Explanation #1: Rashi explains that returning the stolen item does not apply to him. Wherever the item is, it belongs to the Jewish victim.

Question: This is difficult. The Jew also did not acquire the stolen item, and even so he must return it, as the Torah states, "And he will return the stolen item!"

Explanation #2: It seems that the Gemara means as follows. Being that there is no obligation for him to return it other than the pain it is causing the Jewish victim, why was it necessary for Rebbi Chiya to say that it does not have to be returned? This is obvious, as there is no opinion saying that such Mitzvah was given to a Nochri!

Question: Based on our earlier explanation that everyone agrees Meshichah works for a Nochri in a case where there is no monetary transaction, such as in cases of acquiring lost objects or presents, why does the Gemara ask its question (that according to the opinion that Meshichah does not acquire, why is he killed)? What proof can be brought from stealing to business transactions?

Answer: He holds that if he does not acquire through Meshichah when dealing with a Nochri, it also cannot be used to acquire when a Nochri steals. It is unlike a lost object and presents which are acquired by the Nochri in a permitted fashion. Stolen objects that are acquired in a forbidden manner should be the same as business transactions. If business transactions do not work with Meshichah, stealing should also not work with Meshichah.

Question: Why does there have to be a small amount of wine that is still in the funnel? One should say that the wine should be forbidden due to its being in a funnel that was used for Stam Yayin, as the Gemara says later (74b) that the funnel must be rinsed (before being used for kosher wine)!

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answered that the Gemara later (74b) is referring to a funnel of earthenware that is very absorbent, as opposed to our Gemara that is referring to a wooden funnel that is not very absorbent.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam later retracted this explanation. He explained that both cases deal with funnels of wood. However, the Gemara later (74b) refers to a funnel that is constantly used by Nochrim, and it therefore absorbs a lot of Nochri wine. Our Gemara is referring to the funnel of a Jew (that is only used for Nochri wine once in awhile). This is why it does not require rinsing, as the Rabbanan did not require rinsing in cases of temporary usage.

Answer #2 (cont.): This is why the Mishnah stated that it is only forbidden if there is some wine remaining.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says later regarding barrels that the Rabbanan decreed they should be forbidden even if they were only used temporarily. (Why are they different than funnels?)

Answer: The Gemara there explains that the reason for this is because wine is usually stored in them for a long time. However, a press, pitcher, and funnel that do not have wine put in them for storage are not very absorbent.

Question: It is obvious that this is forbidden, being that the bowl (of the Nochri) overflowed (to the point that the wine touched the wine of the Jew that was in the funnel)!

Answer: This is teaching us that even though the wine is no longer in the funnel it is forbidden. (The Maharsha and Maharam understand that Tosfos means that as long as there is a place in the funnel where wine can stay, even if we check and there is no wine there, the funnel cannot be used.)

Opinion: We see from here that if the kosher wine is in one vessel and the Nochri grabbed the outside of the vessel and poured it without touching the wine, whatever falls out of the vessel is forbidden. However, what is inside the vessel is permitted, as we say here that the Rabbanan did not decree that what is in the vessel is forbidden.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the connection of flow from the Jew's vessel to what is being poured is stopped before the wine that is poured hits the vessel of the Nochri. If what is being poured hits the vessel of the Nochri before the connection is stopped from the vessel of the Jew, stopping it will no longer help, as Nitzuk is a connection.

Opinion #1: Rashi rules like Rav Huna that Nitzuk is a connection, being that Rav Chisda here holds this way. A practical ruling is a great proof.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam rules that Nitzuk is not a connection.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rav Chisda holds that Nitzuk is a connection. (Why doesn't Rabeinu Tam rule like Rav Chisda?)

Answer: Even so, Rav Sheshes is a later Amora and he rules that Nitzuk is not a connection. This is apparent from the fact that he establishes the Mishnah as discussing a case where the Nochri is pouring (as opposed to a Nitzuk connection).

Proof #1: Similarly, Mar Zutra is a later Amora, and he says later that Knishknin (a jug of wine with straws all around that all become filled with wine once a person sucks on one of them) is permitted (for a Jew and Nochri to drink together). Knishknin is effectively Nitzuk, even though the wine only comes up when one sucks on the straw.

Proof #1 (cont.): This is similar to a Gishta and Bas Gishta which the Gemara later considers Nitzuk. This is apparent from the fact that Gemara even asks that those cases seem to teach Nitzuk is a connection.

Proof #1 (cont.): This indicates that regarding a Gishta, even though the wine only comes up by sucking on the straw and it will not end up becoming mixed together on its own like other cases of Nitzuk (i.e. where something is poured), even so it is considered Nitzuk. The same applies regarding the Knishknin.

Proof #2: Additionally, being that Rebbi Chiya says the case is where the bowl filled up, he must hold that Nitzuk is not a connection.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara continues that it is still unclear whether Nitzuk is a connection. (How, then, can we say that Rebbi Chiya's opinion is proof that Nitzuk is not a connection?)

Answer: This question of the Gemara is forced, in order to provide an answer (why this is not clear proof that Nitzuk is a connection, despite the fact that it indeed is a good proof).

Proof #3: Rabeinu Tam brings another proof that Nitzuk is not a connection from the fact that the Gemara often asks that we see from here that Nitzuk is a connection. This question implies that the Gemara finds it difficult to say Nitzuk should be a connection that forbids.

Proof #4: Additionally, Rav Huna deduces that Nitzuk is a connection from the Mishnah in Taharos (8:9) that says that Nitzuk (direct flow), Katafras (flow that goes down a slope), and dripping liquids (that cannot be used to make other things wet if one takes from their wetness and applies it to something else) etc. Rav Huna deduces that being that this Mishnah states that they are not considered connections for impurity and purity, the implication is they are connections for Yayin Nesech.

Proof #4 (cont.): Regarding dripping liquids, this deduction does not seem to be true. The Gemara earlier (60b) implies regarding Yayin Nesech that we require dripping liquids that can be used to make other things wet. This is evident from the Gemara regarding the Nochri who was found in the press etc. Rav Ashi says that if the liquid can make other things wet etc.

Proof #4 (cont.): Accordingly, just as Rav Huna's deduction is incorrect regarding dripping liquids, it is similarly incorrect regarding Nitzuk, as they are stated together.

Proof #5: Additionally, the Gemara earlier asks (57b) regarding Rav Huna's statement about the Gargavasni that it implies Nitzuk is a connection. What is the question? Rav Huna is the one who says in our Gemara that Nitzuk is a connection! Rather, it must be that Rav Huna retracted his statement.

Opinion: Accordingly, in a case where there would be great financial loss, one should rely on Rabeinu Tam to permit a Nochri touching the wine through Nitzuk. However, when there is a small financial loss, one should be stringent as per the opinion of Rashi.

Opinion (cont.): However, if he drew wine from the barrel into a vessel that has Yayin Nesech, the law depends on the following. If there was sixty times more wine poured from the barrel than the Stam Yayin that was in the vessel, certainly it is permitted even according to the opinion that Nitzuk is a connection.

Opinion (cont.): The connection through Nitzuk is not worse than if it was totally mixed up in the barrel, which would make it Batel b'Shishim like the law of Stam Yayin as explained by Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion (cont.): What is a case of Nitzuk that is forbidden? The case is where the wine was pouring from the barrel and the Nochri came and touched the stream which is the connection (Nitzuk). In such a case, the wine in the barrel would be forbidden due to Nitzuk being a connection. Even so, where there is a great financial loss we rely on the ruling of Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion: Therefore, a Jew pouring wine from one vessel to another should be careful that the Nochri does not help him unless there is another Jew who is bearing much of the burden.

Opinion: There can be a case where the wine is poured from the barrel that is on the wagon into the jug, and the Nochri picks up the wagon in order that the wine should stream quickly into the jug. This case was brought before the Ri, and he did not want to say that it is either forbidden or permitted.

Opinion (cont.): It seems that being that the wine will stream in any event into the jug, and the Nochri's action only helped it flow quicker into the jug, the wine is permitted. This is because the help provided by the Nochri was not necessary.

Opinion (cont.): However, one should be careful that when wine is left in the jug the Nochri should not tilt the jug with the help of a minor who is a Jew, as the help of the Jew is considered unnecessary help (and it is therefore considered as the Nochri did the entire thing).