פירוש על עבודה זרה 130:18

Aha’s father used to sell kosher wine to non-Jews in jugs. He would pour the wine into wine-skins that belonged to the non-Jews. He would then carry the wine-skins across the ford. His payment was keeping the jugs that held the wine before he sold it to the non-Jews. The question is does this count as transporting yayin nesekh?
Abaye allowed this because when he was carrying the wine it had not yet become yayin nesekh.

The Talmud raises a difficulty—doesn’t R. Aha’s father want the water-skins to be preserved. If they burst, then he will have to give them the jugs. Thus in a sense he is invested in the preservation of the wine.

Aha’s father made a condition with the non-Jews—he would keep the jugs even if the wine-skins split and the wine was lost. In other words, he was paid up front.

It might also be a case where the non-Jews brought barrels with him to hold the wine if the wine-skins should break.

The Talmud raises another difficulty—once the wine is put into the non-Jew’s wineskins, the wine is prohibited. Now R. Aha’s father is being paid to ferry across yayin nesekh—this should be prohibited.

The Talmud raises another difficulty—once the wine is put into the non-Jew’s wineskins, the wine is prohibited. Now R. Aha’s father is being paid to ferry across yayin nesekh—this should be prohibited.

If yayin nesekh falls upon grapes, the grapes may be washed and then they are permitted. Since the yayin nesekh does not have any effect on the taste of the grapes, they are permitted. If, however, the grapes were split open, then the wine could seep into them and effect their taste. In this case it is not possible to wash away the potential taste of the wine and therefore the grapes are forbidden.

If yayin nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food. The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yayin nesekh on a ship. When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them. Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted. This general rule, that the wine causes the food to be forbidden only if it imparts a good flavor, is stated specifically in the next lines of the mishnah. The mishnah concludes with an example of another situation in which the taste is not improved, when vinegar (which comes from wine) falls on split beans.

The Talmud feels that the story of Boethus contradicts the abstract halakhah that appeared before it. To remedy this they add in that the wine gave a bad taste to the figs. I think we knew that in the first place.

Rava allowed the Jew to sell the wheat to a non-Jew even though the wine could be tasted. Evidently, the Jew cannot eat the wheat but he can derive benefit from it.
But Rabbah b. Livai raises a difficulty. It will not be that noticeable that wine fell onto this wheat and if the non-Jew sells it back to a Jew, the Jew will eat prohibited food. We learn in a baraita that Jews must be concerned about such situations. If there is a piece of cloth into which “sha’atnez” has been placed, one may not sell it to a non-Jew lest he come to sell it to a Jew.
Rava accepts this difficulty and then modifies his opinion slightly. The Jew cannot sell this wheat straight to non-Jew out of fear that the non-Jew will sell it back to a Jew. He must first bake it into bread. Jews are not allowed to eat bread baked by non-Jews so there is no concern that a Jew will buy it back.

Although the wheat is not actually split like the grapes, since wheat grains naturally have a slit in them, they are always considered as if they are split.