Commentary for Avodah Zarah 113:18

The Talmud now tries to figure out why Shmuel had to delay three festivals before answering. The first reference point is a baraita in which R. Natan and the other sages (later assumed to be R. Shimon) argue about a case where an idolater measured the amount of wine in a vat with his arm or leg. Clearly in such a case the idolater did not intend to libate the wine. Nevertheless, R. Natan says that if he touched it with his hand, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the wine. The sages say it may be sold, but they agree that it may not be drunk.
The problem is that even if Shmuel holds like R. Natan, it is prohibited only if he touched it with his hand. The people pressing the grapes touched it with their feet only. So even if he held like R. Natan, he should have allowed them to sell it.

Shmuel was not looking for someone to support a potential stringency. He was looking for someone to support the leniency of the anonymous voice in this baraita, attributed here to R. Shimon.

According to Rav, this wine cannot be drunk by a Jew. But it can be sold to non-Jews. In other words Jews may derive benefit from it. This is a mid-level of prohibition. Generally, wine that has been touched by non-Jews is prohibited to Jews, even from deriving benefit. The reason that the Jew can sell it (derive benefit from it) is that the idolater touched it accidently.

Kahana and R. Assi, good talmudists they are, compare this ruling with another ruling by Rav. In another context Rav said that if a day old child (non-Jewish) touches wine he makes it yayin nesekh, forbidden to a Jew, even though the child clearly had no control over his limbs. His touch too was by definition accidental.
Rav explains that in that case as well he said that it is forbidden for the Jew to drink the wine. It is not forbidden for the Jew to derive benefit from the wine.
The Talmud will continue to explore the issue of a one day old child who touches Jewish wine.

Shimi raises an objection against Rav. This baraita deals with two types of slaves—those bought from a non-Jew and those born into a Jewish house. Until these slaves are circumcised (if male) and immersed, they are considered non-Jews. Thus they convey impurity. However, others consider them to be pure. This section is not directly related to the issue at hand.

Shimi raises an objection against Rav. This baraita deals with two types of slaves—those bought from a non-Jew and those born into a Jewish house. Until these slaves are circumcised (if male) and immersed, they are considered non-Jews. Thus they convey impurity. However, others consider them to be pure. This section is not directly related to the issue at hand.

The baraita rules that if adult slaves that have not immersed touch wine they render it yayin nesekh, forbidden to the Jew. But minors do not. This is the difficulty on Rav. We shall see his answer tomorrow.

Rav says that the baraita refers only to the children of female slaves. Slaves owned by a Jew are considered Jewish, and therefore these children are Jewish. Their touch does not render wine yayin nesekh. But the touch of non-Jewish minors does, including slaves bought from non-Jews before the slaves were circumcised and immersed.

The problem is that the baraita seemed to say that slaves bought from non-Jews and children of female slaves from Jewish households are treated the same.
Rav answers that they are treated the same when it comes to the impurity of their spit and place of treading. But they are not treated the same when it comes to touching wine.
But there is still a problem. If the spit and place of treading of slaves bought from non-Jews is impure, it makes sense to say that the same is true for the children of female slaves. But if the spit and place of treading of slaves bought from non-Jews is pure, then all the more so the spit and place of treading of children of maidservants born in a Jewish home is pure. And thus, according to the one who says that they are pure, the comparison must be that in neither case do they make yayin nesekh.

The baraita equates slaves bought from non-Jews and slaves born from female slaves not to teach that in both cases minors do not make yayin nesekh. Rather the equation is made to teach that when slaves are bought from non-Jews, once they circumcise and immerse, they are considered Jews and do not render wine yayin nesekh, even if they still are essentially idolaters. This is the opposite of what R. Nahman said. For he said they render wine yayin nesekh until they forget the nature of idolater.
There are two competing notions in this section as to what it is about the non-Jew that causes his touch to prohibit wine. According to the baraita it is his ethnicity. Once his ethnicity is changed by conversion, he no longer renders wine yayin nesekh, no matter what is actual belief or practice is. According to R. Nahman it is his belief, his religion, that matters. If he still worships idols, the fact that he has circumcised and immersed is irrelevant.

When slaves are bought from idolaters they are expected to adopt Judaism. They are circumcised, immerse in the mikveh, and essentially become Jews. However, we know that this was not a “conversion” by choice. It is the only type of forced conversion that is possible in Judaism. These slaves, who had previously served in a pagan home, will still be accustomed to blessing their gods every time they drink wine. Therefore, any wine they touch is yayin nesekh unti they forget their idolatrous ways. According to R. Joshua b. Levi, this takes twelve months.

The baraita implies that if the slaves had been circumcised and immersed they immediately stop rendering wine yayin nesekh. They do not need to wait until idolatry is banished from their lips, as R. Nahman stated.