתוב בפירושיו
Observation (cont.): However, a Jew can leave wine in his shop for the amount of time it takes him to walk a Mil or slightly more, as opposed to an idolater. Being that he does not bow to idols he did not touch the wine or pour it. This is what was stated in Rashi's commentary.
והוסיף רש"י והגיה ולמגע עובד כוכבים דאתי מעלמא בביתו לא חיישינן דכיון דאין לו הנאה בכך אין מניחו ליגע ולאיחלופי בזמן מועט ליכא למיחש
Opinion: Rashi added in his editing that we do not suspect that an idolater who is in his house will touch the wine. Being that the Ger Toshav does not benefit from this touching, he does not allow it. We also do not suspect that the wine will be switched in such a small amount of time.
ולפי זה הפירוש אין להוכיח בבירור שיהא מותר מגע גר תושב ביינו של ישראל להתירו בשתיה
Opinion (cont.): According to this explanation, we cannot clearly prove that we would permit wine touched by a Ger Toshav to be consumed by a Jew.
ויש ליישב פירוש הקונטרס ראשון דאין מפקידין בביתו יין לפי שאינו מקפיד על מגע שרגילין העובדי כוכבים ליכנס בביתו אע"ג דיינו כשמנו אלמא שמקפיד על מגע עובד כוכבים מדשרי בהנאה היינו בשל עצמו אבל בשל ישראל אינו מקפיד
Answer: The explanation of Rashi can be answered by saying that the first case of "Ain Mafidin" means that one cannot put wine in the house of the Ger Toshav because he is not careful about touching, as idolaters often enter his house. This is despite the fact that his wine is indeed like his oil. This means that while he is careful about idolaters touching his own wine, as indicated by the fact that it is permitted for benefit (due to Chasnus, not idolatry), he is not careful that idolaters should not touch the Jew's wine.
א"נ הא דיינו כשמנו בידוע שלא נגע בו העובד כוכבים
Answer (cont.): Alternatively, we only say that his wine is like his oil when we know that the idolater did not touch it.
אבל מייחדין יין בחנותו אפילו הודיעו שמפליג כדי מיל או יותר בזמן מועט ליכא למיחש למגע עובד כוכבים שאין העובדי כוכבים רגילים ליכנס בתוך החנות ולמגע עצמו לא חיישינן כיון דלא פלח לא נגע ולא מנסך ולגנוב נמי כדי לשתות לא חשיד כיון שקבל עליו שבע מצות
Answer (cont.): However, the case of "Meyachdin," where wine is set aside in his (the Jew's) store, is even when he informs the Ger Toshav that he is walking a Mil or slightly more. In this small amount of time there is no reason to suspect that an idolater will touch the wine, as the idolaters do not normally come to his (the Jew's) store. We do not suspect he will touch the wine being that he does not bow down or our wine. We also do not suspect that he will steal wine to drink, being that he has accepted the seven Noahide laws (one of them being not to steal).
מיהו לר"מ שלא קבל עליו אלא שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים
Implied Question: However, Rebbi Meir says that a Ger Toshav only accepts not to serve idols. (How does this help regarding his not being suspected of stealing?)
צריך לומר אע"פ שגזרו על יינו לא גזרו על מגעו ביין של ישראל
Answer: One must say that even though they decreed that his wine is forbidden, they did not decree that if he touches wine of a Jew that the wine becomes forbidden.
אבל רבינו יצחק כתב מייחדין אצלו יין אפילו בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים פירוש דמותר מגעו בשתיה
Opinion #3: However, Rabeinu Yitzchak writes that "Meyachdin" means one can keep wine by the Ger Toshav even in a city which is mostly comprised of idolaters. This means that if the Ger Toshav touches the wine, it can still be consumed.
והא דלא תנא בהדיא מגעו מותר
Implied Question: The Beraisa does not explicitly state that if a Ger Toshav touches a Jew's wine that it remains permitted. (Why not?)
דרבותא קמ"ל דאפילו בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים לא חיישינן שמא יגע בו עובד כוכבים אע"פ שרוב עובדי כוכבים מצויין שם כיון שאין מניחו אלא לפי שעה ואין מפקידין כו' הטעם כדפיר' בקונט' בהגהה
Answer: It is teaching that even in a city that is mostly comprised of idolaters we do not suspect that an idolater will touch the wine, despite the fact that mostly idolaters are found there. This is because the wine is only there for a small amount of time. Rabeinu Yitzchak understands the case of "Ain Mafkidin" the same way as does Rashi in his edited explanation.
כתב רבינו יהודה מעשה היה בגר אחד שמל ולא טבל טבילה כראוי ועמד בבית ישראל ימים רבים ונגע ביינו והתירו רבינו יצחק בשתיה כפירושו דגר תושב מגעו מותר בשתיה כל שכן זה שמל וקבל עליו מצות
Opinion (cont.): Rabeinu Yehudah wrote that there was once an incident regarding a convert who had a Bris Milah but did not immerse in a Mikvah properly. He was in a Jew's house for many days, and he touched the Jew's wine. Rabeinu Yitzchak permitted the wine to be consumed based on his understanding that wine touched by a Ger Toshav is permitted to be consumed. Certainly, then, this convert who accepted Mitzvos (and was merely not yet able to immerse) should not cause the wine to become forbidden!
ואע"ג דאמרינן לעיל עבדים ובני שפחות שמלו ולא טבלו עושין יין נסך
Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we said earlier (57a) that servants and sons of maidservants who had a Bris but did not immerse cause wine to become Yayin Nesech. (How is this different?)
היינו לפי שאימת רבן עליהם ואינם מתגיירין בלב שלם כדפירש לעיל (דף נז.) גבי שיקוע עבודת כוכבים
Answer: This is because the fear of their master causes them to convert, and they do not convert with a complete heart, as explained earlier (57a) regarding being steeped in idolatry.
ועוד ראיה דאמרינן לעיל (דף נט.) גבי גרים שמלו ולא טבלו צא והכריז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ואע"פ שמסתמא נוגעין ביין לא היה מקפיד על יינם כמו במזגו עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל
Proof #1: Another proof to this can be found in the Gemara earlier (59a) regarding converts who had a Bris Milah and did not immerse. Rebbi Yochanan said that people should announce that their sons are Mamzerim. Even though they probably touched wine he was not stringent about this, although he was stringent there regarding a case where an idolater mixed wine and a Jew drank it. (In other words, he was dealing with forbidding wine as well, but did not forbid the wine of these people.)
ועוד בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל בסתם יינם בשתיה וה"ה במגען
Proof #2: Another proof is that the rule is that one should be lenient regarding Rabbinic law, which means that we can rely on the opinion that the regular wine of a Ger Toshav is permitted to drink, and so too (certainly) if they touch wine.
ואפילו ללישנא דקאמר יינן כשמנן היינו משום חתנות אבל על מגעו בשל ישראל לא יקפיד
Explanation: Even according to the opinion in the Beraisa that their wine is like their oil, it is only because of Chasnus (suspicion of being a cause of intermarriage). However, there is no reason to worry about his touching wine of a Jew.
אע"פ כן לא רצה רבינו יצחק להקל
Opinion: Even so, Rabeinu Yitzchak did not want to be lenient. (The Yavetz explains that this either means that he himself did not rely on this leniency, or he did not permit this Lechatchilah. Tosfos earlier clearly stated that he did permit this regarding the convert who had a Bris but did not immerse in a Mikvah.)