Explanation: Rashi explains that the vessel is being rolled by him until he rolls it into the pit. This is why we say that if he is not doing this out of anger the wine is prohibited, as we suspect he touched the wine.

Explanation (cont.): It appears that Rashi implies that if a Nochri touches wine without intent through something else, it is prohibited to drink the wine. In this case, where they said the wine when he does this out of anger, it is because he only held the vessel close to the pit when he threw it in the pit.

Explanation (cont.): However, if he does this when he is not angry the wine is prohibited. Even though a Zav who would do this would not make the wine impure, being that it is close to the pit they were stringent to suspect that the Nochri may have touched the wine. This is also the explanation of the Rashbam in the name of Rashi. He differentiates between throwing something into the wine when one is close to the pit, and when one is far away from the pit.

Question: However, this is not a correct difference, as I have explained above. (See Tosfos 57a, DH "Hachi Garsinan.")

Explanation #1: Rashi explains in his second edition that the case is where the Nochri wrote, "I accept (i.e. am as if I accepted money owed me by the Jew, and therefore have no claim against the fact) that this wine belongs to this Jew." (Whenever we state below that the Nochri accepts this wine belongs to the Jew, we mean that it is as if he accepted money etc.) This is as stated in the second part of the Mishnah, which is the explanation of the first part of the Mishnah. The case is where the house is open to the public domain, and both Jews and Nochrim live there. The wine is therefore permitted, even if the Jew does not have a key or special seal on the barrel.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa quoted in the Gemara requires a key or seal when the wine of a Jew is in a different courtyard where a Jew does not live. (Why doesn't the same law apply in the Mishnah?)

Answer: Our case is different, being that the storage area is open to the public domain. However, in a city where there are only Nochrim it is indeed forbidden even when the area is open to the public domain being that there is no key or seal.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asked, how can the Gemara ask that there are peddlers that go around the cities? How would the peddlers know that the wine belongs to a Jew if they see wine in the house of a Nochri that does not have a key or seal? If they do not know, why would the Nochri be scared of them?

Question (cont.): One cannot compare this to a city in which Jews and Nochrim live, and in which Rashi permits the wine here even without a key or seal. In that case, the Nochri is scared that this Jew (owner of the wine) told other Jews who live there that they should lookout to ensure the Nochri does not tamper with his wine. However, how should peddlers passing by the city know anything to prevent the Nochri from tampering with the wine?

Question #2: Additionally, Rashi compares the garbage area and palm tree of a Jew (that is in the line of sight of the wine) to being open to a public domain. Is it logical that a Nochri will not touch wine in his domain, to which the Jew does not have a key and the barrel is not sealed, due to the improbable possibility that a Jewish inhabitant of the city will sit on a garbage dump or climb a tree?

Question #3: Additionally, the Gemara's explanation (61b) is that either according to the Tana Kama or Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (according to one of them, the Gemara is unsure which one holds this way), even in a city of Nochrim the wine can be deposited by a different Nochri's house because he is scared to touch the wine. This seems bewildering! Being that the Jew has no key and there is no seal on the barrel, we should suspect that the one who the wine is deposited by will pour it for idolatry! There is no reason to think the Nochri whose house the wine is in will scared of the Nochri who is selling the wine, as he will inform the Jew. Why should the Nochri care if the Nochri whose house it is in pours it for idolatry?

Question #4: Additionally, being that the case is where the Nochri writes he accepts the wine belongs to the Jew, why should there be a difference between him and a different Nochri? Even if it is in the possession of the original Nochri, the wine belongs to the Jew!

Question #5: Additionally, being that the second part of the Mishnah writes, "And he writes I accept etc." the implication is that the first part of the Mishnah is not dealing with such a case.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Tam that the Mishnah is referring to a case where the Jew has a key and there is a seal on the barrel. Rashi indeed gave this explanation in the first edition of his commentary. The first case of the Mishnah is when the Nochri did not write that he accepts that the wine belongs to the Jew.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Accordingly, in a city where both Jews and Nochrim live together and the storage area is open to the public domain, even though it is the wine of the Nochri it is permitted. This is because the Jew has a key and there is a seal. The Nochri is scared to touch the wine, as a Jew will possibly see him trying to pick the lock or forge the seal. He will tell this to the Jew who is buying the wine from this Nochri's domain (after the Jew processed it) who will theerfore not go through with the sale, causing the Nochri to lose the sale of the wine.

Implied Question: This is unlike the case of a Nochri who is found next to a pit of wine. In that case we say the wine is forbidden if this Nochri has a lien on this wine. (Why is that case different?)

Answer: In that case, being that there is no key or seal, the Nochri relies on the fact that he can pour it for idolatry before anyone will notice.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is now understandable that even in a city of Nochrim, being that the Jew has a key and seal on the barrel, we should even permit the wine due to the peddlers that come by. This is because they see that the Nochrim is trying to pick the lock or forge the seal, and will therefore understand that he is doing this to wine that belongs to a Jew.

Explanation #2 (cont.): A Jew can also see this from the garbage area and the palm tree, just as he can see from the public domain.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is therefore also understandable that we find an opinion in the Gemara who permits wine that was deposited in the house of another Nochri (not the owner of the grapes), as long as we do not suspect a conspiracy between the two Nochrim (that they will do these types of favors for each other).

Explanation #2 (cont.): In the house of the other Nochri, the wine is considered wine belonging to the Jew to which the Nochri has no claim. Being that the Jew has a key and there is a seal on the barrel, there is no reason to suspect that the one who has the wine deposited him will forge the seal. Accordingly, it is even permitted in a city which is completely made up of Nochrim.

Explanation #2 (cont.): We indeed say in the Beraisa quoted by the Gemara that wine of a Jew in the domain of a Nochri when the Jew lives in a different courtyard is permitted if he has a key and seal on the barrel. A different courtyard is like a city that is completely comprised of Nochrim, being that it is not open to the public domain.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In a city where everyone are Nochrim, the wine is forbidden, even if the Jew has a key and the barrel has a seal. Having a public domain open to the storage area will not help, as explained in the Gemara, in a case where the city has a door that is bolted. Peddlers do not go there, and they therefore will not realize if someone is tampering with the wine. Being that the Nochri did not write that he accepts etc., it is considered the wine of the Nochri.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Beraisa indeed states that wine of a Nochri is forbidden when the Jew lives in a different courtyard, even though he has a key and there is a seal on the barrel.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The second part of the Mishnah that refers to the Nochri writing "he accepted etc." is referring to a case where the wine belongs to the Jew. Therefore, it is permitted if there he has a key and there is a seal on the barrel. However, without him having a key and seal it is not permitted. Being that it is in the domain of the Nochri, he will easily come to pour it for idolatry.

Implied Question: This is unlike the case where the Nochri is found next to the pit of wine, where the wine is permitted as long as the Nochri did not have a lien on the wine. (What is the difference between the cases?)

Answer: In that case there are two factors in favor of permitting the wine, as it is wine belonging to a Jew in the domain of a Jew. The domain of a Jew is equivalent to a Jew having a key and the barrel having a seal. This is why the Gemara earlier (60b) brings a proof from this case, as I explained earlier (see Tosfos 60b, DH "Deika").

Explanation #2 (cont.): If the Jew lives in the courtyard where the wine is stored, whether the wine belongs to the Jew or the Nochri, it is permitted even without the Jew having a key or the barrel having a seal.

Proof: This is as Rebbi Yochanan said to the Tana that he should teach that even though there is no key or seal it is permitted. Being that the Jew lives in that courtyard, it is considered like he is a guardian who fulfills his role by going in and out. This is as the Mishnah states that the guardian does not have to be sitting and guarding, and even though he goes in and out (this is sufficient) etc.

Question: How can we prove from our Mishnah that going in and out is enough Lechatchilah without a key or seal, being that we have established it is referring to a case where there is a key or seal?

Question (cont.): In Chulin (3a), the Gemara quotes our Mishnah in order to prove that going in and out is permitted Lechatchilah. The Gemara there asks, is going in and out not sufficient Lechatchilah? Doesn't the Mishnah say that the guardian does not have to etc.? What kind of proof is this if in our case this is in conjunction with a key and seal?

Answer: Our Mishnah means that in a city that solely has Nochrim the wine is forbidden even when the Jew has a key and there is a seal on the barrel. Regarding this case the Mishnah explains that the guardian does not have to be there all the time, and it is sufficient if he goes in and out.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains this entire discussion as being with a key or seal, and that even so if the wine is in the Nochri's domain and in a city of Nochrim the wine is forbidden unless the Nochri writes that he accepts etc. Accordingly, Rabeinu Tam originally wanted to forbid the wines that Nochrim buy from Jews in order to take them from a place where they are inexpensive and sell them in a place where they are expensive.

Opinion (cont.): This is despite the fact that they make a seal upon a seal on a barrel full of ties, along with the bottom of the barrel being doubled. This is as the Mishnah states that if one purifies wine of a Nochri etc. in a city that is completely populated by Nochrim the wine is prohibited even though there is a key and seal.

Opinion (cont.): Being that he holds like Rebbi Eliezer who permits one seal, there is no reason to differentiate between one seal and two seals, as if we forbid one we will also prohibit two.

Opinion (cont.): He afterward found reason to be permissive, as specifically regarding purifying wine of Nochrim we suspect this, as the Nochri took these grapes from his vineyard and did not work with it. He therefore will easily come to tamper with it. However, being that the Nochri here went through so much trouble to buy wines from a Jew, and he had the Jew seal it with a seal within a seal and he then transported it to profit from it, we do not fear that he bothered to forge the seal, as he might lose all of the hard work that he put in (to this business deal).

Opinion (cont.): Based on this leniency, Rabeinu Tam drank wine that was brought from Altziriya (Algeria) in this manner.

Opinion (cont.): I discussed this topic of sending wine with a Nochri at length earlier (31a, DH "d'Amar" "ha'Sholei'ach").

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the decree of Ezra was only that peddlers (selling beauty products such as makeup) should go to Jewish cities where there are Jewish women, in order that they should not become unattractive to their husbands. (Why, then, are they going to cities where there are no Jewish women?)

Answer: They would go on their route, and pass through Nochri cities on the way to the Jewish cities.

Explanation: Rashi explains that another explanation is that a window of a Jew is open opposite the opening of the house where the wine is stored. If the house where the wine is stored is closed, there is no suspicion that the Nochri will enter.

Explanation (cont.): Even if it is open, there is no suspicion that he will enter and close the door behind him, as he is scared that the Jew whose window is opposite him will suspect something, being that the Nochri does not live there. This is specifically during the day. However, at night it is indeed forbidden.

Question: This is difficult. This is the same case as the first part of the Mishnah which is dealing with a case where Jews and Nochrim live there!

Question (cont.): One should not say that this is required to teach the law regarding going in and out (as being effective supervision), as we understand this too from the first part of the Mishnah which said that they (both Jews and Nochrim) are living there, not that his eyes are on the Nochri the entire day.

Answer: One might think that there must be many Jews in the city. The Mishnah therefore teaches us that even one is sufficient.

Explanation: The term "city" here implies that the wine was placed in the street, where there was also wine of a Nochri. The Nochri is therefore not caught like a thief when he approaches the wine, but rather when he touches the Jew's wine. Even so, the wine is permitted, being that he is caught if he touches the wine.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (70a) says that there was a house where there was wine of a Jew etc. Rava says that if the Nochri can have an excuse, the wine is forbidden. This is despite the fact that he would be caught like a thief if he was touching the wine. (How can we reconcile these two cases?)

Answer: This is because in a house that he has permission to enter he is not very scared, and will therefore end up pouring the wine. However, if he is caught like a thief when he enters the wine is certainly permitted. This is why the case of the inn being locked is asked as a question later on this Gemara (see 70a).