Explanation: Rashi explains that this refers to a barrel of Yayin Nesech that is mixed with one thousand barrels. This is as we state later in the Gemara that it is considered a Davar she'b'Minyan (and it is not Batel).

Explanation (cont.): The case of Avodas Kochavim refers to an image of idolatry that is mixed with one thousand other (permitted) images. The case of Basar b'Chalav refers to a piece of meat that was cooked in milk and became forbidden due to the taste being apparent, which then became mixed up with one thousand other pieces of kosher meat. All of these (i.e. the items in these cases) are forbidden.

Observation: The Tana of our Mishnah holds that Basar b'Chalav is forbidden from benefit. This is apparent from our Gemara, as the Tana only mentions two factors: being forbidden from benefit and Davar she'b'Minyan. There is indeed an argument in Chulin (116a) regarding whether or not Basar b'Chalav is forbidden from benefit.

Opinion: The teachers of Rashi want to rule based on our Mishnah that even a little Basar b'Chalav forbids a mixture. They explains that when our Mishnah says that even a little bit causes the mixture to be forbidden, it means that if a drop of milk fell on a big piece of meat it causes it to be forbidden even though it does not provide taste. Alternatively, a small piece of meat that fell into a big pot of milk would cause the pot to be forbidden, even if the meat did not give taste to the milk.

Question #1: This is a mistake. The Gemara explains that our Mishnah is only referring to a Davar she'b'Minyan, such as a (significant) piece mixed with other pieces. The only reason it is not Batel is because these pieces of meat are usually counted (giving them the states of a Davar she'b'Minyan which is not Batel). If this is referring to a drop of milk or a small piece of meat, it is not a Davar she'b'Minyan!

Question #2: Additionally, we concluded earlier (73b) that any prohibitions in the Torah are forbidden if they give taste (not less than that). Even Rav and Shmuel who say that Min b'Mino is forbidden with a small amount will agree regarding Min b'She'aino Mino (that it is dependent on taste).

Question #3: Additionally, in the entire discussion of this subject in the Gemara in Chulin in Perek Kol ha'Basar, the Gemara states that Basar b'Chalav is prohibited when there is a taste given by the milk to the meat (or by the meat to the milk).

Question: The Gemara earlier asked, "Let it say a piece of Neveilah (as well)!" Why didn't it answer that the Mishnah in Chulin (96b) already stated that a piece of Neveilah that was mixed up in one thousand pieces of meat cause all of the pieces to be forbidden?

Answer: Certainly one cannot give this answer regarding a piece of Neveilah. Even though the Mishnah does state this in Chulin, it should have stated it here again, just as it lists Basar b'Chalav.

Implied Question: One cannot say that this is coming to teach us that a small amount of milk will forbid a piece of meat.

Answer: The Mishnah must only be talking about a significant piece of meat. If it would be a small piece of meat, obviously the milk would be Batel.

Implied Question: One cannot say that Basar b'Chalav is not Batel because it is forbidden from benefit, even though it is not a significant piece of meat (and this is why even a small amount forbids the mixture). (Why not?)

Answer: Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem are forbidden from benefit, and even so we say that they are Batel b'Ma'asayim (two hundred).

Answer (cont.): Rather, it must be that the Mishnah is discussing a significant piece of meat, like that discussed in the Mishnah in Chulin (ibid.). It therefore should have mentioned it again, even though it was already stated there. This is why the Gemara asks, why doesn't the Mishnah mention a piece of Neveilah?

Question: The case of Yayin Nesech stated in our Mishnah is apparently regarding closed barrels, being that it has two characteristics (of being a Davar she'b'Minyan and forbidden from benefit). If so, why is it stated here? "Closed barrels" was already stated in the Mishnah in Orlah (3:7)!

Answer #1: It must be that this is telling us a stringency that it even applies to Stam Yayin, even though it is only a Rabbinic prohibition.

Answer #2: It is also possible to say that it is imperative to say the case of Yayin Nesech in our Mishnah, as this is the subject the Mishnah deals with in this chapter. This is why it is repeated, even though it was already stated in other places. However, other things that are only listed as an aside to the case of Yayin Nesech, I say they were not deemed necessary to say here because they were said elsewhere.

Observation: It would seem that the Gemara implies that a small amount of such things (that are a Davar she'b'Minyan but not forbidden from benefit) do not forbid a mixture.

Observation (cont.): This means that our Mishnah argues on a Mishnah in Chulin (100a). The Mishnah there states that a piece of Neveilah is not nullified because it is a Davar she'b'Minyan. This is despite the fact that it is not forbidden from benefit.

Question: This is difficult. If this is so, our Gemara should have quoted the Mishnah in Chulin (ibid.) and asked that it contradicts our Mishnah!

Answer: It therefore seems to me that when our Gemara says that our Mishnah excludes (things that are a Davar she'b'Minyan but not forbidden from benefit), it means that it did not bother listing things that are only a Davar she'b'Minyan and not forbidden from benefit. It only listed things that have both characteristics.

Proof: We similarly find that this is the intent of the Gemara in Bava Kama (5a) which says that this (number of Avos Nezikin) excludes a Moser (one who informs on Jews) and Mefagel (one who causes a Korban to become Pigul, causing a loss to its owner). It means that although these are Avos Nezikin, the Beraisa does not list them because they are not similar to those listed. (The Avodah Berurah explains that their uniqueness is that a Moser damages with words and a Mefagel is dealing with Kodshim, unlike any of the other forms of damages in the list.)

Explanation: This answer certainly excludes a small amount of items forbidden from benefit from forbidding a mixture, being that they are not a Davar she'b'Minyan as explained later.

Question: This is difficult. The exclusion of the second part of the Mishnah is not the same as the exclusion of the first part of the Mishnah! While the first part of the Mishnah is not involved in listing things that are a Davar she'b'Minyan and not forbidden from benefit, it still agrees that even a small amount of them can forbid a mixture.

Question (cont.): However, the second part of the Mishnah practically excludes a small amount of items forbidden from benefit from forbidding a mixture, as I have explained!

Answer: Perhaps one can answer that the second part of the Mishnah merely does not list items forbidden from benefit because they are not also a Davar she'b'Minyan (and the topic is only items that are also a Davar she'b'Minyan). However, practically it agrees that even a little bit of them could forbid a mixture.

Answer (cont.): For example, Chametz on Pesach is forbidden from benefit, and even a little bit forbids a mixture even if it is not a Davar she'b'Minyan. Even a small amount of a mixture of Chametz can forbid a mixture.

Answer (cont.): Now this is understandable, as the exclusion of the first and second parts of the Mishnah are regarding two things that the Gemara asked about (previously), namely a piece of Neveilah and Chametz on Pesach.

Observation: However, this is only according to Rav who says in Pesachim (29b) that even a small amount of Chametz (on Pesach) forbids a mixture.

Question: Does Rav (see Avodah Berurah that many Acharonim understand "Rav" is the correct text) argue on a Stam Mishnah that says that even a little Yayin Nesech forbids a mixture? We established that this is referring to a barrel of Yayin Nesech that is mixed among other barrels of regular wine, and that it forbids even if it is a small amount!

Answer: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel understands that each barrel cannot be sold separately being that the Yayin Nesech is not Batel. However, certainly one can sell the entire lot at once and not benefit from the value of the barrel of Yayin Nesech.

Explanation: If these items are made of wood or stone he should (first rinse then) dry them, and this is how they are purified. This is referring to items that were not coated with pitch. The Gemara later explains that the case is where the Nochri stepped on grapes in this press.

Question: Rava said earlier regarding the Mishnah that if a Nochri stepped on the grapes in the press, it only required rinsing!

Answer: The Mishnah earlier was referring to a press belonging to a Jew in which a Nochri temporarily stepped on grapes. However, this case is referring to a press belonging to a Nochri that had absorbed a lot of Yayin Nesech, being that the Nochri had pressed grapes there many times.

Question: If so, how can the Gemara ask later from our Mishnah that says that it is enough to (rinse, see Gemara later as to how, and) dry barrels coated with pitch, on a Beraisa that says that if they were coated with pitch they are forbidden? What is the question? The Mishnah is referring to the press of a Jew, while the Beraisa is referring to the press of a Nochri, as we have explained!

Answer: If the press is coated with pitch, there is no reason to differentiate between whether it is owner by a Nochri or a Jew. This is because pitch absorbs in a small amount of time.

Explanation: Rabeinu Peter explains that this refers to a vessel that has a hole which is sealed with pitch. Its law is not as stringent as a vessel that is totally coated with pitch, regarding which Chazal stated that even if it is used temporarily for Yayin Nesech it must be kashered because it is commonly used for storage. The reason was not because it absorbs.

Explanation (cont.): This is why Rav wanted to permit a stone press coated in pitch that was smooth, and he did not suspect that the pitch would absorb the wine.

Explanation (cont.): If so, it is enough for an area of a vessel not made for storage that is closed up with pitch to be rinsed like the vessel itself, or to be (rinsed and) dried if it is a vessel that requires rinsing.

Explanation (cont.): Accordingly, our funnels that are coated with pitch around the metal part of them only require drying in that area, just as the wooden part of the funnel only requires drying. However, with vessels completely coated with pitch one should be stringent, as they (i.e. cracks) are commonly found (in our vessels, see Avodah Berurah that this is the text of the Tosfos Ri mi'Paris).

Explanation: They scalded the big presses.

Opinion #1: Based on this, Rabeinu Tam said that pouring from a Kli Rishon is like immersion in a Kli Rishon.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that our Gemara says that through the pouring of hot water, the press emits the wine that was absorbed in it. It must be that the Gemara is referring to kashering through pouring, as the press is large and heavy, and therefore cannot be placed into a boiling pot of water in order to boil it. Rather, it must be done through the pouring of water.

Proof (cont.): Being that pouring is like immersion in a Kli Rishon, vessels that have become forbidden through use as a Kli Rishon can be koshered through having scalding water poured on them (from a Kli Rishon).

Opinion #2: However, the Rashbam argues on Rabeinu Tam, and says that pouring boiling water from a Kli Rishon has the status of a Kli Sheini.

Implied Question: Our Gemara indicates that a press can be kashered through pouring. (How can this be according to the Rashbam?)

Answer: Yayin Nesech is different, as the usage of the vessel is with cold Yayin Nesech (and therefore the vessel does not absorb enough to require kashering with a Kli Rishon).

Observation: The main opinions of the Rashbam and Rabeinu Tam can be found in Shabbos (42a) regarding a frying pan and pot that were taken off the fire while boiling etc. They stated their positions there at length.

Opinion: The conclusion, Rabeinu Baruch says, is that this is the subject of an argument between Rav and Shmuel in Pesachim (76a). They argue whether the bottom or top item are stronger (i.e. if the absorbing is determined by the bottom or top item's status, for example if the top item is hot and the bottom item is cold). We rule like the opinion that says that the bottom is stronger.

Opinion (cont.): However, the top item also cooks and absorbs into the first layer of the bottom food, as until it cools off it absorbs, as stated by the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.). Therefore, pouring is not exactly like either a Kli Rishon or a Kli Sheini, but rather it cooks and causes absorbtion to the top layer, and not more than that.

Opinion (cont.): If so, vessels that are forbidden by a Kli Rishon that are absorbed all the way through the item (not just through the first layer) cannot be kashered through pouring of boiling water, as pouring water on them only makes them emit from their top layer, not more.

Opinion (cont.): The bowls that absorb through pouring can indeed be kashered through pouring boiling water on them.

Opinion (cont.): In the Seder Biur Chametz in the Krovetz of Shabbos ha'Gaddol that Rabeinu Yosef Tav Alam established, he explained "(Earthenware) Pots do not need to be broken, and bowls are permitted if boiling water is poured on them."

Opinion (cont.): However, the law does not follow this opinion. Rather, they need to be put in a Kli Rishon. This is because there are times when pots are put in a Kli Rishon such as a boiling kettle.

Opinion (cont.): Now that I have explained that pouring only causes absorbtion and emission of a top layer, these barrels of Nochrim can be kashered through pouring. This is similar to a press, regarding which Rava says here that it should be boiled up.

Opinion (cont.): If the craftsman cuts them up and peels them with a plane, and he takes away the first layer that came in contact with the wine, pouring water on them is not necessary. This is because even when pouring is done, it only takes away the first layer of absorbtion.

Observation: We see from here that a Jew who sends empty barrels to the house of a Nochri or from city to city in order to fix them must seal them inside with a coal or soft stone (i.e. he should write a letter inside the barrel with coal etc.) which is like a block of plaster, in order that it should be apparent afterwards whether or not the Nochri put wine in the barrel. (If he put wine in the barrel, the letter will be erased.)

Implied Question: However, one can push this aside by saying that this specifically applied to the time of the Gemara as they had small barrels which were conveniently filled and emptied. However, there is no such suspicion regarding our barrels that are very big, and therefore inconvenient to fill and empty.

Opinion: Therefore one does not have to make such a sign. However, it is good to be stringent.