1)

(a)The Mishnah in Ma'asros gives the Shi'ur for wine as 'mi'she'Yikpeh'. The Tana says this in connection - the G'mar Melachah for Ma'asros (from then on, one is no longer permitted to drink from the wine without Ma'asering it, even casually).

(b)'mi'she'Yikpeh' means - from the time that the pits begin to float to the top.

(c)Rava reconciles this with our Mishnah, which gives the Shi'ur for wine as from the time it flows into the wine-pit - by establishing it like Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, whereas our Mishnah follows the opinion of the Tana Kama there.

2)

(a)We ask whether - since the pits float to the top both when the wine is in the wine-pit, and after it has already been placed in barrels, to which of the two does mi'she'Yikpeh refer.

(b)The Mishnah in Ma'asros states that, even after the wine has already reached the stage of mi'she'Yikpeh - one may take wine from the upper wine-press and from the pipe (without having to Ma'aser it).

(c)In that case - 'mi'she'Yikpeh' must refer to the wine in the wine-press (and not to the wine in the barrels).

3)

(a)In another Beraisa quoted by Rav Z'vid be'de'bei Rebbi Oshaya, the Tana Kama gives the Shi'ur for Ma'asros as 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh'. Rebbi Akiva says - from the time the wine is placed in barrels.

(b)We reconcile this with the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Akiva in the earlier Beraisa - by amending the earlier Beraisa to read 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh', so that the Machlokses there conforms to the Machlokes here.

(c)And we reconcile our Mishnah, which gives the Shi'ur as 'Ad she'Yeired le'Bor' with the Beraisos - by pointing out that Chazal were more stringent by Yayin Nesech than by Ma'asros (and that the Shi'ur in our Mishnah is therefore unanimous).

(d)However Rava, who (earlier on the Amud) did not differentiate between Ma'aser and Yayin Nesech - maintains that our Mishnah is indeed a third opinion.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that what is in the wine-pit is Asur, and the rest is permitted. Rav Huna qualifies this, restricting it to where the Nochri did not return the contents of the Gargusni to the wine-press. 'Gargusni' is - the basket that is attached to the drain leading from the wine-press to the wine-pit, whose function is to filter the wine before it reaches the wine-press.

(b)If he did, it would render the wine in the wine-press Asur - because of the stream of wine that flows from the basket to the wine-pit, joining the two together.

(c)We cannot conclude from here that 'Nitzuk Chibur' ('Nitzuk' is considered joined) - because this is actually a Machlokes Amora'im in the next Perek (and nobody brings a proof from here to that effect (See also Tosfos DH 'Sh'ma Minah').

(d)To avoid having to draw such a conclusion, we quote a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya in a slightly different context 'she'Pachsaso Tzeluchiso', which in our case, will read 'she'Pachsaso Boro', meaning that - the basket actually hangs into the wine-pit, which is so full, that it merges with the wine in the basket ...

(e)... in which case - there is no Nitzuk.

5)

(a)The child who learned 'Avodah-Zarah' was -six.

(b)When they asked him whether one is permitted to tread the grapes in the wine-press together with a Nochri he replied - in the affirmative.

(c)And when they asked him why we are not afraid that he will stir the wine (be Menasech to Avodah-Zarah) ...

1. ... with his hands, he replied that - we are speaking where his hands are tied.

2. ... with his feet, he replied that Nisuch with the feet is not considered Nisuch.

(d)The problem with treading grapes together with a Nochri is that (despite our Mishnah, which does not consider wine to be wine until it reaches the wine-pit) is that - Rav Huna already ruled like the Mishnah Acharonah, which does.

6)

(a)With regard to the She'eilah in Neherda'a concerning a case where a Yisrael trod wine together with a Nochri - Shmuel left the case in abeyance for three Regalim ...

(b)... because that was when everyone would converge on Neherda'a for the Yarchei Kalah (the D'rashah covering Hilchos Yom-Tov), and the Halachah would emerge.

7)

(a)We initially thought that Shmuel was looking for a Posek (among the participants) who ruled like Rebbi Nasan. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa containing Rebbi Nasan's ruling says 'Mad'do bein be'Yad, bein be'Regel, Yimacher' - because the Nochri is too busy measuring to be concerned with shaking the wine for sacrificial purposes.

(b)Rebbi Nasan forbids it even be'Hana'ah. We reject our initial proposition (that Shmuel was looking for a Posek who ruled like Rebbi Nasan) - because we have no proof that Rebbi Nasan is arguing with the Tana Kama by 'bein be Ragel' as well as 'bein be'Yad'.

(c)We therefore conclude that Shmuel was looking for a Posek who ruled leniently, like Rebbi Shimon - who, in a Mishnah later, even permitted drinking wine of a Yisrael that has been touched by a Nochri who did not intend to make Nisuch (and likewise wine which is pressed by a Nochri together with a Yisrael [see Tosfos DH 'I Ashkachna').

(d)Rebbi Shimon is speaking about a case - where a Nochri fell into a wine-pit and emerged from it.