Question: Isn't there a Tana in our Mishnah (60b) who says that if a Nochri measured the wine with a reed it should be sold? This implies that if he measured it with his hand, it would be forbidden from benefit!

Answer: According to the Mishnah (ibid.), it would similarly be permitted to benefit from if it was measured with his hand. When it says he measured it with a reed, it only says this due to Rebbi Shimon who says it is permitted to drink it because he only touched it with a reed (and not with his hand). (However, according to the Tana Kama, in both cases it would be permitted for benefit but not for drinking.)

Text #1: Some want to erase the text "Aimur (or Aimar)." Being that it says, "Aimur" this implies that Rebbi Nasan did not explain in his words that there is a difference between a Nochri's hand or foot. However, this is incorrect, being that this was clearly explained in his words (in the previous line of the Gemara).

Text #2: The Ri explains our text. Originally, the Gemara thought that Rebbi Nasan forbids the wine when a Nochri measures with his hand because if he shakes the wine with his hand it is forbidden according to the letter of the law. However, measuring with one's foot should be permitted, as one cannot say this should be forbidden due to shaking with his hand.

Text #2: However, if one shakes the wine with his foot we should decree that it should be forbidden due to shaking with one's hand and stomping with one's foot that are forbidden. This should be similar to shaking with one's foot.

Text #2: The Gemara therefore says that Rebbi Nasan only explicitly stated that measuring with one's hand is forbidden due to shaking with one's hand. However, he never explicitly said that shaking with one's foot is forbidden. It is possible he holds that there is no decree that this is forbidden, and it is permitted because it is similar to measuring with one's foot which is permitted.

Opinion: Rashi explains that the wine he touched would even be considered permitted for drinking because he did not intend to pour it. This is as the Mishnah later (60b) states that if he fell into the pit and got up etc. it should be sold, while Rebbi Shimon permits the wine. This mean he allows one to even drink this wine, as he holds that when a Nochri touches wine when there is clearly no intent on his part to pour it to idolatry, one can drink it.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks that perhaps Rebbi Shimon only permits such wine to be drunk if the Nochri touches the wine via another object, such as when he is measuring it with a reed. However, when he touches it with his body, as in our case when he is stomping it with his feet, how do we know that Rebbi Shimon holds it is permitted to drink this wine? (The Lechem Starim explains that stomping with his feet is worse than falling into the pit, as stomping is with intent to touch the wine, unlike falling in accidentally where one has no intent at all to touch the wine. This is why the case of falling in is not proof that Rebbi Shimon would hold stomping does not forbid the wine.)

Answer #1: Shmuel understands according to Rebbi Shimon that shaking the wine with one's feet is only like measuring with a reed that is in one's hand. In both cases Rebbi Shimon holds it is permitted to drink the wine.

Answer #2: It is also possible to say that Shmuel understands that whenever Rebbi Shimon states that one can benefit from wine, he also holds that one can drink the wine. Being that Rebbi Shimon did not forbid wine where a Nochri measured it with his foot from benefit, he also must hold it is permitted to drink it.

Text #1: According to this text, we consider a Nochri touching wine using an object the same as a Nochri touching wine with his body. Being that here he does so without intent, it is permitted to benefit from the wine.

Observation #1: It is therefore understandable that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi compare him to a baby who is one day old.

Observation #2: Similarly, this makes the Gemara later (58b) understandable as well. The Gemara asks, didn't he touch the cup? This means that he drew water from the barrel with a cup, and he touched the cup. This is therefore touching wine through an object without intent, which is forbidden to drink, just like if he touched it with the top of a palm branch.

Observation #3: Similarly, the Gemara later (60b) regarding whatever a Zav makes impure (a Nochri makes Yayin Nesech in that fashion) etc. This means that if a Nochri touches wine, whether he does so with his hand or a reed, he causes it to become Yayin Nesech, just as a Zav would make something impure if he touched it in this fashion.

Observation (cont.): This indicates that a Nochri who touches wine using an object is the same as a Nochri who touches wine with his body.

Observation (cont.): The Gemara continues that whatever is pure regarding a Zav does not cause Yayin Nesech if done by a Nochri. This means that if, for example, he touches the wine by throwing something into it, it does not become Yayin Nesech.

Observation (cont.): The Gemara asks a question on this from the case of a Nochri who took a barrel and threw it in anger into a pit, where the ruling was that it was permitted. The Gemara asks that this indicates it was only permitted because it was in anger. This is despite the fact that it was thrown (implying that throwing could cause Yayin Nesech)! The Gemara concludes that the case is where it was rolling close to the pit of wine.

Observation (cont.): Rashi explains that this means that the item was rolling close to the pit, and it was not really thrown (it was close to touching the wine beforehand). Therefore, if he would not be angry it would be prohibited, as it would be considered that he touched it through something else.

Question #1: This is difficult. It is bewildering to say that his touching through something else without intent is considered to have the same law as his touching with his body without intent, and that both forbid the wine to be drunk.

Question #1 (cont.): All of the laws quoted later indicate that this is even permitted for drinking. This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara answers later regarding the question of the cup (that the Nochri poured) involving Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yosi that this is only necessary because he spilled it. This means that it is considered wine that was moved due to the force of the Nochri (who did not know it was wine according to the lenient opinion), and the Rabbanan did not decree the wine is forbidden in such a case, and it therefore may even be drunk.

Question #2: There is another difficulty. Why would Rav Kahana and Rav Asi have thought to forbid the wine from benefit? The Mishnah explicitly states that if a Nochri measures the wine with a reed it can be sold according to the Rabbanan. This is despite the fact that a Nochri touched the wine with an object on purpose.

Answer: However, this second question is not difficult, as perhaps they thought that Rav holds like Rebbi Nasan who says that if the Nochri measured with his hand it is forbidden from benefit. He must understand that the measuring with a reed or touching of a reed is similar to measuring or touching with one's hand.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when measuring one has intent to measure, while when the Nochri touched the wine with the top of the palm branch, he did not intend to touch the wine.

Answer: Even so, they thought that Rebbi Nasan would not differentiate between a case where he did not intend to touch and a case where he did not intend to pour. Rebbi Nasan would say that in both cases the wine is forbidden from benefit.

Answer: Rav answered them that I only say this is forbidden to drink, not forbidden from benefit. This means that Rav explained to them that even Rebbi Nasan would agree that this is not forbidden from benefit, being that there is no intent to touch the wine.

Question #3: However, there is a contradiction in Rav. How can he say here regarding the top of the palm tree touching the wine that it is forbidden to drink it? He himself rules like Rebbi Shimon who says that even if a Nochri intends to touch it, being that it is through something else it is permitted! Certainly Rebbi Shimon would be lenient in this case when there is no intent to touch it!

Question #4: There is another difficulty from the Gemara later that says that the item was near the pit. This means that the Nochri touched the barrel until it fell into the pit. This is why they said the wine is permitted if he did so when he was angry, being that this is considered a Nochri who touches without intent through something else. This is despite the fact that he touched it until it fell in the pit.

Question: One cannot push this aside by saying that he did not hold it in his hand until it was close to the pit, but afterwards he threw it, as this is not implied by the words "Minei u'Minei."

Question: Additionally, if he does not hold it when it is going into the pit, how can the Gemara deduce that if he was not angry it would not be permitted, meaning that it would be forbidden to drink? In such a case, a Zav would not make it impure! (We stated earlier that the way a Zav makes something impure is the same way that something becomes Yayin Nesech.)

Text #2: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Tam that the correct text is that of Rabeinu Chananel, the Bahag, and that which is found in the Teshuvos of the Gaonim that we do not have the text "with the top of the palm branch" but rather "he touched the wine." This is why Rav forbids drinking the wine, as the Nochri touched the wine with his body without intent.

Text #1: Later, the text should not read, "Didn't he touch it with the cup?" Rather, it should read, "Didn't he touch it?"

Text #2: Alternatively, we can explain that "Didn't he touch" refers to the wine in the cup which is totally full. However, if he would touch the wine merely through touching the cup, this would not be a problem at all, as it would even be permitted for drinking.

Implied Question: The Mishnah states that if a Nochri measured with a reed, it should be sold. (Why isn't this permitted for drinking?)

Answer: That case is different, as his intention is to touch the vessel (which makes the wine unfit for drinking).

Explanation: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi thought that Rav forbids wine when a Nochri touches it without intent to touch it because they understood that Rav holds like Rebbi Nasan who forbids measuring with his hand. They thought that the law would be the same even if he does not intend to touch it.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam indeed practically ruled that when a Nochri touched wine through touching something else without intending to touch the wine that it was permitted to drink the wine.

Explanation: This means that one cannot drink this wine.

Question: Being that Rav later rules like Rebbi Shimon, why should the touching of a child who is one day old be different than a Nochri who accidentally falls into a pit of wine and climbs out, which Rebbi Shimon says is permitted?

Answer: Rav understands that it is appropriate to decree that the touching of a child and his shaking the wine should be forbidden due to the same act of an older person causing the wine to be forbidden. However, when a person falls into a pit of wine, it is quite obvious that he did so by accident, and therefore there is no reason to decree that the wine is forbidden.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that (the Beraisa means) that one does not make Yayin Nesech to forbid it from benefit, as is the case with wine touched by adults, but it is forbidden for one to drink the wine of these minors?

Answer #1: Being that the Beraisa did not explicitly make this distinction, it implies that the wine touched by minors is also not forbidden to drink.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the phrase, "does not make (a status of Yayin Nesech)" indicates that it is even permitted to drink it. This is similar to Rav's statement, as Rav said, "it makes Yayin Nesech."

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asked that Rav should answer that being that they have a Bris the law is different, as regarding impurity the Beraisa itself states that they are pure because the Bris is effective!

Answer: The Ri answers that impurity is different, as the Rabbanan suspected that Taharos will be lost. However, regarding other Rabbinic concepts we hold that they are not considered converts until they both have a Bris and immerse in the Mikvah.

Explanation: This implies that we should forbid the wine of the sons of the maidservants just as we forbid the wine of the minor servants.

Question: Why doesn't Rav answer that the term "similarly" refers to the adults, meaning that adult sons of the maidservants are the same as the adult servants?

Answer #1: The implication of "similarly" is that it is referring to everyone mentioned, both the adults and the minors.

Answer #2: Additionally, he holds that there is no need to address the adults who are familiar with the nature of idolatry and how it is served, and to therefore say regarding them, "Similarly etc."

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that "similarly" is referring to the implication of the Beraisa? It would mean that he is considered pure in the marketplace, but in the house he would be impure.

Answer: It is not logical for him to say that "similarly" is referring to what is indicated by being pure in the marketplace (that he is impure in the house).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding the Beraisa's statement that he servants had a Bris but did not go to the Mikvah, the Gemara indeed answers that the point is to address the implication of this statement. (Why is this a good answer there, but not here?)

Answer: Even so, they are not comparable, as the Beraisa is explicitly discussing the topic of having a Bris and going to the Mikvah. However, it is not referring explicitly at all to being impure in the house.

Question: Why are we forced to answer that according to the opinion whose text in the Beraisa is "pure," the word "similarly" refers to the implication (that servants are like the sons of maidservants)? Let the Gemara answer that it is referring to their spit and things they sit on! The Beraisa would mean that similarly regarding servants their spit and sitting on things in the marketplace are pure just as this is true regarding the sons of their servants.

Answer: The Beraisa would not have had to say "similarly" to teach us this, as it is obvious that one cannot mistakenly say that their spit and sitting on things is pure is not the same regarding the servants as regarding the sons of the maidservants.

Answer (cont.): If it would teach us this, why would servants be discussed at all unless it was to state that their spit and their sitting on things are pure in the marketplace? We already stated that the Beraisa's statement that minors do not make Yayin Nesech does not have to do with servants (and this cannot be the reason why they are discussed in the Mishnah).

Opinion: The Ri explains that we say this (that they still make wine into Yayin Nesech until they stop referring to idols) specifically regarding servants.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they must willingly go to a Mikvah and have a Bris, as stated in Yevamos (48a) that just as you do not give a Bris to a person against his will so too you do not give a Bris to a servant against his will. (If they fully convert, why should they make wine into Yayin Nesech?)

Answer: Even so, they are scared of their master and therefore do not convert with a complete heart. However, Nochrim who out of their own free will have a Bris and go to the Mikvah are considered immediately to no longer mention the name of idols, and are allowed to touch our wine right after they convert.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara say that the Beraisa's indication that there is a difference between whether or not the person went to the Mikvah is only regarding their spit and sitting on things? The Beraisa would mean that they only cause impurity if they had a Bris but did not yet go to the Mikvah, as opposed to if they had a Bris and had went to the Mikvah. It does not have to be referring to Yayin Nesech at all (as the discussion regarding Yayin Nesech is only at the end of the Beraisa)!

Answer: It is better for the Gemara to answer according to the first opinion mentioned in the Gemara that this does have to do with Yayin Nesech.

Implied Question: It appears that it could have said, "and similarly" is like other places where this word is used. It means here that just as adult servants make wine Yayin Nesech, so too adult sons of maidservants make wine Yayin Nesech. (Why didn't the Gemara say this?)

Answer: It is better for the Gemara to answer according to the first opinion mentioned in the Gemara.

Observation: Now we see that according to the opinion that the text in the Beraisa is "pure," Shmuel does not agree with Rav who says that a child who is one day old makes Yayin Nesech.

Observation (cont.): If so, this Beraisa is unlike Rav. Rather, Shmuel understands that a day old child does not make Yayin Nesech, and one can even drink the wine he touches.

Observation (cont.): Similarly, this law applies to children who do not know about the nature of idolatry. When Rav discussed a day old child, he did not specifically mean a day old child.

Observation (cont.): Adult servants, even though they received a Bris and went to the Mikvah, must wait twelve months for the name of idols to be removed from their lips.

Opinion: The Bahag ruled unlike Rav regarding a day old child. Rabeinu Chananel also ruled like Shmuel that we require the name of idols to be removed from the lips of an adult servant, as this is how Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explained Shmuel's statement.

Opinion (cont.): The Ri once found a commentary of the students of Rabeinu Tam who ruled that the law follows Shmuel, being that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like him. We know that the law follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi over Rebbi Yochanan, and certainly over Rav or Shmuel, as the law is unlike Rav or Shmuel when they argue with Rebbi Yochanan.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, the Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim, written by the hand of ha'Rav ha'Gadol Rav Yosef Tav Alam, always rules like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in every instance. Rabeinu Tam also brought many proofs to this, and they also seem correct (the Chasam Sofer said that the correct text in Tosfos is "Niru" - "appear correct" not "Nidchu" - "pushed aside").

Opinion: Additionally, Rabeinu Tam ruled like the version of the Beraisa that their spit and sitting in the marketplace is permitted, as regarding Rabbinic issues one should be lenient. According to this opinion, Shmuel argues with Rav regarding a child who is one day old.

Opinion #1: The Rashbam and Rivan say in the name of Rashi that it is written in the Teshuvas Ha'Gaonim that nowadays there is no prohibition from benefit when a Nochri touches wine. This is because Nochri today don't usually pour wine for idols. They are therefore considered like people who do not know about the nature of idolatry and what is used for idolatry, and they are therefore like a one day old child. This is what we rely on when we collect wines of Nochrim as payment for debts that they owe us.

Question: The Ri sent a message to Rabeinu Tam that he should realize that due to him, his father, and his brother people are permitting wine touched by Nochrim, and they are even permitting the drinking of this wine.

Question (cont.): This is because your brother Rabeinu Shmuel says in the name of your "father" (i.e. grandfather), Rashi, that Nochrim today are only considered like a one day old child. You rule regarding a one day old child like Shmuel, who says that a one day old child does not even cause wine that he touches to be forbidden for drinking. (Putting the two together, one should be able to drink wine touched by Nochrim nowadays!)

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam answered that the student who wrote that Rashi ruled like Shmuel was hasty to rule in this fashion. Heaven forfend that he should even think such a thing! Rather, we rule like Rav over Shmuel regarding prohibitions (as opposed to monetary law). Accordingly, a day old child indeed makes Yayin Nesech regarding the prohibition of drinking the wine. Nochrim nowadays are indeed like a day old child, as Rashi ruled.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The law also does not follow Shmuel regarding servants who had a Bris but did not go to the Mikvah that they require twelve months to no longer mention the name of idols (until they do not cause Yayin Nesech). This is because the Beraisa compares Shmuel's opinion to the opinion that the text of the Beraisa is "pure," while we rule like Rav regarding the child.

Proof: The custom in Germany was that servants touched wine immediately after they would have a Bris and go to the Mikvah.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi apparently holds like Shmuel (and therefore we should not rule like Rav, as mentioned above in b1). (Why not?)

Answer: Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is not explaining the words of Shmuel, as he was older than Shmuel.

Answer: His statement was regarding the Gemara in Yevamos (48b) that discussed a person who bought a slave from Nochrim. The Gemara said that he can try to convince him to convert for twelve months (Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explained that this was to get the name of idols out of his mouth). The Gemara used Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement there in order to explain Shmuel's statement (but Rebbi Yehoshua did not in fact state this regarding Shmuel's law).

Question: However, the Ri asked that even if we will say that Rashi ruled like Rav that a one day old child does make Yayin Nesech, how can we permit having benefit from wine touched by Nochrim based on this? What does one thing have to do with the other?

Question (cont.): Our ruling that one can have benefit from wine touched by a child is due to the fact that the child does not even intend to touch the wine. If so, Nochrim today who do have intent to touch the wine should even cause the wine to be forbidden from benefit! We must hold that intent to touch without intent to pour is more cause to make Yayin Nesech than no intent to touch at all, as I explained earlier (see 57a, Tosfos #4) regarding the tip of the palm branch according to Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion #3: Rabeinu Tam retracted his opinion (that we can compare today's wine touched by a Nochri to the law regarding a child), and said that certainly from the Halachos it is not clear that we can permit having benefit from wine touched by a Nochri or even from wine owned by a Nochri.

Opinion #3 (cont.): We can only permit selling it to the Nochri himself, as Rav Ashi says later (59b) that taking money from the Nochri who poured it is permitted. Why is this? This is because it is as if he burned it. Alternatively, that Nochri can sell it to other Nochrim, just as he would sell it for himself.

Opinion #3 (cont.): Rabeinu Tam testified regarding Rabeinu Meir, his father, that once he happened to have some Yayin Nesech (i.e. wine touched by a Nochri) and he destroyed it. Even so, Rabeinu Tam did not want to proclaim that one cannot have benefit from wine touched by a Nochri today, being that the custom is to be lenient. Additionally, it is better to leave Bnei Yisrael alone in such a topic so that they should transgress the law accidentally and not on purpose.

Opinion #3 (cont.): However, he brought a partial proof that upholds this custom (see text of Bach in Tosfos). We can suggest that their touching is like a Nochri who measures the barrel with a reed. We say regarding such wine that it should be sold, being that there is no intent to pour the wine (see Mishnah 60b). Even if we will compare it to measuring with one's hand it is permitted according to the Rabbanan who say it can be sold (57a).

Opinion #3 (cont.): Rebbi Nasan only forbids wine measured with a Nochri's hand because he decreed that it should be forbidden due to wine shaken by a Nochri's hand (which is forbidden according to the letter of the law), which if he does so he could be pouring it for idolatry. However, nowadays even if a Nochri shakes wine he does not intend to pour it for idolatry, and therefore even Rebbi Nasan would admit that it is permitted to have benefit from such wine.

Question: Being that Chazal decreed that a Nochri who pours wine has made it forbidden, it would seem that this is something which has been decreed forbidden by a group of scholars, and would therefore require another group of scholars (who are greater in wisdom and numbers) to permit it!

Answer: The decree was only regarding people who pour such wine for idols. Being that nowadays nobody does so, one can understand that such wine is permitted.

Proof: Proof can be brought to this from the Gemara later (65a) that states that Rava sent a present to Bar Sheishach on his holiday. He said, "I know that he does not bow down to idols." Despite the fact that even transactions with Nochrim were prohibited on their holidays by a group of scholars, Rava did not need another group of scholars to permit dealing with those who do not thank idols (for their good fortune), as the original decree certainly did not include such people.

Question: However, it is difficult to understand how we can permit having benefit from wine owned by Nochrim, being that the decree was due to the fact that this promotes intermarriage. Nowadays, this reason is still applicable!

Answer: The decree that wine owned by Nochrim is even forbidden from benefit, which is more stringent than the decree against their bread and oil, is because it is common for Nochrim to pour the wine for idolatry. However, now that Nochrim do not pour wine for idolatry as they do not know much about idolatry, their wine is similar to bread, oil, or Bishul Akum (food cooked by Nochrim) and is only forbidden to be consumed, not forbidden from benefit. One who would like to be stringent in this matter (as was Rabeinu Tam's father, see h2 above) should receive a blessing.