If a mouse fell into vinegar, what is the halakha? Does it enhance its flavor? Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: There was such an incident in the study hall of Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana deemed the vinegar forbidden. This indicates that it enhances the flavor. Rav Ashi said to him: This is not a proof. That mouse was dismembered, and Rav Kahana deemed the vinegar forbidden due to concern that one might consume a substantive piece of the mouse in the vinegar, which is prohibited regardless of the taste.

The Gemara relates: Ravina thought that the quantity of vinegar necessary for nullifying the flavor of the mouse should be calculated at 101 times the volume of the mouse. He said: It should not be rendered worse, i.e., more stringent, than teruma, which is nullified by 101 times its volume in a mixture. This is as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:7): Teruma is nullified in a mixture by 101 times its volume of permitted food. Rav Taḥlifa bar Giza said to Ravina: Perhaps this case is similar to spice of teruma in a pot, whose flavor is not nullified even by 101 times its volume of permitted food, as the flavor imparted by spice is exceptionally strong.

Rav Aḥai calculated the amount of vinegar necessary to nullify the flavor of the mouse at fifty times its volume. Although forbidden food in a mixture usually requires the presence of sixty times its volume of permitted food to be nullified, vinegar has a sharp enough flavor that it nullifies the mouse with less. Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Ika, calculated the amount of beer necessary for nullifying the mouse at sixty times the volume of the mouse.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that this and that, both vinegar and beer, nullify the mouse with sixty times its volume, and so is the ruling for all prohibitions in the Torah.

MISHNA: With regard to a gentile who was transporting barrels of wine from one place to another place together with a Jew, if the wine was under the presumption of being supervised, it is permitted. But if the Jew notified him that he was going far away, the wine is forbidden if the Jew left for a sufficient amount of time for the gentile to bore a hole [sheyishtom] in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The wine is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper altogether, stop it again by making a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

With regard to one who placed his wine in a wagon or on a ship with a gentile, and went on his way by a shortcut [bekappendarya], such that the gentile does not know when the Jew will encounter him, even if the Jew entered the city and bathed, the wine is permitted, because the gentile would not use the wine for a libation, for fear the owner might catch him at it.

If the Jew informed the gentile that he was going away for a long period of time, the wine is forbidden if it was sufficient time for the gentile to bore a hole in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for him to open the barrel by removing the stopper altogether, stop it again, and for the new stopper to dry.

With regard to one who left a gentile in his shop, even if the Jew went out and came in and was not there all the time, the wine is permitted. But if the Jew informed the gentile that he was going away for a long period of time, the wine is forbidden if it was sufficient time for the gentile to bore a hole in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The wine is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for him to open the barrel, stop it again, and for the new stopper to dry.

If a Jew was eating with a gentile at the table, and left jugs [laginin] of wine on the table and a jug on the side table [hadulebaki], and he left it and went out, what is on the table is forbidden, as it is likely that the gentile handled it, whereas what is on the side table is permitted. But if the Jew said to the gentile: Mix water with the wine and drink, even the jug that is on the side table is forbidden. Similarly, open barrels are forbidden, but sealed barrels are permitted unless the Jew was out of the room for sufficient time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper, and stop it again by making a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

GEMARA: What are the circumstances described by the phrase: Under the presumption of being supervised? The Gemara explains: It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one’s donkey drivers and laborers were unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [amei ha’aretz], and they were laden with wine or produce that was ritually pure, and he had instructed them not to tamper with it but he does not know whether or not they heeded him, even if he went away from them to a distance of more than a mil, his pure items are still pure, as it may be presumed that they heeded his instructions. But if he said to them: Go and I will come after you, so that they knew he would not be going with them, then once they are out of his sight his pure items are impure.

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, where the produce is pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where it is impure? Rav Yitzḥak said: The ruling of the first clause is stated with regard to a case where he purified his donkey drivers and laborers for this assignment by having them immerse so they would not transfer impurity to the produce.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, in the latter clause this would also apply. The Gemara answers: An am ha’aretz is not punctilious about contact with another person. Although they themselves were purified, they may have met another am ha’aretz on the way, and the produce would be rendered impure by him. The Gemara further objects: If so, then let us say so even in the first clause; the produce should be impure in that case as well.

Rava said: