Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף ע״ב, we will start six lines from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא says, אמר רב פפא, רב פפא says, עובד כוכבים אדנא וישראל אכובא, if a גוי was holding the barrel of wine, and a איד was holding the cask of wine, the jar in which the wine was being poured in from the barrel, and the גוי was pouring the wine in, חמרא אסיר, this wine is forbidden. And as רש״י says, it's even forbidden בהנאה. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Because כי קאתי מכח עובד כוכבים קאתי, because when the wine comes into the jar, into the cask, it's coming with the power of the גוי. And as we learned earlier, that if it comes with the power of the גוי, it is אסור. As we said earlier, that when a גוי pours water into the wine, then the wine is אסור, and the reason is, it's similar to when we tell a נזיר, who's not allowed to eat grapes, we say to him: Don't even walk through the vineyard, just go around it, because you might come to eat the grapes. The same here, too, that we tell a person: Don't drink this wine, because if you drink this wine that came from the כח of the גוי, you might come to drink wine which a גוי actually touched. So just like in the previous case, when the גוי put water into the wine, we say it's אסור for this reason, the same here, when the גוי pours the wine into the cask, we say that it's אסור for the same reason. And

even though in the גמרא there, רש״י said that it's only אסור בשתיה, you can't drink it, but it is not אסור בהנאה, because if the whole איסור is only based on this concept of telling a נזיר to not go through the vineyards, that is not enough to make it אסור בהנאה, and therefore it is only אסור בשתיה, nevertheless, here רש״י says that this wine would be אסור בהנאה also. And the reason for that is, תוספות says that because here we are מחמיר more, because here, since the גוי is emptying the wine into the cask, there is more reason to say that maybe the גוי had in mind for ניסוך. And therefore, in this case, it is not only אסור to drink, but it is also אסור בהנאה. And the גמרא continues, but if ישראל אדנא ועובד כוכבים אכובא, a איד is the one that's holding the barrel, and the גוי is the one that's holding the cask, and the איד is pouring from the barrel into the cask, then חמרא שרי, in that case, the wine is מותר. But ואי מצדד צדודי, but if the גוי tilts it sideways, אסיר, then it is אסור. And the reason is, as רש״י explains, because when he tilts it, he shakes it, and shaking it is similar to splashing around, and we know that when he splashes around, it turns it into יין נסך, if he is משכשך, it becomes יין נסך, so too, if he tilts it, tilts it and it's מקרקש, מקרקש means that he shakes it, it is the same דין, and therefore it would become יין נסך. And therefore, if the גוי tilted it, it is אסור. And as

רש״י explains, that here we're talking in a case where the jar, the cask is full, and they were afraid that maybe he touched it. That since it's full to the top, so while he's holding it, maybe he held his hands over the cask, and he touched the wine. And then רש״י has another פשט that we could say, that not only if it was full it is אסור, but even if it was missing a little bit, it wasn't full, it's also אסור, because maybe he shakes it, and if he's shaking it with כוונה, so then this is similar to כחו בכוונה, it's similar to doing it with his power בכוונה, and then it would be אסור בשתיה, you can't drink it. So according to this פשט, when the גמרא says that if the גוי tilts it, then it is אסור to drink, it means even if it wasn't full. And as תוספות brings, this is also the opinion of the ריב״ם. There are other ראשונים that hold the same פשט, that it doesn't have to be דוקא if it was full, but even if it was not full, but the change is, they learn that it is אסור not only to drink, but it is also אסור בהנאה, as the ב״ח quotes here that that's how the רא״ש learns, and that's how the טור learns in סימן שע״ו. But

תוספות adds that this דין that we said, that if the גוי is pouring into the כלי that the איד is holding it is אסור, or in the second case, even if the איד is pouring into the כלי of the גוי, if the גוי tilts it, it's אסור, תוספות says this is only if the גוי himself is pouring, or in the case of tilting, where the גוי himself is tilting. But if a איד is helping together with the גוי, then everything is מותר, you could even drink it. Because the כלל is like this, that whenever it is אסור because the כח of a גוי, if כח אחר מעורב בו, if another כח is mixed in together with the כח of the גוי, it is מותר. But we mean מותר only בדיעבד, if it was done, the wine is not אסור. But לכתחילה, you're not allowed to allow the גוי to do it, even if another איד helps him. As the גמרא says later on in דף ע״ב עמוד ב׳, that רבא said to those אידן who were involved in pouring wine, he said to them: When you pour the wine, don't let a גוי get close to you and help you, because you might forget and put it on his shoulder, and then the pouring will come only from the גוי. So we see that even though if the איד helps him the whole time, it is מותר, but לכתחילה we're afraid you might forget and let him hold it by himself, and that's why it's אסור. But בדיעבד, if the גוי together with another איד did it, it is מותר. And

תוספות also says that the ר״י says that there are some people that let the גוי himself pick up the wagon where you have the jar of wine inside, or to pick up the חביות while it is pouring into the כובא, into the cask, in order for it to pour better. And the reason they give that they say that you're allowed to do it is because מסייע אין בו ממש, because helping is not considered a ממש, doesn't have a real ממשות, it's not something substantial, and therefore, if the גוי does it, it doesn't make it אסור. And the reason they only consider it מסייע is because the wine would have been pouring anyway, so the גוי didn't make it pour. All he does, he helped it, so since he just helps to do something that would have been doing anyway, that is called אין בו ממש and it's allowed. But the ר״י did not want to say that it's אסור or מותר, and he didn't want to give an opinion. And then תוספות says that you certainly should be מחמיר in a case when you tilt the cask with wine, it has only a little bit wine, if you tilt it to one side, then you shouldn't let a גוי do it definitely, because this kind of מסייע is definitely worse, and therefore, this you should be careful with and not let a גוי do it. Then the

גמרא continues, אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, האי עובד כוכבים דדרי זיקא, this גוי was carrying a skin bottle of wine, as רש״י says, the skin bottle that's tied on top, ואזיל ישראל אבתריה, and an איד is following behind him, and he sees that the גוי did not touch the wine. The דין is that מליא שרי, if it was a full cask, it is מותר. The reason is because to say that he opened it up and he touched it, we can't because the איד watched behind him and saw that he didn't open it up. To say that he touched it while he was carrying it, you can't, because it's closed. The only problem that could be is that while he's carrying it, it shakes, but in the case where it's full, it is not אסור because דלא מכשכש, it doesn't shake. חסירא, but if it was not full, there was some missing in it, אסור, it is אסור. Why? דילמא מכשכש, maybe it shook. So if it would have been open, we wouldn't have been afraid of that, because while it is open, we're not afraid that it's going to shake, because a person who's carrying an open jug will make sure it doesn't shake because it might spill. So therefore, we wouldn't be afraid that it's shaking. But since it is closed, and it's not full, ממילא it's possible to shake, that's why it is אסור. But if it would be a כובא, if it would be a cask, not a skin bottle that's tied on top, but a cask that is open, מליא אסור, if it's full, it is forbidden because דילמא נגע, maybe he touched it. To say that it's אסור because of the shaking, we can't, because since it's open, it doesn't shake, because he's afraid he might spill, even though it's impossible that it shouldn't shake a little bit, but that doesn't count because since he doesn't want it to shake, so it's כוחו שלא בכוונה. The shaking only comes from his כח, from his power, and it's כוחו without his intentions, it is מותר. So the only problem is, maybe he touched it. Since it's full, so while he's holding it, he might touch, and that's why it is אסור. חסירא, but if it's missing, which means it's not full, שרי, it is מותר, דלא נגע, because he definitely didn't touch it. Since it's not full to the top, he didn't touch it, because to stick his hand in, the איד who follows behind would have seen it. So he saw he didn't stick his hand in. Ah, he maybe touched it by holding it from the outside? He couldn't because it wasn't full. And therefore, it is מותר. Ah, let it be אסור because of the shaking? Well, we said before that when it's open, a person doesn't shake it, and a little bit if it does shake, that doesn't count because it's כוחו שלא בכוונה.

רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says, זיקא, the skin bottle that's tied on top, בין מליא בין חסירא שרי, whether it's full or that there is some missing in it, it's not full, it is מותר. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? אין דרך ניסוך בכך. This is not a normal way of ניסוך. And he argues on רב פפא who said before that if it's tied on top, if it is not full, it is אסור because of the כרכוש, because of the shaking. But he says that that shaking doesn't make it אסור because אין דרך ניסוך בכך. So he only argues in this case. But in the case of a כובא, in the case of the jug that's open on top, so there he also admits that if it's full, it is אסור. Why? Because we're afraid he might touch it, because while he's holding it on the outside, he might touch it. So in that case, he doesn't argue on רב פפא. He just argues on the case that רב פפא said that it's אסור in the case of the זיקא, where רב פפא said that if it's not full, it is אסור, he argues and says that in that case, it is מותר because this is not the דרך of ניסוך. In other words, he only argues when we want to make it אסור because of the shaking, but in the case where we say it's אסור because the גוי maybe touched it, then he agrees, because there it doesn't fit to say אין דרך ניסוך בכך, because touching is the way it becomes יין נסך. It's only that he says that if you want to make it יין נסך through shaking, that is not true because אין דרך ניסוך בכך. And תוספות adds that the הלכה actually is like רב אשי. And then תוספות continues and says that this is only if he carries it on his head or on his shoulder, so there we're afraid maybe he touched it. But if he's carrying it through a pole or he's carrying like a bucket with the strings, then it's מותר, because there it is impossible he touched it while he's carrying, and the whole reason we say it's אסור is because we're afraid he touched it, therefore it is מותר. And from here תוספות says we can learn out, that if you have a jug made of skin, a soft skin full of wine, even if the גוי squeezes it and makes both sides touch each other in the inside, which means that definitely he moved around the wine, nevertheless it is כשר. Why? Because אין דרך ניסוך בכך. And since the הלכה is like רב אשי that we say אין דרך ניסוך בכך, therefore it is מותר. And based on this תוספות says that רבינו תם was מכשיר in a case where you had the faucet coming out of the barrel that was loose, or the covering of the barrel that was loose, and a גוי came and tightened it, or other similar cases, so he says it was מותר, because this is compared to the case of the jug that is made of skin, and since אין דרך ניסוך בכך we're מכשיר it over there, so we're מכשיר it over here too. And the ר״י, תוספות says, also relied on this היתר, and he said that even though there is a point that a person could argue and say that this היתר is not acceptable, nevertheless, if someone wants he could rely on this היתר, that's what the ר״י said. Then the גמרא

continues, מעצרתא זעירא, wine that comes from a press where they use beams. They don't actually have any contact directly with the grapes, but they use beams, and the beams are laid on top of the grapes, and they squeeze the beams, and that's how they crush the grapes. So רב פפא שרי, so if a גוי did it, רב פפא says that the wine that comes out is allowed. רב אשי ואיתימא רב שימי בר אשי אסר. רב אשי, and some texts it's רב שימי בר אשי, they say that it's אסור. And the גמרא explains, בכוחו כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור. If it came directly from his כח, from his power, there is no מחלוקת, everyone agrees it's אסור. In other words, if the גוי stood directly over the beam, and that's how he squeezed the grapes, everyone agrees it's אסור, because this is directly from his כח. כי פליגי, where is their מחלוקת, בכח כוחו, if it's a כח that comes from a כח. For instance, if the גוי rolled a wheel, and that wheel caused the beams to crush the grapes, that is כח כוחו. That's where you have a מחלוקת. That's where רב פפא said that it was מותר, and רב אשי or רב שימי בר אשי said that it was אסור, because here it's not directly from the כח of the גוי, but the כח of the גוי causes another כח, and that other כח causes the grapes to be crushed. He causes the wheel to turn, the turning wheel causes the beams to crush the grapes, so in that case, רב פפא said it's מותר. איכא דאמרי, some say just the opposite, בכח כוחו כולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי, that in a case where it's from the כח of the כח, everyone agrees that it's מותר. כי פליגי, where is the מחלוקת, בכוחו, when it comes directly from his כח. And that's where רב אשי or רב שימי בר אשי say it's אסור, and רב פפא nevertheless says that it's מותר. And the גמרא says, הוה עובדא בכח כוחו, there was a story that it came from the כח of the כח of a גוי, ואסר רב יעקב מנהר פקוד, and רב יעקב מנהר פקוד said that it's אסור. In other words, the הלכה is that even כח כוחו is also אסור. תוספות says that's actually how the רבינו חננאל פסקנ׳ט, because מעשה רב, since the גמרא tells a story that רב יעקב מנהר פקוד actually פסקנ׳ט like that, so therefore the הלכה is like that. And therefore תוספות says that the way to get around this is that when the גוי will turn the wheel in order to cause the beams to press down on the grapes, a איד should help along with him. And if a איד will help along with him, then it will be מותר. But תוספות adds that we have to have such a case that the איד himself would also have been able to lower it, or in a case where either of them would have the כח to lower it. Because if it would be a case that the גוי himself would be able to turn the wheel and cause the beams to crush the grapes, it's only that the איד himself wouldn't be able to do it, in this case it might be אסור, because this would be similar to the case of זה יכול וזה אינו יכול. Because the case is like this, like שנים שעשו פטורין, the גמרא says in מסכת שבת that if two people do a מלאכה together, then they're both פטור, because only if one does the complete מלאכה, he is חייב. But nevertheless the גמרא says there that when do we say they're פטור? In a case where either of them himself couldn't have done it, or in a case where each one of them himself could have done it. But in a case where one could have done it, and one couldn't have done it, so the one that could have done it himself, he is חייב. So in this case too, if the גוי himself could have done it, and the איד himself couldn't have done it, so then it's considered as if the גוי himself did the whole thing, and therefore it wouldn't help the fact that the איד helped him out. And therefore, the only time it would help if a איד helped out the גוי, in a case where, or the גוי himself couldn't have done it and the איד himself couldn't have done it, or in a case where both of them themselves could have done it. But if it's a case that the גוי himself could have done it, and the איד couldn't, then the איד's helping wouldn't count, and therefore it would be considered that the גוי did it himself. But then תוספות say that the רשב״ם doesn't say that way. The רשב״ם says that if it happened that the גוי himself rolled the wheel, and there is a הפסד מרובה, there is a great loss, then you could rely on the איכא דאמרי of the גמרא that says that by כח כחו it is מותר. Which means that בדיעבד we could rely that the הלכה is not like רב אשי, the הלכה is like רב פפא. And therefore, at least in the case where it's כח כחו, so then we are able to rely on the היתר to say that הלכה is like רב פפא. But then תוספות continues that in the time of תוספות, the way they used to have the wine presses was that it wasn't just two כחות, but it was three כחות, because you had to have a stick and the stick made the wheel turn, and that made the beam squeeze. And in addition to that, you even had a fourth כח, when they used to put certain boards on the grapes. So really what would happen, the first thing was to move the stick, and the stick would move the wheel, and the me- wheel would move the beam, and the beam would move the pieces of wood that were laying on top of the grapes. So לכאורה that is more reason to היתר. But then תוספות says that באמת according to the one that says that כח כחו is אסור, it makes no difference if it's three or two. The difference could only be between one כח, which is direct, or two כחות, which is indirect. But between two כחות and three כחות we don't find a difference. And therefore, the fact that in our times, תוספות says, that there are three כחות or four כחות makes no difference, that if it is אסור, it would be אסור even in the case of three or four כחות. Then the גמרא continues: ההוא חביתא, once happened that there was this cask of wine דאיפחית that split לאורכה length-wise. אדרא ההוא עובד כוכבים, so this גוי jumped up, חפכה, he put his arms around it, and he held it tight together so the wine shouldn't run out until they were able to bring other jars to save the wine. שרייה רפרם בר פפא, that רפרם בר פפא allowed it. ואי תימא, some say it was רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, that it was רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע that allowed it. To do what with it? לזבונה לעובדי כוכבים, to sell it to גוים. In other words, he said that it's not אסור בהנאה. And the reason for that is, because the גוי did not shake it, for there was no שכשוך, therefore it is not אסור. And even though the גוי held the two halves of the jar together, so לכאורה he was touching the wine through the two halves of the jar. And the דין is that if a גוי touches the wine through a כלי, through a rod, for instance, it's still אסור. So how come here it's not אסור? So רש״י says, because in the case of the rod, he at least is משכשך, he shakes it around, he splashes around with the rod, so we say it's אסור. But in this case, he didn't splash around at all, he didn't shake it around at all. And therefore, the fact that he held the wine through the two halves of the jar doesn't count, and that's why at least you're allowed to sell it to other גוים, which means it's מותר בהנאה. והני מילי, but that is only דפקע לאורכה, if it cracked in length, אבל לפוסיא, but if it was done to the width, אפילו בשתייה שרי, even to drink it you're allowed. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? מעשה לבנה קא עביד, all he did was, he did the same thing as a brick would have done. Because since the crack is in the width, so the top half of the jar is automatically laying on the bottom half, so it's laying there anyway. And even if he wouldn't have done anything, it still would have laid there, the only thing is, since there was a crack, some of the wine would come out. This is not like the case where it broke lengthwise, so if he wouldn't hold it, both halves would fall down, so the whole wine is there because he's holding it, that's why at least it's אסור to drink, you're only allowed to sell it. But in a case where it broke in the width, so then the top part of the jar would lay on it anyway, the only thing is, a little bit of the wine would just drip through those that crack, so therefore that doesn't count, because מאי טעמא, מעשה לבנה קא עביד, he just did the same thing as a brick, as if he would put a brick on top and that would hold it down, the weight of the brick would hold it down tight, the same thing he did. He held it down tight, but it's not considered as if he held the whole wine. And therefore, in a case like that, you're even allowed to drink. Then the גמרא

continues: ההוא עובד כוכבים דאשתכח דהוה קאי במעצרתא, once they found a גוי standing next to a wine press of a איד, the wine press was empty. And the שאלה was whether you're allowed to use this wine press later on. אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, אי איכא טופח להטפיח, if there is some liquid in the wine press that wet enough that would make other things wet, בעי הדחה, בעי ניגוב, so you have to rinse it, which means you have to pour water over it, and then you have to dry it. And then, as רש״י explains, that you have to put ashes into it, and then water in it, and then ashes again. ואי לא, if there was no liquid in it that was damp enough to make other things wet, בהדחה בעלמא סגי, it's enough if you just rinse it, and then you're able to use it. And תוספות explains that when the גמרא said in the case of טופח להטפיח you have to have הדחה and ניגוב, so תוספות says the גמרא did not have to mention הדחה, that you have to rinse it and dry it, because we know the כלל is that whenever you have to dry it, you first must rinse it with water, that's the כלל. So if it would just say ניגוב, we would understand it means הדחה and ניגוב. Why did he mention it? Because since he wants to mention that if there was no טופח להטפיח, בהדחה בעלמא סגי, just rinsing is enough, that's why in the first part he also mentions rinsing. That's why he says if there is טופח להטפיח, you have to rinse it and dry it, and if not, rinsing is enough. So the reason he mentions in the first case rinsing, because in the second case he wants to mention that rinsing is enough. And then תוספות says that the רשב״ם says that we don't really פסקן that you have to do ניגוב, that you have to dry it. And he says because we rely on the גמרא later on in דף ע״ד עמוד ב׳, where there it comes out that you don't have to dry it, and just rinsing is enough. But תוספות asks a קשיא on this whole דין. That if there is טופח להטפיח, then you have to have הדחה and ניגוב, and if not, הדחה itself is enough. But תוספות asks, in a case where there is no טופח להטפיח, why is the דין that rinsing is enough? ממה נפשך, is it considered still wine לגבי יין נסך, then you should have to have rinsing and drying. If it is not considered wine לגבי יין נסך, then you shouldn't even have to rinse it either. Shouldn't have to do anything. What is the פשט that you have to rinse it, but you don't have to dry it? And the רשב״ם answers that this is for sure, this is considered wine, and therefore it is שייך to be considered יין נסך. But the question then is why don't you have to dry it? So he says, because nevertheless it's not considered a חיבור to the wine that's בלוע in the גת. That like this, if it's טופח להטפיח, so not only is this itself considered wine and יין נסך, but the wine that's absorbed in the vat itself is connected to this wine, and therefore everything else becomes יין נסך. So therefore, in order to get rid of that, you also have to dry it out. But in a case where it's not טופח להטפיח, so then we don't consider that this should be connected to the wine that's absorbed inside. So therefore, to get rid of this wine, you have to, therefore at least you have to rinse it. But to have to dry it because of the wine that's absorbed in the vat, that you don't have to do, and therefore הדחה הדחה is enough. And now we continue with the משנה. The משנה says:

עובד כוכבים שנמצא עומד בצד הבור של יין, if you find a גוי standing next to the בור, the place where you gather the wine, and we don't know whether he touched it or not, so we say like this: אם יש לו מלוה עליו, אסור, if the גוי has a debt by the ייד, then it's אסור, because then we say the גוי is not afraid to touch the wine, because he feels if he's going to touch the wine and the ייד will be angry at him, he'll say pay me my debt. אין לו מלוה עליו, but if he has no debt on him, מותר, it is מותר, because we assume that the גוי probably didn't touch it, because the גוי would be afraid to touch it, because the ייד might see him, and the ייד will be angry with him. But if he does have a loan, in other words the ייד owes him money, and as the גמרא will explain it means that the ייד owes him money for the wine, there is a lien on the wine, so then he would not be afraid to touch it, and therefore it would be אסור. נפל לבור, if a גוי fell into the בור, ועלה, and he went up, and the גמרא will explain it doesn't mean he went up himself, it means they dragged him out because he died. או מדדו בקנה, or he measured some of the wine with a rod, או התיז את הצרעה בקנה, he flicked out a hornet with a rod, he took it out of the wine with a rod, או שהיה מטפח על פי חבית מרותחת, or he tapped on top of a חבית, of a jar that was bubbling, and all he touched was the bubbles on top, in all these cases, בכל אלו היה מעשה, all these cases actually happened, ואמרו חכמים ימכר, and the חכמים said you're allowed to sell it, because this is not really a דרך ניסוך. All these cases is not דרך ניסוך. Not in the case where he fell into the בור, not in the case where he just measured the wine with a rod, or he took out the hornet with a rod, or he just top touched the bubbles on top, all these cases, it is not real ניסוך, and therefore it is מותר בהנאה, you're allowed to sell it. But

רבי שמעון מתיר, רבי שמעון allows it even to be drunk, he says that not only is it מותר בהנאה, it's also מותר בשתיה. Then the משנה continues: נטל את החבית וזרקה בחמתו לבור, זה, if a גוי picked up a jar and threw it out of anger, or according to the ב״ח, he is not גורס in the משנה the word בחמתו, he threw it into the בור of wine, היה מעשה, there was a מעשה like that, or as it says in the side it's supposed to say היה מעשה בבית שאן והכשירו, and they said it was כשר. And the גמרא will explain why it's כשר, that even to drink it it is כשר, but since the גוי didn't touch the wine, he just threw the חבית into the wine, so then the wine is allowed to be drunk. And the גמרא says: אמר שמואל, שמואל said, this goes back to the beginning of the משנה, where it said that the גוי was standing next to the בור of wine, and we said that if the גוי has a מלוה on the ייד, then we're afraid he touched the wine, and you can't drink the wine, so שמואל says: והוא שיש לו מלוה על אותו יין, that's only if he has a loan concerning that wine, if there is a lien on that wine. אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said: מתניתין נמי דיקא, we have a proof to that also from our משנה, that the משנה That's going to be in the next דף. דתנן, because we learned in that משנה, המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים, if a person is preparing wine of a גוי, but he wants it to be טהור, because he wants the יידן should be able to drink it. So, the ייד is the one that takes care of it, and he does the whole process, but it's the גוי. ונותנו ברשותו, and he keeps it in the רשות, in the possession of the גוי. But הלה כותב לו התקבלתי ממך מעות, the גוי writes to the ייד, gives him a document saying, "I received the money from you." Which means, "I cannot demand from you the money for this wine." So, now it is as if the wine already belongs to the ייד. ומותר, so this wine is allowed. אבל, but אם ירצה ישראל להוציא, if the ייד will want to take it out from the גוי's רשות before paying him, ואינו מניחו, and the גוי would not let him, עד שיתן לו מעות, until he pays him the money, והיה מעשה בבית שאן, and this happened actually in בית שאן, ואסרו, and the חכמים said it's אסור. But in the case where the גוי would let him take it out, and since the גוי wrote him a document that he already received the money from him, so then, even if it's in the רשות of the גוי now, it's מותר. And as רש"י said here, that this is only if the ייד has the key, or the ייד has the seal, then it's מותר. But at least in that case, it's מותר. But if the גוי would not allow the ייד to take it out of his רשות, then it's אסור. And the גמרא says טעמא, the whole reason why it's אסור, דאינו מניחו, because good, the גוי doesn't let him take it out. הא מניחו, but if he would let him take it out, שרי, it's מותר. And even though the ייד still owes him money, but since he doesn't owe him money on the wine, because concerning the wine itself, he wrote to him, "It's as if I received the money for it." But it doesn't mean that he's not going to collect the money that he owes him. It's all the גוי was saying, that now you owe me money, but not concerning this wine. Concerning this wine, it's as if I received the money for it already, so it's not mine. But nevertheless, the ייד owes him the money that he has to give him for the wine. And nevertheless, we say that if the ייד has the right to take it out of the רשות of the גוי, it is מותר. שמע מינה, that proves, מלוה על אותו יין בעינן, שמע מינה. It proves that when do we say that it's אסור if there is a מלוה? Only if the מלוה is on the wine. If the loan is concerning that wine itself, then the גוי would not be afraid to touch it, because he feels as if the wine is his, because there is a lien on that wine for him. But in a case where the ייד owes him money, but it's not concerning this wine, it's not a lien on the wine, then it's מותר. As we see there, that even though the ייד owed the גוי the money for that wine, but since there was no lien on the wine itself, therefore, it is מותר. And that's why the פשט here in the משנה is the same, that when it says in the משנה that if the ייד owes the גוי money, it is אסור, it is only if he owes him the money for the wine. That the wine itself is the object that the גוי is able to take if he doesn't pay. And the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, נפל לבור ועלה, if the גוי fell into the בור, and he went out, then the wine is מותר. אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, לא שנו אלא שעלה מת, this was learned only if he went up dead, which means they took him out when he was dead. אבל עלה חי, but if he himself climbed out alive, אסור, it is אסור. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The whole reason we said before why it is מותר is because this is not דרך ניסוך, since he fell in. So what difference does it make whether he went out alive or dead? Even if he went out alive, it should be מותר because he didn't intend to be מנסך! But it says the reason is, אמר רב פפא, דדמי עליה כיום אידם, it has the same דין as if the day of their holiday. We know that on the day of their holiday they go and thank their god. And the same here, since he was saved, he was rescued, so definitely he's thanking his god. So while he's climbing out, he's probably dedicating the wine as a thanksgiving to his god for saving him. וממילא, he is מכוין to be מנסך, and that's why it would be considered יין נסך. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, מדדו בקנה, that if he measured the wine with a rod, and then the משנה mentioned a few more cases, כל אלו היה מעשה, all these cases actually happened, ואמרו, and the חכמים said, ימכר, that it could be sold, which means it's מותר בהנאה, but ר' שמעון מתיר, ר' שמעון said that it's even מותר to drink.

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה, so רב אדא בר אהבה said, ינוחו לו לרבי שמעון ברכות על ראשו, let there ברכות come on the head of ר' שמעון, because we see, כי כשהוא מתיר, מתיר אפילו לשתיה, that in those cases where he says that it's allowed, he says it's allowed even to be drunk, וכשהוא אוסר, אוסר אפילו בהנאה, and wherever he says it's אסור, he says it's אסור even בהנאה. The חכמים say sometimes that it's אסור בהנאה, and מותר to drink, but ר' שמעון always goes to the extremes. If it's מותר, it's מותר even to drink; if it's אסור, it's אסור even בהנאה. The גמרא continues, אמר רב חייא בריה דרב אבא בר נחמני, רב חייא, the son of אבא בר נחמני, said, אמר רב חסדא, in the name of רב חסדא, אמר רב, in the name of רב, ואמרי לה, some say, אמר רב חסדא אמר זעירי, that רב חסדא said it's the name of זעירי, הלכה כרבי שמעון, that the הלכה is like ר' שמעון, that in these cases, it's even מותר to drink. איכא דאמרי, some say, אמר רב חסדא, that רב חסדא said, that אמר לי אבא בר חנה, that אבא בר חנה told me, הכי אמר זעירי, this is what זעירי said, הלכה כרבי שמעון, that the הלכה is like ר' שמעון. And the גמרא גמרא says that it is not so, ואין הלכה כרבי שמעון, the מסקנא, the end is that הלכה is not like רבי שמעון. And the גמרא continues, it quotes from the משנה where it says נטל חבית וזרקה בחמתו לבור, if a גוי took a חבית, took a jar, and he threw it out of anger into a בור of wine, זה היה מעשה, this actually happened, והכשירו, and the חכמים were מכשיר it, the חכמים said that it's כשר. And the גמרא says, אמר רב אשי, רב אשי says, כל שבזב טמא, בעובד כוכבים עושה יין נסך. Anything that if a זב would do it, he would make it טמא, so if a גוי does it, it turns the wine into יין נסך. כל שבזב טהור, anything that if a זב would do would be טהור, בעובד כוכבים אינו עושה יין נסך, if a גוי would do that to wine, it would not turn it into יין נסך. The דין is that a זב is a person who a certain liquid comes out from his body, and he becomes טמא. And he becomes טמא not only if he touches things with his hand, but even if he touches things with a stick, he also makes it טמא, as long as he is holding the stick. So too, if a גוי would touch יין נסך with a stick, for instance, he would make it טמא. In other words, the

גמרא is saying here that in order to know the rule of when a גוי makes wine into יין נסך, let's look at the case when does a זב make things טמא. Now this, רש״י explains, this כלל is not a rule concerning all the דינים. Because for instance, we know there is a דין by a זב which does not apply to יין נסך by a גוי. For instance, there is a דין by a זב that he is מטמא בהיסט, which means that even if he didn't touch the object, but if he moved it, so then the object is טמא. But by יין נסך, the דין is not true. If a גוי did not touch it, even if he moved it, then it doesn't necessarily become יין נסך. Because רב אשי himself said, as we learned before, that in the case of זיקא, in the case of the skin bottle that was tied on top, so he said, בין מליא בין חסירא שרי, whether it's full or it is not full, it is מותר. And the reason is because we're sure he didn't touch the wine inside, and the fact that it shook is not counted, as we said before, because it's only a little bit. And the fact that he moved it, that he made it go, that definitely is not considered a reason to become יין נסך. Even though if a זב would do that, if a זב would carry something in a closed bottle, even if it's full, it would become טמא. So we see clearly that this is not a general rule concerning all דינים. All this rule is, is only concerning the דין of מגע, only concerning the דין of touching of a גוי. So we say that when does a גוי make יין נסך by touching? The same way as a זב would make the things טמא through touching. And the main point of this דין is to teach us that even if the גוי didn't touch it directly, if he touched it through something, still it becomes יין נסך, just like a זב, even if he didn't touch the object directly, he touched it through something else, it becomes טמא. And the same thing in the case of טהור, that just like a זב, if he threw something at another object, and it fell on it, it doesn't become טמא, because when the object touched the second thing, it was already out of the hand of the זב, the same is by a גוי. If a גוי throws something into the wine, it doesn't become יין נסך. And this is actually the connection to the משנה. Because in the משנה it said that if he picked up a חבית, and he threw it in the בור, it is כשר. So we're saying now this fits to this rule. Because just like by a זב, if he throws something at another object, it doesn't make it טמא, so too if the גוי throws something in the wine, he doesn't make it יין נסך. But not concerning all the דינים do we compare the דין of יין נסך to the דין of a זב. And תוספות gives another example where we see that the דין of יין נסך is not the same by a זב. For instance, if a זב will sit on something, he will make it טמא. מה שאין כן, but by a חבית of wine, if a גוי would sit down on a barrel of wine, he would not make it יין נסך. So all this shows that this rule is not a complete rule. It's only concerning touching, that if he touches it, even if he touches it through something else, it makes it יין נסך. On the other hand, if he doesn't touch it, he throws something at it, he does not make it יין נסך, the same as by a זב. And as תוספות says, this is actually the הלכה, that if a גוי throws a stone or anything else into wine, even if he has כוונה to do it, it's still מותר, and not only מותר בהנאה, you're even allowed to drink it. And תוספות brings that this is the view of רב יוסף טוב עלם also. And תוספות adds that the רב משה מקוצי writes, that even if a גוי would throw water into the wine, it also wouldn't make it יין נסך. Even though we learned earlier in the גמרא that if a גוי mixes water into wine, it is אסור, but there it is the case where he had intention of putting the water into the wine in order to dilute the wine, so that's כוונת מזיגה. So then we say it's אסור, as the גמרא said, because לך לך, we tell a נזיר, stay away from the vineyard, so here too we say to a person, stay away from this wine. But in the case where he threw water in not intending to dilute the wine, but just like he would throw anything else he threw the water in, so then the wine is מותר בשתיה, you're even allowed to drink it. Now we will continue the גמרא.

איתיביה רב הונא לרב אשי, רב הונא asked a question of רב אשי: נוטל את החבית וזרקה בחמתו לבור, as we learned that he took the חבית and he threw it out of anger into the בור, זה היה מעשה בבית שאן והכשירו. This was a story in בית שאן and they were מכשיר it. And as we said before, on one hand from here we see that throwing does not turn it into יין נסך. But the גמרא is מדייק just the opposite: בחמתו אין, שלא בחמתו לא. Here it comes out that only if he threw it out of anger, that's when the דין is that it does not become יין נסך. And the reason would be because then he doesn't have a כוונה of throwing it. He only has a כוונה of bringing out his anger, expressing his anger. But if he would throw this out of anger, with the כוונה of making it יין נסך, then the דין would be it is become יין נסך. So this doesn't fit to the כלל that רב אשי gave. רב אשי gave a כלל that anything by a זב that's טהור is also by a גוי not יין נסך, and as we said before, concerning touching and throwing this rule applies. So he said that if a גוי throws something into wine, it doesn't become יין נסך, just like by a זב if he throws something in another object, it doesn't become טמא. And here we see it's not so. That only if he didn't have כוונה, that's when it is not יין נסך. But if he threw it not out of anger, he threw it בכוונה of making it יין נסך, it does become יין נסך. So this is a קשיא on the כלל that רב אשי gave. And the גמרא answers, לא, no. התם there, דקא אזיל מיניה ומיניה, means it constantly goes through him. Which means the case is not where he actually picked it up and threw it, but that he rolled it all the way till the בור, and then dropped it into the בור. And that is the difference between whether he did it out of anger or not out of anger. If he didn't do it out of anger, then it is אסור because we're afraid when he came close to the בור, maybe he touched the wine in the בור. And that's why it's אסור. But if he did out of anger, we're not afraid that he touched the wine, because then he probably just pushed it in at the end without touching the wine, and therefore if it's done out of anger, it is מותר. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט. And תוספות says that it's משמע from רש״י, that רש״י wants to say that when a גוי touched wine שלא בכוונה, not intending, through something else, you still can't drink it. And the reason if it was done through anger, the חכמים were מכשיר it, that is because he really didn't even touch the

wine. He held onto the חבית before it got to the בור. When he got close to the בור, that's when he pushed it in, so he didn't touch the בור even through something else, and that's why it's מותר. On the other hand, if it was done שלא בחמתו, not out of anger, it is אסור. אי, the question is why should it be אסור, because after all we just said that he pushed it into the בור, so he threw it, by the time it went to the בור, it let, it was away from his hands already. The reason is, because if he did it very close to the בור, we make a גזירה, we're מחמיר, maybe he touched it. And תוספות says this פשט was also learned by the רשב״ם in the name of רש״י. And he makes a חילוק whether you throw it from far, or you throw it from close. If you throw it from close, then we're afraid maybe you actually touched the wine through the חבית. If you throw it from far, we're not afraid of that. But then תוספות says that תוספות earlier already had explained, it's very hard to make a חילוק between throwing far and throwing close, and therefore תוספות does not learn this is the פשט in the גמרא. But תוספות earlier on דף נ״ז עמוד א׳ in the דיבור המתחיל הופקסינן, תוספות learns the פשט in the גמרא different. That באמת תוספות learns that if you touch על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה, this is not considered touching and the wine is מותר. And if you don't touch it with the hand, if the גוי touches it through something else, so then if it's without כוונה, then it doesn't become יין נסך. And the פשט here in the גמרא is when it says קא אזיל מיניה ומיניה, it means that he actually rolled the חבית all the way to the בור and pushed it into the בור. Which means that when the חבית touched the בור, he was still holding onto it. And the difference between whether he did it out of anger or not out of anger is, because if he did it out of anger, so then he wasn't מכוין for יין נסך. He didn't have intentions for יין נסך because the reason he did it was because he was angry. And therefore, even though he actually pushed it into the בור, so he was still holding onto the חבית when it touched the בור, but it doesn't matter since it is מגע על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה, since it is touching the wine through something else without כוונה. But if he didn't do it out of anger, so then it was with כוונה, so then we say even though he touched the wine על ידי דבר אחר, but since it was done with כוונה, so the wine is אסור. And that's what the גמרא is מחלק: that if it was done בחמתו out of anger, then it does not become יין נסך, but if it was not out of anger, then it does become יין נסך, because it is מגע על ידי דבר אחר.

Concerning what we learned earlier in the גמרא, the מחלוקת between רב פפא and רב אשי, רב פפא said that the זיקא, that if a גוי is carrying this skin bottle which is tied on top and a ייד is following behind him, so רב פפא said that if it's full it's מותר, but if it is missing then it is אסור, and רב אשי said that even if it's missing it's also מותר. And the reason is the גמרא said, because רב אשי holds אין דרך ניסוך בכך. This is not the normal way of making it יין נסך. And as we said, that what does that mean? As תוספות explains, that the דרך of the גוי was not to be מנסך through just shaking the wine in the כלי when he carried it. This is not his normal way of ניסוך. And therefore, if the גוי carried it, even if it was missing, and therefore when he walked with it it definitely shook, this קרקוש doesn't matter because it wasn't the דרך of the גוי to be מנסך in such a way. But the ר"ן brings that the רמב"ם writes in the following לשון: He says, אין דרך ניסוך בכך כיון שהוא קשור, since it is tied, דלא מקרקש מאי דלא חזי, because a גוי would not be מנסך something he doesn't see. So the reason is not because as תוספות says, that he would not be מנסך while he is carrying something, while he's walking, but he would not be מנסך something he doesn't see. And since this is something that is closed, so therefore this is not a דרך of ניסוך. But לכאורה, the ר"ן says, it would come out a difference between the way the רמב"ם learns and the way תוספות says, because what would be if he would carry it in a glass bottle? So according to the רמב"ם, since the whole reason is because he is not מנסך something he doesn't see, but since glass is see-through, he does see it, so then we would say he is מנסך. But if the reason is as תוספות says, because a person would not be מנסך through קרקוש while holding a כלי while he's walking, so that makes no difference whether it is see-through or not see-through. And therefore, even if it would be a glass כלי, it still should be מותר. But according to the רמב"ם, it could be that in a glass כלי, it should be אסור because he could see it. But on the other hand, the רמב"ם himself writes in פרק י"ב in הלכות מאכלות אסורות that כלי סתום מותר שייחדו לו לטלטלו ממקום למקום, if it's a closed כלי you're allowed to let the גוי carry it from place to place, ואף על פי שהיין מתנדנד, even though the wine moved. And the reason for that is since it's closed. So you see that the רמב"ם also stresses the point depends on whether it's closed or open. And he also writes in that פרק, as we mentioned before, that if he holds a כלי פתוח של יין, an open כלי of wine, and he's משכשך it, even if he didn't pick up the כלי and he didn't touch the wine, the wine is אסור. So here we also see that it doesn't depend on whether he sees it or not. וממילא, according to the רמב"ם himself, it is not clear what would be the דין when he carries a glass כלי.

Concerning the כלל that רש"י gave, that whatever by a זב is טמא a גוי would make יין נסך, and whatever by a זב is טהור a גוי would not make יין נסך. And as we explained it before the way רש"י writes it in the גמרא, the ר"ן also quotes רש"י, but he quotes it a little different and explains it in a little different way. He explains it as follows: He says that this כלל is not fit for everything, that's the way we said before too. And the ראיה for that is that a זב, if he is מסיט, if he moved something even if he doesn't touch it it becomes טמא, but a גוי, if he moved something without touching it, it doesn't turn it into יין נסך, as we see earlier in the גמרא in the case of this skin bottle that רב אשי said that the גוי does not make it טמא even though while he walks with it he moves it. Another thing we see that there's a difference between a זב and a גוי making יין נסך, and this is a little bit different than the way we said before. He says that if a זב would touch something through something else, for instance through a rod, it would be טהור. But by a גוי, if he touches the יין through something else, he does make it יין נסך. So what is the פשט in the גמרא where it says כל שבזב טמא, עכו"ם would make it יין נסך, כל שבזב טהור, then a גוי would not make it into יין נסך? The פשט is like this: that whatever by a זב would be considered היסט, if the same thing would be done by a גוי, it would be considered נגיעה, it would be considered touching. And whatever by a זב, he would move something, but it still would not have a דין of היסט, it would not be טמא through היסט, so then if a גוי would do it to the wine, it would not be considered touching of the wine. And he explains, for instance, if a זב would take a stick and move something, if he takes a stick and touches something, he טאקע doesn't make it טמא. But if he takes a stick and moves something with the stick, so then he makes it טמא because that is considered היסט. He is the direct cause for the thing to move. So by a זב it would be טמא, but not that it would be טמא because of מגע, because he touched it. Because as we said before, if a זב touches through a stick, it doesn't become טמא. But if he moves it through a stick, it becomes טמא because of היסט. Now if a גוי would do the same thing, he would touch it through a stick, then it would become יין נסך. Which means we compare the דינים of נגיעה of יין נסך by a גוי to the דינים of היסט by a זב. And therefore, just like by a זב if he would be מסיט the object, if he would move the object through a stick, he would make it טמא, by a גוי if he would touch the object through a stick, he would make it טמא. On the other hand, by a זב whatever is טהור, which means it would not be considered היסט, if the גוי would touch it in that same way It could not be considered נגיעה. For instance, if a זב would throw something and through that he would move a second object, then it would be טהור, because even though he caused the object to move, but since he was not holding on to the stick when he made the second object move, he just threw for instance a stick and that made the other object move, that is not considered היסט by a זב and it's still טהור. By a גוי, if he did the same thing to wine, it is not called נגיעה. If for instance he threw a stick at the wine, so it is not considered that he touched the wine to make it into יין נסך. So it comes out that when we compare a זב to a גוי, we're not comparing it to all the דינים. We're only comparing it each one to its own דין. That whatever by a זב is considered היסט and it's טמא, by a גוי is considered מגע and it's יין נסך. And whatever by a זב is not considered היסט and is not טמא, by a גוי it would not be considered מגע. And the purpose of רב אשי making this כלל is mainly, as the ר"ן says, לאפוקי צרורות, in order to exclude צרורות, which means if you throw rocks. And as we said before, the main purpose is to teach us that if a גוי would throw something at the wine, he would not turn it into יין נסך. And this is similar to what the גמרא says in פרק כיצד הרגל, י"ז ע"ב, כל שבזב טמא, בנזקין משלם נזק שלם. That whatever by a זב if he would do it, he would make it טמא, if it's done in the case of נזקין, if it happens in the case of damages, then you would have to pay נזק שלם. But if it's a case that if the זב would do it, he would not make it טמא, then by נזקין you also don't have to pay נזק שלם. And the גמרא explains that what is it trying to tell us? The דין of צרורות. That if an animal walked and through its walking pebbles or rocks shot up and made a damage, so then you don't pay נזק שלם for it, because a זב in the same case would not make it טמא. So we see that when we use this כלל, כל שבזב טמא, and we're trying to compare this to another דין, the main case is concerning a זב throwing something and he doesn't make it טמא. So over there we're saying if a זב throws something he doesn't make it טמא, so too by נזקין you don't pay נזק שלם. And here too the גמרא means the same thing, that just like if a זב throws something it doesn't make it טמא, if the גוי would throw something he would not turn it into יין נסך. And then the ר"ן continues that we see that the רי"ף skipped this דין of רב אשי, this כלל that רב אשי gave. So he says that the רמב"ן writes that maybe the רי"ף holds that we don't פסקן like רב אשי. Because it could be that the reason רב אשי gives this כלל and holds that if a גוי throws something into the wine it doesn't turn into יין נסך is בכלל he holds that there is no גזירה by כוחו by יין נסך. That the חכמים never אסר'ד יין נסך if it was done only through the כוחו, through the power of a גוי, but not a direct touching of the גוי himself. And a ראיה to it is, because רב אשי earlier said במרצרפתא דזירי, in the case of the wine press which is done through beans. But the גמרא says according to one לשון there that even בכוחו שרי, that when רב אשי said it's מותר, it's not only by כח כוחו, but even by כוחו. So it comes out that he holds בכלל by כוחו that the חכמים didn't make a גזירה, even if it was done through כוונה. And since we don't פסקן like that, we פסקן that כוחו is אסור, so it comes out that we don't פסקן like רב אשי in this דין either where he says that if the גוי throws it doesn't make it יין נסך, because if it all depends on his own opinion that כוחו is not אסור, so we who don't hold of that opinion and according to us כוחו is אסור, so the גוי's throwing also would make it אסור. And that is the reason the רי"ף doesn't bring the כלל of רב אשי, and it is because we don't פסקן like רב אשי. But the ר"ן writes at the end, ואין זה מספיק, this is not enough. In other words, he says that the words of the רמב"ן is not enough to prove that we don't פסקן like רב אשי. Concerning the גמרא's status, where the גמרא says that the case is דקאזל מיניה ומיניה, that the difference between whether he threw it out of anger or he threw it not out of anger is the case דקאזל מיניה ומיניה, when it's going from him, and we said that there are two פשט'ים there. There's רש"י's פשט who says that it means that he rolled it all the way to the end and that's when he threw it in. So if it was done out of anger, so we don't suspect maybe he touched it. But if it was done not out of anger, we suspect maybe he touched it. And that's why if it was done out of anger it's מותר, if it was done not out of anger it's אסור. But we said according to תוספות, תוספות learns that in both cases he touched it. But the difference is, since this is called touching על ידי דבר אחר, so if he did it out of anger it's called touching על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה, but if he didn't do it out of anger, it's considered touching it על ידי דבר אחר בכוונה. But the ר"ן adds another point here. He says that the חבית is very heavy, and since the חבית is very heavy, it is not even considered touching it על ידי דבר אחר, it's not considered מגע. The only thing it could be considered is כוחו. Now,

since it's only כוחו, by כוחו שלא בכוונה the חכמים didn't make a גזירה. Since it's only through his power, it's not considered touching. Touching is considered when something you're holding in your hand and with that object you touch something else. But if it's very heavy and you drop it in, so then that is not considered touching. But nevertheless you made the wine move through your כח when you dropped it in. But if you did it out of anger, since it was done שלא בכוונה, so that is considered כוחו שלא בכוונה. And כוחו כוחו שלא בכוונה the חכמים didn't make a גזירה. But if it was done not out of anger, then it's called כוחו בכוונה, because you intended to do it, so it's בכוונה, and even though it's only כוחו, but כוחו בכוונה the חכמים did make אסור. But according to this פשט, it would come out that this דין, this חילוק, is only because it's a חבית, because it's a heavy thing. But if it wouldn't be a heavy thing, so it would not be considered כוחו, it would be considered מגע, and there טאקע we would say that there is no difference between חמתו and שלא בחמתו, in all cases it's אסור, because it's not כוחו, but it's מגע, and therefore it's אסור. But according to the סברא that כוחו על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה is always מותר, so then even if it wouldn't be a heavy thing, we also could make a חילוק between חמתו and שלא בחמתו, because since he touched it through דבר אחר, so if he did it בחמתו, out of anger, so that's שלא בכוונה, so it's מגע על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה, and it's מותר. If he didn't do it out of anger, so there is בכוונה, so even though it's מגע על ידי דבר אחר, but מגע על ידי דבר אחר בכוונה is אסור, and this is the פשט that we said before. And also the ר"ן says, according to the one that holds that anytime you touch it על ידי דבר אחר it's considered כוחו, so then even if it's not a heavy thing, it's always considered כוחו. So if it is שלא בחמתו, it's כוחו בכוונה, and that's why it's אסור. If it is בחמתו, it's כוחו שלא בכוונה, and therefore it is מותר. According to these two פשטים, we don't have to say that it's דווקא if it was a חבית, which is heavy, but even if it's not a חבית, we're still able to make the חילוק between חמתו and שלא בחמתו. And

turning, we learned before the story that once a חבית cracked in half. It cracked lengthwise, and a גוי jumped up and held it together. But רבין בר פפא said that you're allowed to sell it to גוים. In other words, you can't drink it, but you're allowed to sell it to גוים, you're allowed to have הנאה from it. But if it cracked to its width, so then you're even allowed to drink it, because it's משא לבינה, which means all that is, he's just keeping it heavier. It's not trying to... he's holding it together like in the case where it cracked in its length, then if you wouldn't hold it, both halves would fall off, so then it's considered as if he's holding the wine. But when it's in its width, it's only that he's making it heavy, because the top part would lay on the bottom part anyway. So תוספות brings that the רשב"ם says like this: that a גוי who strength- strengthened the מגרופית of the גיגית full of wine in order for the דפין to get together, if you have a jar of wine and it starts cracking, because there are separate pieces together and you have to tighten it together, and if the גוי will do it, it is still מותר. And it's not the same as when you have this jar that the גמרא is speaking about here, that cracked in half, and we said if it's cracked in its length, you can't drink it, because there it's different. In the case of the גמרא, if he wouldn't hold it together, then both halves would fall apart. So therefore, when he held it together, it's as if he's holding the wine. But in the case of the jars of wine that are made of long pieces, and they are together, the only thing is they're not tight together, so here it would stand anyway, it wouldn't fall apart. The only thing is, since it has some cracks, you have to strengthen those cracks. So therefore, if the גוי does that, that doesn't matter. And the same is concerning the wooden barrels which are made of long pieces of wood that hold together anyway, so if a גוי would tighten them together, it would still be מותר. But the רשב"ם says that if you would let a גוי stick pieces of cloth in the cracks where you connect the bottom floor of the חבית, of the barrel, with its walls, that would be אסור. Why? Because then the גוי might be touching the wine. But

תוספות brings that the ר"י said that you're allowed to let the גוי even stick in the pieces of cloth on the bottom in the place where the walls are connected to the floor of the חבית. Why? And the reason is because when you stick in the cloth, you're not sticking it directly to the wine and you're not touching the wine, because the edges of the floor are מפסיק between there and the wine. So really you're allowed to do it. And רבינו שמואל תוספאה says that if you have a חבית that's dripping through the bottom of the חבית, a גוי is allowed to stick cloth in the cracks in order to hold it up it shouldn't fall out, because this would be the same as the גמרא says that it is only משא לבינה. If it's running a lot, then you have to be careful, because then the גוי would be touching the wine. But if it's just dripping a little bit, so then this is similar to the case where the crack is to the width, and there the גמרא says that even if the גוי makes sure that it doesn't drip, he tightens it, still מותר even to drink it. So the same thing here, if it's dripping from the bottom, it's like the crack is to the width, because that's really where the problem is, to the width of the חבית, and therefore you're allowed to let the גוי stuff it up and make sure that it doesn't drip. But then תוספות says that if he doesn't do it with his hand, he does it with a knife, so then even if it's running a lot, you're allowed to let him do it. Because since he is not מכוון to touch it, he's only מכוון to stuff up the hole, so it's considered מגע עכו"ם שלא בכוונה על ידי דבר אחר, and he is touching it, but he's touching it through something else, through the knife, and it's without כוונה. And according to the רבינו תם, this is מותר. But on the other hand, תוספות says it's better that the איד should start off by putting the piece of cloth into the place till it's stuffed up a little bit, and the גוי will tighten tighten it, like the רבינו תם says, but if the איד לכתחילה starts off, then it's definitely good, because the גוי later on will not even touch it through דבר אחר, because he will be touching the cloth through the knife, but not the wine.