Explanation: This is even at the end of the pressing, as one is helping a person who is processing when he is impure according to Torah law.

Implied Question: The Mishnah Acharonah had to say this Kal v'Chomer more than the Mishnah Rishonah. (Why?)

Answer: This is because if this Kal v'Chomer was not stated here, I would think that the reason that one cannot harvest with them is not because it is supporting the sinning of a Jew, but rather because one is causing impurity to the grapes. The Mishnah Acharonah therefore teaches that the reason is due to assisting the sinner at the end of the pressing. (The Mishnah Rishonah originally states not to harvest with a Nochri. The reason for this is not due to assisting a sinner, but is rather due to causing impurity. Accordingly, this lesson would not apply.)

Opinion: Rashi explains that even so, one cannot harvest with a Jew. One can only cause impurity to the harvest of a Nochri. However, the harvest of a Jew is Tevel (untithed grain) that is supposed to have Terumah taken. It is forbidden to cause impurity to Terumah, as the Pasuk states, "And behold I have given you the guarding of your Terumah." We derive that this refers to two Terumos (Terumah and untithed grain that is going to have Terumah taken).

Question: This is difficult based on the Gemara in Nidah (6b) that quotes a Mishnah that if a woman is unsure whether or not her dough has become impure, if she has not yet kneaded it into dough she can make it when impure. Once she has made it into dough, she should make sure to make it when pure.

Question (cont.): This Tana seemingly holds that regular dough that is supposed to have Chalah taken is like Chalah. Accordingly, before it was turned into dough, when there is not yet an obligation to take Chalah, it can be made when impure. In our case, as well, the grapes are not obligated in Terumah until they are turned into wine (as this is the finished product). Why, then, can't they be processed when one is impure, being that it should be permitted to cause impurity to such produce?

Answer: Some push this aside by saying that the case there is different. As long as the flour is not dough, there is no obligation of Chalah whatsoever. However, Terumah is able to be taken off from the time the grapes are harvested, similar to Ma'aser that was taken off from stalks (that is valid).

Implied Question: Even so, it is difficult to consider the grapes as untithed before they are gathered as a finished product.

Question: Rabeinu Yehudah also asked that after the Tosefta in Chalah (1:11) quotes this Beraisa regarding Chalah, it says that this similarly applies to fruit that is possibly impure. If they have not yet been processed, they can be processed while impure. Once they have finished being processed, they should be handled with purity, and the Terumah that is taken from them is doubtful. What is this referring to? It is referring to something which is considered doubtful for the purity of Terumah (although regarding Chulin it might be considered pure, see Avodah Berurah). This implies that this law also applies to fruit! (Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to process the grapes when they are impure?)

Answer: One can answer that the case in the Tosefta is different, as there is already a doubt regarding the purity of the fruit, and it can no longer be totally pure. In our Gemara, he should be careful not to make it impure at all!

Question: However, there is still a difficulty from the Gemara in Gitin (61a) which says that the first case (that a woman can grind grains with the wife of someone who is not careful about purity) is regarding regular grain. This means that it is permitted to help a woman who is not careful about purity before she mixes the ground grain with water, being that the only impurity that is happening is impurity of regular grains. This is despite the fact that she will end up taking Chalah from impure dough. Why should that case be different from our Gemara?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that in Gitin (ibid.) there is only a suspicion that this woman is preparing the fruit (i.e. grains) while impure. However, in our Gemara it is clear that the person is processing the fruits while impure, and it is therefore forbidden to help him do so, even at the beginning of the processing.

Question: This answer is difficult. Our Mishnah states that one cannot knead or form dough with a person who is not careful about impurity. This indicates he can separate the kernels of the grain from the chaff and grind them into flour. In Gitin (61a), the Mishnah similarly stated that a woman can separate and grind grains with the wife of someone who is not careful about purity.

Question (cont.): We explained that Rabeinu Tam says that the case in Gitin is different, as there is only a suspicion she is processing when impure. If she is certainly processing while impure, it is forbidden to help her separate and grind as well. However, Rabeinu Tam stated that our case is when the person is certainly impure, and yet the Mishnah implies that one can help him separate and grind?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that our case is regarding fruit that had not yet been enabled to become impure. This is why separating and grinding it is permitted, even though the people involved are certainly impure. The case in Gitin (ibid.) is regarding fruit that was already enabled to become impure. Accordingly, if one is clearly impure it is even forbidden to separate and grind with them.

Implied Question: However, the Yerushalmi quotes a Beraisa regarding our Mishnah that says one cannot separate or grind with him. The Gemara asks that this is seemingly contradicted from the Mishnah in Gitin that says one may separate and grind with a woman who is not careful about impurity. The Yerushalmi answers that in one case the grains were rolled in liquid, and in one case they were not rolled in liquid. This means that our case is when they were enabled to become impure, while the case in Gitin is where it was not enabled to become impure. The Yerushalmi does not differentiate at all between someone who is suspected (but not certainly impure) to someone who is certainly impure. (If Rabeinu Tam is correct, why didn't the Yerushalmi differentiate in this fashion?)

Answer: According to Rabeinu Tam, we can say that one cannot knead or grind as stated by the Yerushalmi, and in both cases the grains were enabled to become impure. The reason here is because he is certainly impure, and therefore one cannot separate grain.

Opinion: Rebbi Yehudah found a commentary quoted by Rashi in his handwriting that comments on the fact that one is not allowed to harvest with a Jew etc. He says that even though we hold now that one is allowed to cause impurity to regular crops, as stated in the second part of the Mishnah (Acharonah), this means that it is permitted to do this with a Nochri or Jew who is careful about impurity, as he will only eat it when he is impure. However, one cannot do this with a Jewish evildoer who will end up drinking the wine when he is impure, and he is pressing the grapes for this reason (as well, meaning to drink whenever he wants). Therefore, it is forbidden to help him.

Question: This is difficult. Being that Rebbi Akiva is lenient, the term he uses should be that it is not obligated in Ma'aseros until the peels are floating on top of the wine in the pit.

Question (cont.): We similarly say in Bava Metzia (88b) regarding different gourds that they are obligated in Ma'aseros (when they have their flower fall off). The Gemara asks, this must mean that it is even if this happens when the gourds are still in the field. The Gemara answers, this is only when it happens after they are gathered in the house. The Gemara therefore asks that if this is a leniency, it should state, "(they are not obligated) until the flower falls off" (not when the flower falls off).

Answer: The case in Bava Metzia is different, as there one can mistakenly think that the case is when the flower falls off in the field. However, here there is no such possible mistake, as the only time the peels will rise to the surface is after the wine falls into the pit.

Explanation: This means that from the bottom, meaning from the pit, it is forbidden to even drink in a temporary fashion, as it was established as requiring Ma'aser.

Question: This is difficult. Where is this press? It is presumably in the field, like many of their presses in their days. This is evident from the Mishnah in Bava Basra (71a) that says that if a person sold his field he does not automatically include the press. The Mishnah there does not discuss whether or not a press is included in the sale of a house, indicating it was not normally found in a house.

Question (cont.): If so, we should even permit one to drink temporarily from the pit, as the wine did not yet "see the face of the house" (meaning it was not yet gathered as a finished product to make it liable in Ma'aseros). We say in Bava Metzia (87b) that untithed crops are not obligated in Ma'aseros unless they see the face of the house.

Question (cont.): If you will say that the case here is regarding a press that is inside the house and the grapes were brought there, how can they be established as requiring Ma'aser again? This is as stated regarding produce that was brought into the house with its chaff (that it is not fully obligated in Ma'aseros even though it is in the house).

Answer #1: The case could be where the press is in the field. The case is that he can take from the press and bring it into his house and drink it. This is because as long as it had not yet reached the pit, it is not considered a finished product, and one is not obligated to take Ma'aser from something that "saw the face of the house" unless it is a finished product. However, certainly one cannot take from the pit into his house and drink.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one could say that the case is regarding the press in the house. This is unlike produce, as produce is not usually brought into the house while still in its chaff. This is why produce when in its chaff is not obligated in Ma'aser, even when brought into the house.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, being that wine is often made from grapes that are brought to the house press and are piled up there in order to be processed, the grapes are certainly obligated in Ma'aseros when they are piled up (although they are not obligated when they originally "see the face of the house").

Proof: Proof to this (that something can be obligated in Ma'aseros even though it was brought into the house without being obligated) can be found in Bava Metzia (88b), that when the flower of certain gourds falls off in one's house it is considered the end of their being processed for Ma'aseros, even though he brought the gourds into the house while the flower was still attached.

Observation: Our Mishnah that says, "even though it (i.e. the peels) rose," and from which we deduced that this is referring to the peels rising to the top of the pit, is according to the Rabbanan.

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara answer that our Mishnah means that the wine must go down to the pit and the peels must rise to the surface, just as we answered the first Mishnah?

Answer: It is possible to answer that if so, instead of differentiating in the second part of the Mishnah between the wine that went down (to the pit) and the rest of the wine in the press, we should differentiate between wine in the pit when the peels have separated and when they have not yet separated. Rather, it must be that our Mishnah holds that what is in the pit, even before the peels separate, is forbidden.

Question: The Mishnah in Ma'aseros (1:7) says that even though the peels rose, one can take from the press etc. Instead of differentiating between the pit and the press, it should differentiate between what is in the pit when the peels have separated (i.e. risen) and when they have not yet separated!

Answer: This is difference is indeed correct according to the Mishnah in Ma'aseros (ibid.), as the Tanna states in the beginning of the Mishnah that it only can become Yayin Nesech when the peels separate.

Answer (cont.): However, the second part of the Mishnah includes an added teaching (which is why it focuses on the difference between the pit and the press, instead of differentiating between a separated and not separated pit). Being that wine in the pit that has separated is totally prohibited (if touched by a Nochri), one might think we should also decree that what is in the press and pipe should be forbidden due to what is in the pit. One can easily make a mistake, as if we allow people to drink from the pipe they can easily come to mistakenly drink from the pit. (This is why the Mishnah had to discuss the press, to teach that we do not make such a decree.)

Answer (cont.): However, in our Mishnah which states that the wine cannot become Yayin Nesech until it goes into the pit and does not mention separation of peels at all clearly does not differentiate between separated and not separated peels. If it did, it should have mentioned it! (This reinforces our first answer above that the Mishnah clearly did not hold there was a difference between a separated pit and a pit that was not separated.)

Implied Question: One cannot say that we can also understand from our Mishnah that even though what is in the pit is totally forbidden the rest is permitted, and we do not make a decree that the rest is forbidden. (In other words, perhaps the Mishnah is only emphasizing the pit versus the press to show that we do not make a decree regarding what is in the press, even though it may indeed hold that the wine in the pit only becomes forbidden when the peels separate.)

Answer: This would not be a novel teaching. One certainly has no reason to make a mistake if we permit wine that a Nochri touched in the press to drink what he touched in the pit. This is because the filter basket is between the press and pit, and everyone therefore knows that the filter basket changes it into wine (from a mixture of peels, pit, and juice). On the contrary, it would have been more of a novelty had the Mishnah taught a difference between a pit where the peels have separated and where they have not separated.

Question: Why isn't there a fourth opinion (according to Rava), namely the Mishnah Acharonah?

Answer: Rava considers the Tanna of the Mishnah Rishonah and Mishnah Acharonah one opinion, as the Mishnah Acharonah also holds that when the wine starts to flow or be drawn that it is obligated in Ma'aseros. (The Maharsha says that the Mishnah Rishonah and Mishnah Acharonah were authored by the same person who later retracted his opinion. Accordingly, these are not four different Tanaim. See Maharam, Lechem Starim, and others for other explanations of this Tosfos.)

Explanation: This means that even what is in the press becomes forbidden, because of the drops of wine in the filter basket that become mixed up in the (contents of the) press.

Question: There probably is more than sixty times the amount of wine that fell into the press (from the basket) in the (grapes, peels, and pits that are in the) press. We say later (66a) that if new wine gets mixed up with grapes, Rava says that whether or not it is forbidden depends on whether or not it gives a taste to the grapes. We rule like Rava when he argues with Abaye (who argues on him there).

Implied Question (cont.): You may answer that in the press there is also wine along with the grapes, and therefore the wine from the basket forbids this wine because it is Min b'Mino which means that an item is forbidden with even a little bit of a similar forbidden item, and is not nullified. (This could be why what is in the press is forbidden.)

Answer: You can still ask that the wine (both from the basket and the press) should be considered by itself, and the grape matter in the press should be considered as a separate type of item, which will still be sixty times greater than the wine in the press, and should therefore nullify it

Proof: This is similar to the opinion of Rava in Chulin (100b) regarding pieces of unkosher fish.

Answer #1: Rav Huna holds like Abaye who says that new wine mixed with grapes is forbidden with even a little bit (as we decide whether or not something is Min b'Mino by whether or not they have a similar taste, and new wine has a similar taste to grapes), and that we do not say that we should consider the two similar items separately (wines from the basket and press) from the different item (grape matter).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that in our case there is a lot of wine in the press. The wine becomes forbidden with even a small amount from the filter basket, and therefore even according to Rava everything is forbidden (as there is not sixty times the amount of wine in the grape matter).

Question: This is difficult. According to the first explanation we have given that Rav Huna holds like Abaye, we should not rule like Rav Huna. If a person would accidentally return the contents of the filter basket to the press, we should say that wine of the basket is nullified by the grapes of the press, as we say that we look at the name of the item (which is grapes and not wine, meaning that it is not a case of Min b'Mino, and is therefore nullified with sixty times the amount of the forbidden item).

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam who explains later (73a) that Stam Yayin Nesech, meaning wine which we do not know for sure that it was poured for idolatry, is nullified if there is sixty times more of kosher wine, why should it be prohibited to return the contents of the filter basket? There is probably sixty times more than the amount of the forbidden wine in the grape peels in the press! Even if he holds like Abaye it should be permitted!

Answer: Rav Huna holds like his Rebbi, namely Rav, who the Gemara states in Chulin (100a) shares the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah that Min b'Mino is forbidden in all Torah (and Rabbinic) prohibitions.

Question: If so (that what is in the basket is forbidden due to Nitzuk with the pit), what is in the press should also be forbidden due to Nitzuk (as its flow goes through the basket)!

Answer: The press is different, as this would be Nitzuk bar Nitzuk (a flow connected to a flow), being that from the press to basket is one flow, and from the basket to the pit is a different flow.

Opinion #1: This is why the Rivan, Rashbam, and Rabeinu Tam in the name of Rashi rule that even according to the opinion that Nitzuk is a connection, Nitzuk bar Nitzuk, as in our case, is not a connection.

Question: This should be considered one flow, being that the basket has many holes in it, and the wine flows from the press straight into the pit!

Answer: Being that the holes of the basket are not made straight, but are rather on the sides of the basket, it is not considered one straight flow.

Observation: An incident was told to Rashi regarding a Nochri who spilled some wine from a bottle into a cup. What was spilled into the cup is clearly prohibited, as the Rabbanan decreed that anything that was poured out by a Nochri is decreed prohibited. This is as stated later (72b). The wine in the bottle is also prohibited due to the flow connecting it to the cup. Afterwards, the Jew poured wine from a barrel into the bottle (containing the forbidden wine). Rashi permitted the barrel of wine.

Observation (cont.): Rashi explained that being that the wine in the bottle was only prohibited due to Nitzuk, the wine in the barrel would only be Nitzuk bar Nitzuk, which is permitted.

Opinion #2: The Ri Baram pushed aside this proof (from our Gemara). He explains that Nitzuk bar Nitzuk is a connection. The reason we do not forbid the wine in the press due to Nitzuk is because what is in the press is not yet called wine, and is only considered water. This is apparent from the fact that if a Nochri touches it directly, it is still not forbidden.

Question: If so, why is the wine in the basket forbidden if it is not yet called wine? After all, we are currently discussing the opinion of the Mishnah Rishonah which says that until it goes into the pit it cannot become forbidden!

Answer: The cases are incomparable. Whatever is on the bottom of the basket is considered like the wine in the pit, and will therefore be forbidden due to Nitzuk. Certainly if a Nochri touched that wine, it would be forbidden.

Question: If so, how does the Gemara know that what is in the basket is forbidden due to Nitzuk? Perhaps it is forbidden because a Nochri touched the bottom part of the basket when it was flowing?

Answer: If so, Rav Huna should have explained that this was the case. However, returning the contents of the basket that the Nochri touched to the press is forbidden. Being that he did not explain that this was the case, the Gemara understands that it is obvious that it is because of Nitzuk.

Question: There is another difficulty based on what Rashi explained in the Mishnah regarding the rest being permitted, that only what is in the pit is forbidden if touched by a Nochri. If so, how can we prove from here that Nitzuk bar Nitzuk is not a connection?

Question (cont.): Perhaps it is a connection, and the Mishnah is different as the basket is certainly not connecting the press to the pit, as the pit has its own law, and is not included in what is in the press. What is in the basket is forbidden if the pit is touched by a Nochri, unlike what is in the press that cannot be forbidden by being touched by a Nochri. (The obvious question on Tosfos is how is this question different than (g). The Avodah Berurah (see at length) quotes different explanations of this question of Tosfos.)

Observation: However, the Rashbam (55a, end of DH "Yarad") explained that what is in the pit is forbidden without being touched by a Nochri, as it becomes forbidden by the Nochri's "strength," meaning his pressing the grapes and causing the wine to flow into the pit. The Rashbam said that what is in the pit is not forbidden due to the stomping of the Nochri, because it is not yet called wine. Even the flow until the pit is not forbidden due to the pressing of the Nochri.

Proof: This is clearly true, as otherwise, how is it clear that that the basket is forbidden through Nitzuk (from the pit)? Perhaps this is due to the pressing of the Nochri (in the press)? Rather, it is clear that this pressing does not forbid anything until it reaches the pit. However, due to Nitzuk we can forbid what is in the basket.

Proof (cont.): This is apparent from the Gemara later (72b) which says that the Rabbanan did not decree that what is in the vessel is forbidden. The Gemara says that this is only according to the opinion that Nitzuk is not a connection. However, according to the opinion that Nitzuk is a connection, what is in the bottle is also forbidden. If so, why is the basket different than a press in that it is forbidden through Nitzuk? Rather, it must be that Nitzuk bar Nitzuk is not a connection.

Explanation: One must explain Rav Huna according to this explanation as saying as follows. We only learned that if the contents of the basket were not returned to the press that there is a prohibition on the wine in the pit, but there is no prohibition on the wine in the press. This is because the basket separates between the pit and press, and therefore makes it Nitzuk bar Nitzuk. However, if one returns the contents of the basket to the press, the wine in the press is forbidden through its mixing with the lower flow.

Explanation (cont.): According to this explanation, neither Rav Huna nor the Mishnah had to mention the touching of a Nochri.

Observation: An incident was told to Rebbi Menachem regarding a barrel where the wine was full until the spout. The Nochri picked up the barrel himself, and at that time the Jew pulled the spout and wine went into the bottle of the Jew. Rebbi Menachem permitted the wine that remained in the barrel, but forbade the wine that went out of the barrel (into the bottle).

Observation (cont.): This is as we say later (72b) that if someone pours from a barrel into a pit, the flow that comes out of the barrel and below that is forbidden. We established that this is referring to a Nochri who pours. The Gemara asks, if so, even what is in the barrel should be prohibited! The Gemara answers, the force of a Nochri is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law. What went out of the barrel is decreed forbidden by the Rabbanan, not what stays inside the barrel. Accordingly, Rebbi Menachem ruled that what is in the barrel is permitted.

Question: Didn't Rav Chisda say later (72b) that when the wine is being poured, one should stop the flow from the top source before the bottom of the flow hits the vessel of the Nochri, in order that it should not be a flow. This indicates that if the flow would continue, the wine that remains in the barrel would be prohibited!

Answer: This is not difficult. In that case, it is clear that the wine that was present in the vessel of the Nochri (beforehand) was actual Yayin Nesech. Accordingly, if the flow would not be stopped the wine in the barrel indeed would be prohibited through Nitzuk, as the flow goes into Yayin Nesech which is in a vessel of a Nochri.

Answer (cont.): However, here that the wine in the vessel is not actual Yayin Nesech, rather it is only forbidden due to the force of the Nochri, the wine that went outside the barrel is not forbidden due to Nitzuk. This is because it only connected to wine that was forbidden due to the force of Nochrim, and it was not connected to actual Yayin Nesech.

Question: This is difficult. Perhaps Nitzuk is indeed a connection, as Rav Huna explicitly states (72a) that Nitzuk and Katafras (liquid that does not flow directly down like water that is poured, but rather flows continuously down a slope such as rocks and hills) are a connection regarding Yayin Nesech!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that Rav Huna (must have) retracted his opinion.

Proof: Based on this proof, he ruled that even on Nitzuk is not considered a connection, as we will explain later, G-d willing.

Observation: One must inquire regarding the following matter. Being that he did not ask whether or not a Nochri can press with a Jew, this implies that his case is regarding a Nochri owned press. He did not ask in order to permit Jews to drink the wine, but rather to make it permitted for benefit.

Observation (cont.): The case is also where his hands are tied (so he cannot pour the wine to idols), as explained. The question is whether or not a Nochri's intent to pour with his feet is considered pouring that will make the wine forbidden from benefit.

Observation (cont.): It must be that this question was based on an actual incident. If he asked him merely to rule what the law is in this case, he should have answered that one should not press together with a Nochri, as is stated by the Mishnah Acharonah.

Observation (cont.): Rather, he must certainly have asked him regarding an incident that happened, and his answer was according to the Mishnah Acharonah, as I explained.

Question: Being that the wine started to be drawn from the press, it is considered real wine according to the Mishnah Acharonah. Why shouldn't the wine of the press be forbidden from benefit according to the opinion that Nitzuk bar Nitzuk is a connection through the wine of the pit which is forbidden from benefit? (In Tosfos DH "Gargavasni" above in (g), the reason given was that the wine in the press is not wine. Tosfos is asking that being that it is considered wine according to the Mishnah Acharonah, what is the reason why it should be permitted?)

Answer: Nitzuk of this type, where the Nochri is not touching the pit and he is only involved in stepping on the grapes, does not cause the wine to be forbidden from benefit.

Proof: This is obviously true, as we say later (74a) that wine of a Jew that is mixed up with wine of a Nochri should be sold to a Nochri without having benefit from the value of the Yayin Nesech. This implies that even if the wines became totally mixed up, they are not forbidden from benefit. However, certainly if the Nochri touched the end of the flow of wine, it is as if he touched the top part of the flow of wine and it is therefore forbidden from benefit.

Observation: The Ri says that this is not exactly similar to the incident of the child (stated previously in the Gemara), as that child only wanted to say that the wine should be permitted for benefit. Being that the pit belonged to a Nochri, he was only saying it was permitted for benefit. Shmuel is saying in his case that this should even be permitted for drinking, being that in his case the pit belonged to a Jew. The cases are similar in that the Nisuch was only done with the feet of Nochrim.