Question: How can they drink together using a Knishkin? Even if the Nitzuk is not a connection, one should suspect that the Nochri will stop drinking before he will stop drinking (causing him to drink forbidden wine)!

Answer: The Rach explains that this does not mean he is drinking with a Nochri, but rather with another Jew.

Question: If so, why does this have to be stated? (One can obviously drink wine with another Jew in any vessel of their choice!)

Answer: It is possible to answer that this teaches us that it is not forbidden to drink from a Knishknin nowadays although it is a joyous event. This argues with the opinion in Shabbos (62b) that one cannot drink from a Knishknin nowadays (after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash).

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that specifically Yayin Nesech that was poured for idolatry is forbidden with even a small amount. However, Stam Yayin is Batel b'Shishim.

Opinion (cont.): Similarly, when the Mishnah discusses Nochrim who touched water, it is referring to water that we know was poured for idolatry. If it is referring to regular water belonging to a Nochri (this cannot be), there is no such prohibition of "Stam Mayim" which would be similar to (Stam Yayin and) wine that was clearly poured for idols.

Opinion (cont.): However, Stam Yayin is Batel b'Shishim, even Min b'Mino, just like all Torah prohibitions.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding a Nochri wine tester (appointed by the king), the Tosefta (8:2) says that a drop of wine forbids a mixture of wine, even though the wine is not clearly Yayin Nesech (seemingly it is Stam Yayin). (Why is this not Batel b'Shishim?)

Answer: It is possible to say that this is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that Min b'Mino is not even Batel b'Elef, even regarding other prohibitions.

Opinion: Additionally, the Ri says, even if you want to say that even a small amount of Stam Yayin forbids a mixture, nowadays Stam Yayin should be Batel b'Shishim.

Opinion (cont.): Only during the times of the Tanaim and Amoraim, when Nochrim were experts in idolatry and pouring wine for idolatry was quite common, were they stringent regarding Stam Yayin that it should even be forbidden like Yayin Nesech. Therefore, regarding Bitul, it is like other prohibitions, and it is therefore Batel b'Shishim like other prohibitions.

Explanation: Even if there ends up being more Yayin Nesech, we still say that each first drop is nullified. This implies that Rav Dimi holds that each first drop is nullified.

Question #1: This is difficult. In Bechoros (22a), we say that if someone takes brine from an Am ha'Aretz, he can connect it to a body of water and it is considered pure. If it is mostly water, it has been connected to a body of water that is pure (causing the brine to be pure). If it is mostly brine, brine does not become impure.

Question #1 (cont.): This means that the small amount of water that is in the brine is nullified, as the brine is the majority of the mixture. The Gemara concludes that this is only regarding dipping his bread in the brine. However, it is still forbidden to cook this as a dish together with water, as the water in the brine and the water in the pot combine to cause impurity to the brine. Rav Dimi is the author of this statement in Bechoros (ibid.), and he does not say that each first drop becomes of water is nullified! (Isn't this a contradiction in Rav Dimi?)

Question #2: There is also a contradiction regarding the position of Rebbi Yochanan. In our Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan says that each first drop is nullified. Yet in Nedarim (57b), Rebbi Yochanan says that growths of Terumah that are more than the original Terumah (that was planted in the ground) is even forbidden to a Kohen due to it being untithed. We do not say that each bit of growth that comes out of the Terumah is nullified to the Terumah!

Answer: When our Gemara says that each first drop is nullified, it means that it is nullified until there is an amount that dropped which is greater than one sixtieth of the permitted wine. However, if there was so much forbidden wine dripping into the permitted wine that the permitted wine eventually was not sixty times more than the amount that dripped in, it is indeed forbidden because the wines mix together and cause it to become forbidden (as there is no Bitul b'Shishim).

Proof: This is clearly correct. Is it possible that if a person poured milk into a pot of meat slowly, one pour at a time, until there ended up being enough milk in the pot that it gave a taste to the meat, that this mixture should be permitted due to the logic that each first drop becomes nullified?!

Proof (cont.): Rather, we certainly do not say that each first drop is nullified, being that there is so much of the forbidden aspect of the mixture (in this case the milk mixing with the meat) that it gives taste to the mixture.

Question: Being that each first drop is nullified until there is less than sixty times the amount of the permitted item in the mixture, what does this concept that "each first drop is nullified" teach us more than the concept of Batel b'Shishim?

Answer: It is coming to teach us that even though the Mishnah states that even a small amount of wine of idolatry that mixes with regular wine causes it to become forbidden, it is not discussing a case where the forbidden wine falls into the permitted wine (as here we would say "each first drop is nullified"), but rather is discussing where the permitted wine falls into the forbidden wine.

Question: According to Rashi who says that "each first drop is nullified" is even if there is not Shishim, don't we forbid in the Mishnah (74a) Yayin Nesech that falls into a pit (of wine)?

Answer: If it fell one time in one pouring we do not say that each first drop is nullified. However, here that one drop falls after another drop (separately) it is permitted, as each first drop is nullified.

Explanation: We do not say that each first drop is nullified. This is therefore a question on (Rav Dimi who quotes) Rebbi Yochanan (as saying that if a person pours forbidden wine all day into a pit containing kosher wine, the wine is permitted).

Question: Why is this difficult? Didn't we say earlier that we do not say each first drop is nullified when the permitted liquid is less than sixty times the total of these drops? If so, it is understandable that we will say that forbidden wine that gives a taste, meaning it is not Batel b'Shishim, is going to forbid the entire mixture!

Answer: The Gemara's question is as follows. It must be that the forbidden wine fell into permitted water. Being that this second case is as such, it must be that the first case involving a small amount of forbidden wine causing permitted wine to be forbidden is when the forbidden wine falls into the permitted wine. The Mishnah still states that a small amount of forbidden wine causes this to be forbidden, meaning that this is unlike the law quoted by Rav Dimi in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (that each first drop is forbidden).

Explanation: The Ri says that Rav Dimi who said this law regarding a Chavis (small barrel) only holds this regarding a Chavis. However, he agrees that regarding a Gigis (big barrel) that (when poured) has a thicker stream of liquid coming out of it, we do not say each first drop is nullified.

Explanation: Rabin is coming to argue with Rav Dimi by saying that only water nullifies wine. Wine does not nullify wine.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the law does not follow Rav Dimi, as after (the comment of) Rav Dimi we see Rav Yitzchak was stringent and Rabin was stringent.

Question: This reason does not seem correct. On the contrary, we should rule leniently regarding a Rabbinic law, meaning we should rule like Rav Dimi who is the most lenient of all of these opinions.

Opinion #2: Even so, the law appears to be like Rabin and not like Rav Dimi, but not for the reasoning of Rashi. Rather, the reason is because Rabin is extremely reliable regarding quoting Rebbi Yochanan, as is stated in Yevamos (64b). (While our text in that Gemara is that "(Rebbi) Avin" is reliable, Tosfos apparently had the text "Rabin" is reliable.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the case is where the permitted wine was in the pit, and afterwards Yayin Nesech fell on it. The wines found each other and got mixed up.

Explanation (cont.): It does not matter whether the water fell in the beginning or at the end. We do not say that we look at what is permitted as if it is not present and that the rest is nullified by the water. Rather the wine connects to the other wine, and everything is considered Yayin Nesech. Being that all the wine is now considered Yayin Nesech, there is not enough water to nullify the wine.

Explanation (cont.): The case "he increased the amount with permitted" is where there was Yayin Nesech in the pit and a pitcher of water fell into it. When the permitted wine then fell into the pit, the Yayin Nesech was already nullified by the water, as there was much more permitted water. Once the wine was nullified, it does not become remixed with the new permitted wine that then falls into the pit.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan says that even if the forbidden wine fell in last the mixture is permitted, as we do not say that the wines find each other and remix. This is as long as the water was there first, as explained by Rashi.

Question #1: This is difficult. Firstly, Rashi's establishing that Rebbi Yochanan is only talking about a case where the water was there first is a forced explanation, as this seemingly should have been mentioned by the Gemara.

Question #2: Additionally, Rashi's explanation that, "he increased the amount with permitted" means that the permitted wine fell last is difficult. The stated phrase, "Yayin Nesech that fell in a pit" implies that there is some permitted wine in the pit. This is what this phrase means, just as Rav Dimi said earlier, "if someone pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit etc."

Explanation #2: It therefore appears to me that the case, "he increased the amount with forbidden" means that when the water fell into the pit when the Yayin Nesech was already mixed together with the permitted wine. The mixture is forbidden, as we do not say that we see the permitted wine as if it does not exist...being that it was already made forbidden.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The case, "he increased the amount with permitted" means that the permitted water fell into the pit before the Yayin Nesech. Everything is permitted, being that the Yayin Nesech is nullified, as the mixture it fell into had not been forbidden.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan says that the case where "he increased the volume with forbidden" is whether the water fell first or at the end, as he holds of Ro'in (see Gemara later).

Question: This is difficult. Why should the permitted wine have to be looked at as if it is not present? It should be able to help nullify the forbidden wine!

Question (cont.): This is because Rebbi Yochanan does not hold that even a little bit of forbidden wine forbids permitted wine. Rather, he holds that Tevel, Yayin Nesech, and Terumah do not forbid permitted food that is one hundred times their amount.

Answer: In this case there is not one hundred times the amount of the forbidden wine, and therefore the wine will not help nullify the forbidden wine.

Explanation: Similarly, even a little water (poured for idolatry) mixed with permitted water forbids the mixture.

Explanation: What does it mean, "It is permitted with a small amount?" This is based on Shmuel's statement that one grain of wheat permits the entire pile of grain (according to the letter of the law). Just as a small amount is enough to permit a large amount of grain, so too it is enough to forbid a large amount of grain.

Question: This is difficult, as our Gemara implies that the reason that even a small amount of Tevel forbids is because of this reason.

Question (cont.): However, the Yerushalmi states that the reason is because Tevel can be made permitted (by tithing), and anything that can be made permitted is not even nullified in a thousand parts of permitted grain. This applies to things such as Tevel, Shevi'is, Ma'aser, and Hekdesh when they are mixed with the same type of item. However, if they are mixed with a different type of item, they only forbid the mixture if they give a taste to the mixture. Why are two reasons (both that of our Gemara and that of the Yerushalmi) necessary?

Answer: Both reasons are necessary. If there would only be the reason that it could be permitted, I would think that this only applies when the owner is in town. It can then be permitted, as the owner has the right to separate Terumah to make it permitted. However, if he is not in town, even though one can go to the place where the owner is located, one might think that being that there is a lot of effort and expense to get to him it is considered as not being able to be permitted.

Answer (cont.): This is as Rabeinu Tam says in Bava Metzia (see Tosfos 53a) that being able to be permitted means without effort and expense. This is why the reason of "just as it is permitted so it is forbidden" is needed.

Answer (cont.): If there would only be the reason of "just as it is permitted so it is forbidden," I would think that only a little of certain Tevel causes a mixture to be forbidden, as it is permitted in this fashion as stated by Shmuel.

Answer (cont.): However, I would think that this does not apply to Ma'aser Rishon that is Tevel because Terumas Ma'aser has not been taken. Ma'aser Rishon is not permitted by the taking of one grain because Terumas Ma'aser is ten percent. I would therefore think that it should not prohibit due to one grain. This is why the reason of the Yerushalmi that it can become permitted is necessary.