Answer: This is because we do not suspect (and therefore) say that Lechatchilah one must have to make a letter regarding the seal or that he must identify the seal upon arrival at the recipient, as is implied by the simple explanation of the Gemara.

Opinion #1: Even so, it is appropriate to be stringent Lechatchilah. However, b'Dieved the wine does not have to be thrown out if there is a seal, even if he did not write a letter indicating the type of seal to the recipient or recognize it himself when it arrived, as we have explained.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, it is not appropriate for the seal to be the plaster seal of the barrel without including some letters (i.e. possibly Hebrew letters) in the plaster seal which I have explained is a seal. This would certainly not be permitted without a letter (detailing the seal) or without recognizing the seal upon arrival, unless the recipient saw the vessel the wine was in before it was sent out and he recognizes it when he sees it. This is even if it was not sealed when he saw it (and he merely recognizes the barrel as being the same barrel he saw).

Opinion #1 (cont.): Otherwise, even though we do not suspect forgery, how do we know that this is the barrel of wine that his friend sent him? Perhaps the Nochri switched it with another barrel that had wine in it and the cover was sealed with plaster. Even the barrels of wine belonging to Nochrim will sometimes have a cover sealed with plaster!

Opinion #1 (cont.): Similarly, the small hole called a Shushprial must be totally sealed, as the Gemara states that one cannot send a barrel with a Nochri due to this hole being open (implying if it is sealed one can send it with a Nochri).

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, when it is sealed with letters there is no problem, as letters are clearly only made by a Jew.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, one should not rely on the cover sealed with plaster. It is appropriate to seal the mouth of the barrel, and to nail the leather cover into the barrel. One should write letters that are half on the leather and half on the wooden boards of the barrel. In such a case, if the Nochri lifts the leather he will not be able to put the leather back into the same position (in a way that the writing on the leather and boards will line up).

Opinion #1 (cont.): One should put a hoop called a "circle" around the circular bottom of the barrel where it is connected to the walls of the barrel, and nail it into the barrel with nails due to the pieces of flax (i.e. part of the flax plant that is not used as flax) that are stuck there around the bottom of the barrel. This is order that the Nochri cannot take the wine out of this area, and stick the flax back in when he is done. Similarly, if there is a spout it must be cut off and have leather fastened to that spot with nails, or they will use nails to cover (i.e. secure) the entire bottom of the barrel and spouts in this fashion. This was the explanation of Rabeinu Baruch in his ruling regarding sealing barrels.

Opinion #2: However, it appears that these guidelines are Lechatchilah. B'Dieved, it is enough that the mouth of the barrel is sealed, being that we do not worry about the opinion of Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Yehudah which I quoted earlier. This is because he is scared to even take away the flax, lest he might do irreparable harm to the barrel by doing so.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Even this case should not be forbidden b'Dieved. However, it is good to be stringent like the words of Rabeinu Baruch, being that they left his mouth.

Opinion: Additionally, Rabeinu Baruch explained that the sender must send a letter describing the seal or see the barrel when it is by the recipient.

Opinion: The Rashbam says in the name of Rashi that whenever we forbid wine when the owner told the workers he was leaving, it is only when we suspect that the Nochri workers stole some wine and replaced it with water, or exchanged bad wine for good wine. However, when there is no such suspicion, for example in a place where people constantly pass by, it is permitted even if they are Nochrim. This is because Nochrim are afraid to steal. Accordingly, even if he told them that he was leaving the wine is permitted, and we do not suspect that the Nochri touched the wine, being that Nochrim today do not usually pour wine for idolatry. This was explained by the Rashbam.

Opinion (cont.): However, it appears that this is only regarding barrels or containers that only have a small opening on top of the barrel. However, this does not apply to the wine in a jug, pitcher, or cup that has a wide opening and can easily be touched, as people often touch the wine when they are dealing with these types of vessels.

Implied Question: Only the wine on the leather table is permitted, as stated in our Mishnah. (What, then, is Rava teaching us?)

Answer #1: Rava is teaching that the sound of Davening is equivalent to not telling the Nochri that he is leaving.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even the wine on the regular table is permitted, and the case is where he did not tell the Nochri that he can pour and drink.

Explanation #1: This does not literally mean many barrels, being that we understand they could be Jews. However, later the Gemara does mean that it is permitted being that many barrels were opened (indicating they were searching for money).

Explanation #2: Some do not have the text "many," and they have the text later, "And being that they open it for monetary gain (and not for Nisuch) etc." (In other words, according to this text even one barrel that is opened can be permitted if we assume that they are searching for money and are not being Menasech.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is specifically referring to a young girl who does not know how to be Menasech (pour wine for idolatry), and she did not try to touch. However, we are not lenient regarding a young girl.

Implied Question: However, we do not find this difference made anywhere.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that this is not referring specifically to a young girl, but is even referring to an older girl. The incident was merely regarding a young girl (which is why a young girl was stated).

Observation: According to Rashi there is no difference nowadays, as even the older girls are not familiar with being Menasech.

Explanation #1: She did not touch the wine, but rather collected it from the air (above the wine). However, if she took it from the wine, the wine will be forbidden due to Nitzuk.

Explanation #2: However, some old Sefarim say that she (i.e. the young girl) took it (from atop the wine), and even so it is permitted because she is not well versed in pouring wine for idolatry, and will not try hard to touch the wine as stated by Rashi. However, regarding an adult woman, being that she touched the foam one must suspect (that she touched the wine).

Explanation: They are certainly Nochrim.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding thieves earlier we said that it is considered doubtful whether the thieves are Nochrim or Jews. (How, then, can we say with certainty here that they are Jews?)

Answer: This is only regarding thieves, as some thieves are indeed Jews. However, generals are generally Nochrim. If a Jewish general would have come, it would be recognizable and therefore known. Being that it was not known, they all must have been Nochrim.

Explanation #1: It is therefore considered doubtful whether or not the wine was touched. It must therefore be that Rebbi Elazar only said this regarding a doubt whether or not they entered the house. In a case where (they entered and) the doubt is only whether or not they touched the wine, he would say it is impure.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara answers that being that they opened many barrels, it is unclear whether they did so in order to look for money or in order to look for drink (i.e. wine). Rashi explains that if they opened more than they could drink, it is apparent that they did so because they were looking for money, and they were involved in stealing (and not being Menasech). This is how Rashi explains the Gemara based on his previous explanation of the Gemara.

Question #1: His explanation is difficult. (The Mahari Shapira explains that Tosfos is referring to the fact that the Gemara's phraseology implies it is only possible they were looking for money, not certain they were looking for money.)

Question #2: There is another difficulty. Why regarding thieves does the Gemara say they might be Jews, but regarding generals it says that they are certainly Nochrim? If Rashi's difference is correct, the Gemara should have stated it explicitly!

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore gave a good explanation based on his previously stated opinion (see Tosfos in Bava Basra 55b, DH "Rebbi"). Rebbi Eliezer says the wine is pure due to a Sfeik Sfeika (double doubt). The Gemara means as follows. There is a doubt regarding whether they came and whether they touched. This means that while there is a doubt whether or not the generals are Nochrim, just as there is a doubt whether or not the thieves were Nochrim, if they were Nochrim they certainly touched the wine and there is therefore only one doubt.

Implied Question: The case of the generals is incomparable to the case of the thieves stated earlier, where we said that there is a doubt whether or not they touched the wine. (What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: This is because most thieves try to steal money, while generals usually come to eat and drink. This is as the Gemara states in Beitzah (21a) that "we will slaughter a calf for them and give them to eat and drink." If so, there is only a doubt regarding whether or not they touched the wine, being that there is only one doubt (whether or not they are Jewish). Rebbi Eliezer is not lenient when there is only one doubt!

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that being that they opened many more barrels than what they needed to drink, it must be that they came to steal money. There are therefore two doubts. It is doubtful whether or not they are Nochrim, and even if they are it is possible they came to steal money and not to drink wine, being that many barrels were opened.

Explanation: She would not go into the store, because she would be caught like a thief.

Observation: We see from here that if the mayor arrested a Jew and left a Nochri to oversee the house of the Jew, giving him all of the keys to the house including keys accessing the wine, if they do not eat and drink from the house of the Jew the wine is permitted. If they eat in the house, the wine is forbidden.

Observation (cont.): If the Jew found his barrels of wine full just as he left them, they are permitted.

Proof: This is similar to the law we find (in this same case) regarding whether or not his clothes are impure. If he found them as he left them, they are pure. The Gemara says, "the same applies to Yayin Nesech."

Opinion: It is possible that if they look for the Jew's treasures in his house, for example they dig in his ground and walls, his wine is also prohibited. This is because they must have inserted a long reed in his barrels to check them (for treasures).

Opinion (cont.): However, if the Jew had a specific sign or seal on the barrel (and it is still in place), it is permitted. If they would have taken off the cover to search the barrel, they would not have returned the seal to its place, as in this situation they are not scared at all of the Jew.

Explanation: This indicates that many barrels were opened.

Implied Question: We do not say that they opened the barrels in order to search for money, as stated earlier regarding the generals. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because generals come to collect the taxes for the king. This is why we can assume they opened the barrels to search for money. However, soldiers (who pillage) only come to eat and drink.