פירוש על עבודה זרה 119:12

According to this version of the story, R. Papa prohibited only the wine that was on the same level as the spout. The rest of the barrel, what was above it and below it, was permitted. We don’t consider all of the wine to be connected.

According to this version, R. Papa prohibited all of the wine above the stopper, not just the wine adjacent to it. This is because all of this wine rests on the non-Jew’s finger.

A tevul yom is one who has gone to the mikveh to purify himself but the sun has not yet set. According to the first opinion, if the tevul yom touches the wine anywhere, the whole jug is impure. But according to the second opinion, only if he touches it on the top or bottom is the whole jug impure. On top, the bottom is all a base for what is on top and thus it is all impure. If he touches the bottom, all the wine from the top would flow through it and become impure. But if he touches it on the side it is pure. Only that which he actually touched would be impure. This is like the first version of R. Papa.
The sages in this baraita do not agree at all with R. Papa. This leads Rashi to conclude that the halakhah does not follow R. Papa.

If the non-Jew is holding a barrel of wine and pouring the wine into a cask held by the Jew, then the wine is prohibited because it is coming out from the force of the non-Jews.

If the Jew is pouring, the wine is permitted, because the non-Jew is just acting passively. However, if the non-Jew tilts the cask then the wine has moved due to his power and it is prohibited.

If the non-Jew touches the wine in the skin-bottle or causes it to shift in the skin, the wine is prohibited. So if there is a Jew there watching to make sure he doesn’t touch it and the skin is full, then the wine is permitted.

The cask being referred to here is open and therefore, the shaking of the wine does not prohibit it, because the one carrying it would not want it to spill out. Therefore if it is full, the wine is prohibited lest the non-Jew touched it accidentally. If it is not full then the non-Jew probably did not touch it, so it remains permitted.
I should note that R. Papa seems to like coming up with opposite scenarios. In scenario one, a full container is permitted, whereas in scenario two it is prohibited. Rabbis seem to love these puzzles even if the logic is not always so straightforward.

R. Ashi seems to return this law to its logical foundations. Libating is not done by shaking the wine in a skin bottle. Therefore, as long as we know he did not touch it, the wine is permitted.

According to this version, all would agree that if the non-Jew puts direct force on the grapes, the grapes are prohibited. They only disagree about a case where the non-Jew set up the press but did not put direct force on the grapes.

According to a second version of the dispute, a more lenient one, they disagree only when there is direct force. If there is only indirect force, all agree that it is permitted.
However, the story shows that amoraim continued to rule strictly even in cases of indirect force.

The non-Jew held this wine inside the jug by holding the broken jug together. The force that he applies to the walls of the jug causes the wine to be prohibited but only for consumption. A Jew may still sell it.