Avodah Zarah 60a — the Talmud in English

, and the rest of the wine in the barrel,

the rest of the wine in the barrel

is permitted

, even for drinking, because Rav Pappa holds that the wine found at the sides is not considered connected to the wine found adjacent to the opening with regard to the laws of yayin nesekh.

And there are those who say

that this tradition was transmitted as follows:

Rav Pappa said: The wine up to the spigot is forbidden

, all the wine above the spigot’s opening is forbidden, since it all follows the opening in order to emerge through it, and it is connected to the wine adjacent to the opening;

and the rest

of the wine

is permitted

, it is permitted.

Rav Yemar said

: Rav Pappa’s words do not follow all the tannaim; rather,

it is like the tannaim

, it is a dispute among tannaim, as we learned in tractate Tevul Yom:

A tevul yom is one who immersed for his impurity but whose sun has not yet set, so that he renders teruma and consecrated things impure through touching them.

A barrel that was pierced, whether at its mouth

, above, at the place where the wine enters,

whether

it was pierced

at its bottom

, at the base of the barrel,

or at its sides

, and he touched it

, the wine,

a tevul yom

—it is impure. These are the words of the Sages.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yehuda says

: If the barrel was pierced

at its mouth and at its bottom

, and a tevul yom touched the wine at the place of the opening,

it is impure

, all the wine in the barrel became impure. And if the barrel was pierced

at its sides, it is pure on both sides.

That is to say, if the barrel was pierced at its sides, it is pure on both sides. And the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is that when it was pierced at its mouth, it is impure, since all the wine below serves as a base for the upper wine. For each and every drop carries the drop above it. And likewise, when it was pierced at its bottom, since all the wine follows after the opening. But if the barrel was pierced at its sides, since the wine there is neither a base nor following after the opening, it is pure.

Rav Yemar compares the laws of a gentile’s touching wine to the laws of a tevul yom’s touching teruma. It follows from this that Rav Pappa stated his ruling only according to Rabbi Yehuda, whereas according to the Sages, all the wine is connected to the place of the opening, just as it is connected with regard to impurity, and all of it is forbidden for drinking but permitted for benefit.

The Gemara brings another ruling in the name of Rav Pappa.

Rav Pappa said: If a gentile holds the barrel

,

and a Jew holds the tub

, and the gentile pours from the barrel into the tub—

the wine is forbidden

, the wine is forbidden for benefit.

What is the reason?

He did not touch the wine.

When it comes

, when the wine comes to the tub,

it comes through the force of a gentile

, since it comes through his force, Rabbi Yohanan was stringent [58b] even with regard to benefit, because of “Go, go,” and so forth.

But

if a Jew holds the barrel

,

and a gentile holds the tub

, and the Jew pours from the barrel into the tub—

the wine is permitted

, the wine is permitted, because the gentile did nothing. When does this apply? When the gentile holds it,

but if he shifts it from side to side

, the gentile brings the tub close to the stream of wine—

it is forbidden

the wine, because then there is concern that perhaps he touched the wine. And this is speaking of a case in which the tub is full and the wine reaches the rim of the vessel.

Rashi wrote another version: Even in a tub that is not full, it is forbidden for drinking, although there is no concern that the gentile touched it. The reason is that the gentile “agitates” the wine—that is, he shakes the wine by shaking the vessel.

And the Gemara brings another ruling that Rav Pappa stated. The Gemara brings another ruling that Rav Pappa stated.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to this gentile who carries a wineskin

, carrying a leather wineskin whose opening is tied,

and a Jew goes behind him

, a Jew walks behind him and watches him, so that he does not open it to touch the wine—

If the wineskin was

full

,

it is permitted

the wine, because

he does not agitate it

, he does not shake the wine while carrying it; but if it was

not full, it is forbidden

, because there is concern

perhaps he will agitate it.

And if he is carrying

a tub

,

full

, if it is full,

it is forbidden

, because there is concern

perhaps he touched it

with his hands, since the wine reaches its rim. And if it was

not full, it is permitted

, because

he did not touch it.

And in the case of a tub, it is not necessary to forbid it on account of agitation, because he does not desire to agitate an open vessel, lest the wine spill. And that which is agitated by itself while he carries the tub does not forbid it, because its status is like his force unintentionally, which is permitted. This is unlike a wineskin whose mouth is tied, concerning which there is concern that perhaps he will agitate it intentionally.

Rav Ashi said: A wineskin

,

whether full or not full, is permitted.

What is the reason?—

This is not the manner of libation.

And only in the case of a full tub is it forbidden, because of the concern that perhaps he touched it.

Now the Gemara discusses a winepress where grapes are not trodden there by hand or foot, but with a beam. And in this halakha there is a distinction between the “force” of the gentile, when the gentile climbs upon the beam above the grapes and presses them with the weight of his body, and “the force of his force,” when the gentile turns the wheel and the wheel lowers the beam.

A beam-operated winepress

, a winepress in which they press the grapes with a beam,

Rav Pappi permits

the wine when a gentile pressed them.

Rav Ashi, and some say

that it was

Rav Shimi bar Ashi, forbids.

And the Gemara explains what they disagree about:

With his force—

everyone does not disagree

, they did not disagree, and all the amoraim hold

that it is forbidden. When they disagree

, what do they disagree about?

With the force of his force.

There are those who say

that this tradition was transmitted in another manner:

With the force of his force, everyone does not disagree that it is permitted. When they disagree

—

with his force. And the Gemara relates:

There was an incident

, there was such an incident involving a gentile who pressed the grapes

with the force of his force, and Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod forbade it

.

And the Gemara brings another halakha concerning a gentile’s touching wine by means of another object, and not with his hands.