Avodah Zarah 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

And the other one:

the rest of the wine in the barrel,

is permitted,

even for drinking, because Rav Pappa maintains that the wine located at the sides is not considered connected to the wine adjacent to the hole with regard to the laws of yayin nesech.

There are those who say that some transmit this teaching as follows:

there are those who transmit this teaching as follows:

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

all the wine above the hole of the spigot is forbidden, since it all flows toward the hole in order to emerge from it, and it is connected to the wine adjacent to the hole,

and the other one,

the rest of the wine,

is permitted,

it is permitted.

Rav Yemar said:

Rav Pappa’s statement does not accord with all the tanna’im; rather,

it is like the opinion of the tanna’im,

it is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in tractate Tevul Yom:

One who immersed that day (tevul yom) is someone who immersed to purify himself from his impurity but whose sun has not yet set; contact with him renders teruma and consecrated offerings impure.

If a barrel developed a hole, whether in its mouth,

above, where the wine enters,

or

if it developed a hole

in its bottom,

at the base of the barrel,

or in its sides,

and he touched it,

the wine,

one who immersed that day—

it is impure.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If the barrel developed a hole

in its mouth or its bottom,

and one who immersed that day touched the wine at the place of the hole,

it is impure;

all the wine in the barrel becomes impure. But if the barrel developed a hole

in its sides, it is pure on both sides.

That is to say, if the barrel developed a hole in its sides, it is pure on both sides. Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that when it develops a hole in its mouth, the wine is impure, since all the wine below serves as a base for the wine above: Each drop carries the drop above it. Likewise, when it develops a hole in its bottom, the wine is impure, since all the wine flows toward the hole. But if the barrel develops a hole in its sides, the wine there is neither a base nor flowing toward the hole, and therefore it is pure.

Rav Yemar compares the laws of a gentile’s contact with wine to the laws of one who immersed that day touching teruma. It follows that Rav Pappa stated his ruling only in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda , whereas according to the Sages, all the wine is connected to the place of the hole, just as it is connected with regard to impurity; all of it is forbidden for drinking, but it is permitted for benefit.

The Gemara cites another halakhic ruling in the name of Rav Pappa.

Rav Pappa said: If a gentile holds the barrel,

holding the barrel,

, and a Jew holds the vat,

holding the vat, while the gentile pours from the barrel into the vat—

the wine is forbidden,

the wine is forbidden even for benefit.

What is the reason?

He did not touch the wine.

When it comes,

the wine, as it enters the vat,

it comes by virtue of the gentile,

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

But

if a Jew holds the barrel,

holding the barrel,

and a gentile holds the vat,

holding the vat, while the Jew pours from the barrel into the vat—

the wine is permitted,

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

but if he tilts it from side to side,

the gentile brings the vat toward the stream of wine—

it is forbidden,

the wine, because there is concern that perhaps he touched the wine. This is referring to a case in which the vat is full and the wine reaches the rim of the vessel.

Another version is recorded by Rashi: Even if the vat is not full, the wine is forbidden for drinking, despite the fact that there is no concern that the gentile touched it. The reason is that the gentile “agitates” the wine—that is, he moves the wine by shaking the vessel.

The Gemara cites another ruling stated by Rav Pappa.

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

carrying a leather wineskin whose opening is tied shut,

and a Jew walks behind him,

the Jew walks behind him and watches him to ensure that he does not open it in order to touch the wine —

If the wineskin was

full,

full,

it is permitted,

the wine is permitted, because

he does not agitate it,

he does not move the wine while carrying it. But if it was

deficient, it is forbidden,

because there is concern

that perhaps he will agitate it.

And if he is carrying a

vat,

a vat,

full,

if it is full,

it is forbidden,

because there is concern

that perhaps he touched it

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

deficient, it is permitted,

because

he did not touch it.

The vat is not forbidden on account of agitation, because he has no interest in agitating an open vessel, lest the wine spill. The agitation that occurs on its own while he carries the vat does not render it forbidden, because it has the status of his unintentional force, which is permitted. This is unlike a wineskin whose opening is tied shut, where there is concern that he might deliberately agitate it.

Rav Ashi said: A wineskin,

a wineskin,

whether full or deficient, is permitted.

What is the reason?—

This is not the customary manner of libation.

Only a full vat is forbidden, because of the concern that perhaps he touched it.

The Gemara now discusses a winepress in which the grapes are not trodden by hand or foot, but with a beam. There is a difference in this halakha between the “force” of the gentile, when the gentile climbs onto the beam above the grapes and presses them down 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 press,

a winepress in which the grapes are pressed 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 who forbade it.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

With regard to his force,

everyone agrees,

they did not disagree, and all the amora’im maintain

that it is forbidden. When they disagree,

the subject of their dispute is

the force of his force.

There are those who say that the teaching was transmitted differently:

There are those who transmitted this teaching in another manner:

With regard to the force of his force, everyone agrees that it is permitted. When they disagree—

it is with regard to his force.

The Gemara relates:

There was an incident

involving a gentile who trod the grapes

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

.

The Gemara cites another halakha concerning a gentile’s contact with wine through another object rather than with his hands.