There are three lines from the bottom. A barrel of wine had a spigot that came off, leaving a hole. A gentile came and jumped onto the barrel, placing his hand over the opening so that the wine would not leak out. The question is the status of the wine, since he effectively touched it.
The answer is that the wine immediately next to the spigot is prohibited for drinking, but the rest of the wine in the barrel is permitted. The gentile did not shake the wine. The opening is very narrow, so he could not insert his hand and agitate the wine; he merely touched the wine at that particular spot. This is therefore a stringency regarding only the wine next to the spigot. That wine is prohibited for drinking but permitted for benefit, while the rest of the wine is permitted even for drinking.
The reason is that the wine is not considered one connected mass. We regard the wine next to the spigot as one zone and the wine above, below, and throughout the rest of the barrel as another zone. It is not considered a single connected body of wine. The spigot creates its own area, so although the wine touching it is prohibited, it does not prohibit the rest of the barrel.
We will see that what Rav Papa said is actually subject to a dispute among the Tannaim. Rav Papa was following the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed with the Sages. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that only the wine in the relevant area is prohibited, whereas the Rabbis say that the entire barrel is prohibited. Everything is connected; ultimately, it is one barrel of wine, and the prohibited wine is touching the rest of it.
Rav Sheshet tells us not to be concerned with that view, because it is not the halachic ruling of Rav Papa. There is also another version of Rav Papa’s statement. According to that version, whatever is above the spigot is prohibited, while whatever is below it is permitted. This is another type of distinction: the entire area above the opening is prohibited because it is resting on the wine that is at the opening and is destined to flow out through it. Whatever is below the opening is considered a separate zone and remains permitted.
This second version is somewhat more stringent than the first, because more wine is prohibited, but Rav Papa still does not prohibit the entire barrel. Rav Yemar said that this is what Rav Papa was teaching us: the entire barrel is not necessarily prohibited. His ruling is subject to a dispute among the Tannaim—not specifically regarding wine used for idolatrous purposes, but regarding a different substance.
The case concerns a barrel filled with terumah wine whose opening was pierced. The hole could be at the top, at the mouth of the barrel, at the bottom, or on the side. The question involved a person who was immersed in a ritual bath but still had to wait until nightfall before becoming fully pure. Such a person is still prohibited from touching terumah. If such a person touched the wine, the Rabbis said that the entire barrel was prohibited.
Stop there. We see that the Rabbis disagree with Rav Papa. They do not distinguish between a hole at the top and a hole at the bottom. Once the person placed his hand on the wine to stop it from flowing, the entire barrel became prohibited. That is what Rav Yemar was telling us.
Where, then, did Rav Papa derive his view? From Rabbi Yehuda. The logic is that if the hole is on the side, the wine above and below the opening may be resting against the wine at the opening, but the wine farther to the side is not necessarily connected to it.
In fact, Rashi explains the matter differently, so let us read it according to Rashi. It is not a unanimous matter. If the barrel is standing on its base and the hole is at the top, all the wine below serves as a base for the wine above it. Since the wine at the bottom supports the wine above, the entire barrel is considered connected. Similarly, if the hole is at the bottom, all the wine is prohibited because all of it will ultimately flow toward the opening.
However, if the hole is on the side of the barrel, only the wine in that area is prohibited. Thus, when the hole is at the top or bottom, the wine is resting upon or flowing toward the opening, and that creates a problem. When the hole is on the side, only the wine in the immediate area is prohibited. We have therefore found a dispute concerning this form of indirect contact.
The Gemara then presents another case from Rav Papa, involving barrels and pitchers. A gentile was pouring wine from a barrel, while a Jew held the pitcher into which the wine was being poured. What is the status of the wine? The gentile did not touch the wine with his hand, but he was touching the barrel and causing the wine to move.
One might say that the wine is prohibited because the gentile was causing it to move. But this is movement caused indirectly. It is not the same as inserting one’s hand into the wine and agitating it directly. Here, the gentile is pouring, and the wine moves as a result of the pouring. That is a rabbinic concern, comparable to the case in which a gentile dilutes wine with water.
In the case of dilution, the wine was prohibited for drinking, not necessarily for benefit. Therefore, the same level of prohibition should apply here. The concern is not direct contact, but movement caused by the gentile’s action. Since it is indirect, it is not the same as the earlier case of placing a hand into the wine.
What would be the ruling in the reverse case, where the gentile holds the pitcher and the Jew pours wine from the barrel into it? At first glance, nothing is happening to the wine in the barrel. The Jew is pouring his own wine, and the gentile is merely standing there receiving it. The gentile did not shake the wine in the barrel and did not tilt the barrel.
The Gemara gives two interpretations. The first is that the pitcher was already full. Since the Jew was pouring more wine into a full pitcher, the gentile’s hand might touch the wine as it overflowed. That is one concern.
The second interpretation is that even if the pitcher was not full, the gentile was moving it back and forth. Why would he move it? If he is intentionally agitating the wine, that is indirect movement caused with intent, and the wine would be prohibited. Thus, if the pitcher is full, there is a concern that the gentile’s hand may touch the wine. If it is not full but the gentile is deliberately moving it, the concern is that he is agitating the wine intentionally.
In this case, however, the wine belongs to the Jew, the Jew is pouring it, and the gentile is merely holding the pitcher in the Jew’s house. The question is whether the pitcher is full enough for the gentile’s hand to touch the wine, or whether he is moving the pitcher deliberately. Those are the two possible concerns.
Rav Papa then presents another case. A gentile was carrying a flask, the type made of leather, whose opening was tied shut so that the wine could not come out. A Jew was walking behind him, watching to ensure that the gentile did not open the flask or do anything to it. The Gemara says that if the flask is full, there is no concern. Since it is completely full, there is no room for the wine to move.
If the flask is not full, however, there is room for the wine to move, and the wine is prohibited because the gentile may have deliberately agitated it. The Gemara then reverses the discussion regarding an open pitcher. If the pitcher is open and full, the wine is prohibited, because as the gentile walks, his hand might touch the wine. If it is not full, it is permitted.
Why is an open pitcher that is not full permitted? Although the wine will move somewhat as the gentile carries it, he does not want to agitate it intentionally. If he shakes the pitcher, the wine will spill, and he will lose it. When someone carries an open pitcher, the movement is therefore not considered intentional agitation. It is movement caused by his actions but not done with intent, and the wine remains permitted.
This is the distinction: in an open vessel, even though some movement occurs merely from carrying it, the gentile does not want that movement, because the wine might spill. In a sealed flask, however, the wine will not spill, so deliberate movement is possible. That is why the ruling differs between the two cases.
There are three different categories to keep in mind. There is wine that a gentile pours onto an object of idolatry; there is ordinary gentile wine, whose status is uncertain; and there is Jewish wine that is known to be permitted but was touched or moved by a gentile. The present case concerns Jewish wine that the gentile moved. We are not concerned that he wants to spoil the wine, because he is working for the Jew and does not want to spill it. The movement of an open pitcher is therefore not considered intentional agitation.
The Gemara then discusses a winepress. A board was placed over grapes, and a screw was turned to lower the board and press the grapes. A gentile operated the mechanism. Rav Papa said that the wine was permitted, while Rav Ashi said that it was prohibited.
The logic depends on whether the action is considered direct force. If the gentile stood on the board and pressed it down with his body, that would be direct force, and the wine would be prohibited. In that case, his body is directly pushing the board onto the grapes.
But in the actual case, the gentile merely turned the screw. Turning the screw caused the mechanism to descend, and the mechanism then pressed the board onto the grapes. His force was therefore applied to the screw, while the screw caused the board to move. This is force caused by force, rather than direct force applied to the grapes or the board itself.
One might say that everyone would agree that force caused by force is permitted, and that the dispute concerns only direct force. According to that approach, turning the screw would be permitted, while standing on the board and pressing it down would be prohibited. That would be a novel form of dispute, because until now we had seen that indirect force—such as pouring or diluting wine—was prohibited for drinking.
The answer is that this is a different case. Here, the gentile is not pressing wine but grapes. It is one step removed from the wine itself. The source describes the matter as a dispute concerning force applied to grapes, rather than force applied directly to wine. This explains why the question of direct and indirect force arises here.
Another case concerns indirect contact. A gentile jumped onto a barrel in order to save the wine, embracing or pressing the barrel so that it would not leak. If a gentile takes a stick and agitates the wine, that is a problem. But in this case he is merely holding or pressing the barrel. He is not shaking the wine directly.
The discussion distinguishes between a barrel split lengthwise and one split across its width. If the barrel is split across its width, the gentile presses down on the upper portion to keep the crack closed. The wine is seeping between the two sections, but he is not pressing the wine itself. He is applying pressure to the barrel so that the crack will close.
The barrel is resting on its lower section, and the two sections are close together. The gentile is simply placing pressure on the upper section, almost as though he were placing a weight or brick on the barrel. He is not agitating the wine, even if the barrel is full. The question is whether this is considered equivalent to touching the wine.
One source compares it to a case in which two objects are standing apart, and the hands or feet of one touch the hands or feet of another. Even without deliberate agitation, that contact may be treated like contact with the person himself. Nevertheless, in the present case the gentile is not touching the wine. He is merely pressing down on the barrel to keep it closed, and the ruling remains dependent on the distinction being discussed.
There is also a case involving a gentile found near a Jewish winepress. The press itself contained no wine, but there was some residual moisture from the previous pressing. Do we suspect that the gentile touched it?
Normally, when a gentile is found near a Jewish winepress containing wine, we do not automatically suspect that he touched the wine. He knows that he is not permitted to touch it and is afraid that he will be caught and made to pay for the damage. An empty winepress is different. Since there is apparently nothing valuable in it, he may not be afraid to touch it.
Therefore, if there is only a small amount of residual moisture, we are concerned that he may have touched it. If he did touch it, that residual wine could trickle into the collection pit and create a larger problem. There is also a concern that the wine may be absorbed into the walls of the winepress. Since it is lying there, it could become absorbed, requiring the winepress to undergo a process of purging.
The practical question is whether the moisture is substantial enough to wet another object. If a cloth placed on it would become wet, the winepress must be cleaned. The purpose is to remove the wine that was absorbed. The cleaning can be done by spreading ashes over the area and washing it with water, essentially using the ashes as a cleansing agent.
If there is not enough wine to wet another object, one may simply pour water over the area and clean it. There is no need for the more extensive process. The ruling depends on the amount of wine present and whether it is sufficiently wet to transfer moisture to something else.
The next case concerns a gentile standing near a pit containing wine. If the Jew owed the gentile money, the wine was prohibited; if the Jew did not owe him money, the wine was permitted. Rashi explains that when the gentile is owed money, he is not afraid to touch the Jewish wine. If the Jew protests that he damaged the wine, the gentile can respond that the Jew owes him money and that he will simply take the wine in payment.
When the Jew does not owe him money, the gentile is afraid to touch the wine. He knows that if he damages it, the Jew will demand payment. But if the gentile is already owed money, he feels that he can take the wine for himself, and that fear is absent.
A question was raised about whether the gentile is receiving indirect benefit because the loan is effectively being repaid with the value of the wine. That is a separate issue to consider. The case itself is teaching that the gentile’s willingness to touch the wine depends on whether he has a monetary claim against the Jew.
The next case concerns a gentile who fell into the wine pit. He had no intention of falling in, so there was no concern that he had deliberately touched or agitated the wine. Another case involved a gentile measuring the wine by inserting a stick to determine its height. He touched the wine with the stick, but his intention was to measure it, not to perform an act of prohibited movement.
There was also a case in which something was floating on the surface of the wine, such as foam or an insect, and the gentile used a stick to remove it. He touched the wine in order to clear away the material on top. Although he touched the wine intentionally, there was no concern that he intended to perform the act by which wine is normally rendered prohibited. This is not the usual manner of agitating wine for idolatrous purposes.
The normal concern is that a person inserts his hand into the wine and shakes it, or uses a stick to agitate it. In these cases, however, the gentile’s intention was to measure the wine or remove something from its surface. The wine was therefore permitted for benefit, although the Sages disputed whether it was permitted for drinking.
Rabbi Shimon permitted the wine even for drinking. He maintained that when there is no concern that the gentile intended to agitate the wine in the prohibited manner, the wine is permitted. The Rabbis, however, prohibited it for drinking, even though they agreed that there was no genuine concern that the gentile had performed the ordinary act of agitation.
The point is that the Sages imposed a precautionary prohibition regarding contact with Jewish wine, even where there was no concern that the gentile had intended to perform the act of prohibited libation. Rabbi Yishmael’s position is more readily understood if there is a concern that the gentile did something, such as measuring the wine or removing something with a stick. The question is whether the Sages prohibited the wine even when the gentile’s intention was entirely different.
The Gemara’s broader concern is the need to distance Jews from gentiles and their practices. Even when it is clear that there was no prohibited intention and no actual act of libation, the Rabbis prohibited the wine in certain cases as a precaution. Rabbi Shimon disagreed and permitted Jewish wine that had been touched or moved in this manner.
Rabbi Shimon’s position is especially novel because, according to him, there is no such prohibition concerning Jewish wine touched by a gentile—not through contact, not through movement, and not through the use of a stick. The Gemara initially presents the case involving a gentile because that is the subject of the dispute among the Sages, but Rabbi Shimon’s wording suggests that he would permit the same Jewish wine even in the broader cases.
The final case concerns a gentile who became angry and threw a barrel into the wine pit. The ruling was that the wine could still be used, even for drinking. If the barrel had been empty, the force of the impact might have moved the wine already in the pit. But in this case, the wine in the barrel fell into the wine in the pit when the barrel was thrown in. The case therefore involves wine being displaced or added by the impact of the barrel, rather than a gentile directly agitating the wine with the intention of rendering it prohibited.