Observation: The Gemara later implied that he deposited it with one seal.

Question: This is difficult. What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah hold? If he does not suspect the seal with be forged, as is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, it should even be permitted for drinking. If he does suspect it will be forged, as is the opinion of the Rabbanan, it should even be forbidden from benefit! We should suspect that the Nochri touched it and poured it.

Answer: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's opinion is based on his reasoning later (59b). He states later that one is allowed to have benefit from the wine of a Jew that is touched by a Nochri. This is because Nochrim only pour wine in front of an idol. Additionally, he can say, "You do not have the right to forcibly prohibit my wine."

Answer (cont.): Even though he suspects that the Nochri may forge the seal and proceed to touch it and drink from it, he was not so stringent to think that the Nochri will switch his wine for the Jew's wine, which would be the reason it would be forbidden from benefit. This (he did not feel a need to be stringent) is because their wine is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law.

Observation: Later (69b) we say that nowadays we rule like Rebbi Eliezer, who does not suspect that there will be a forgery.

Question#1: It seems that there is a contradiction in Rav. Rav later (39a) says that the acronym "Chavis" cannot have one seal. This stands for milk, meat, wine, and Techeiles. (Yet in our Gemara he says one seal is enough!)

Question#2: There is another question. Rav Ashi (29b) says regarding vinegar and Mevushal wine that there is no need to have a seal inside a seal. This implies that regular wine does need a seal inside a seal.

Question#3: Additionally, Rava has a discussion later regarding a seal inside a seal. This implies that he holds that one seal is not enough. The entire Gemara implies that this case is regarding a seal inside a seal.

Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam answered that Rav later (39a) is discussing a Jew who is suspected (of forging). He is worse than a Nochri, as he is certain that people will believe him. He therefore is not very scared that he will be found out. Similarly, Rav Ashi (29b) is saying a difference regarding a suspicious Jew. Similarly, Rava explains that a seal inside a seal is required according to the Rabbanan (who hold that two seals are required).

Answer (cont.): Even according to the Halachah there is a difference if the person involved is a suspicious Jew.

Implied Question: Rabah bar Rav Huna cut a piece of meat on three of its corners (as a sign). (How did he rely on one sign?)

Answer: He did this when he sent the meat with a Nochri (not a suspicious Jew). This is why he relied on (what is considered) only one seal.

Question: Rabeinu Tam's explanation is somewhat difficult. It is sheer prophecy to say that all of these laws are regarding a suspicious Jew, as the context is a discussion regarding Nochrim. Rav Ashi mentioned earlier that vinegar in the hands of Nochrim does not require a double seal. This implies that wine in the hands of Nochrim does require a double seal.

Question (cont.): Additionally, the Yerushalmi implies that this is referring to a Nochri, as does Rashi and the Bahag.

Answer#2: It therefore appears that all of these Gemaros are discussing Nochrim. One must differentiate between a person who sends something to his friend, and he will not see the item afterwards to know whether or not the seal remained intact, and someone who will see his seal. The person who will not see his seal requires a double seal, as the messenger is not worried about forging the seal because the recipient does not even know what the seal must look like. However, if he sends it with the Nochri but he will eventually see the seal himself, it is sufficient for him to make one seal.

Proof: This is clearly correct, as Rebbi Eliezer mentioned one who "deposits" his wine by a Nochri. Usually, when a person deposits something, he has in mind to go back and recognize his signature and his seal. However, Rav Ashi earlier mentioned in his words, "Our vinegar in the hands of Nochrim." This implies that he sends it in the hands of Nochrim.

Proof (cont.): Rava also discusses a case later (31a) where there is a skin containing wine and its mouth is facing downwards (in another leather container). (Rava says this is considered a seal within a seal.) However, he himself said later (74b) that when he sent barrels to Harpanya, he would turn them over and seal them (to be considered a seal within a seal). (The Maharsha explains that he needed a double seal because he was sending it to a place where he would not see it. See the Bach for a different explanation of Tosfos' proof from these statements of Rava.)

Proof (cont.): Rav's statement later (39a) is regarding sending something in the hands of a Nochri, as explained by Rashi and the Bahag.

Explanation#1: This means that they do not argue according to one Tana, but rather one holds like Rebbi Eliezer and one holds like the Rabbanan.

Explanation#2: Alternatively, they do not argue. They all hold like Rebbi Eliezer, as Rav rules that his opinion is correct. One of them is explaining Rebbi Eliezer's opinion, and one is explaining the opinion of the Rabbanan (but does not hold that this is indeed the Halachah).

Question: How does Rebbi Elazar hold like Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Elazar himself holds in Nidah (8a) that the law does not follow Rebbi Eliezer in all of Mishnayos except for four cases!

Answer: This case is different, as Rebbi Meir also holds like him in this case, as is apparent later (61a) in the Beraisa discussing one who takes a house etc. The Gemara gives a similar answer to a similar question in Nidah (ibid.).

Question: Why don't we say that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Eliezer, and that the Beraisa that states that a key and seal are necessary holds that both (as opposed to a key or a seal) are necessary, as this makes it a seal within a seal?

Answer: The Gemara implies that when the Beraisa states a key and seal, it does not mean that both are required. This is indicated because it does not say two keys or two seals. Rather, it says a key and seal to indicate that either one is enough.

Text: Some indeed have the text "a key or a seal."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that it is impossible to have closed barrels that were not originally open. (Why, then, should closed barrels be permitted?)

Answer: Even so, being that his intent is to close it in order to sell it to a Jew, he guards it well, and does not want that the Jew should suspect him at all.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam deduced from the fact that the Beraisa split these cases into two separate cases that it specifically holds this applies to one who sends wine in the hands of a Kusi. However, if he sends it in the hands of a Nochri, it is not sufficient to send it with one seal. This is according to the opinion of the Rabbanan. If this is correct, it must be that fish brine and fish oil can even be sent with one seal according to the Rabbanan.

Question: This is difficult. If so, we should ask a question on the other version of the Gemara (31a) that stated that Rebbi Elazar held that everything is (i.e. must be) guarded in a seal within a seal (besides for wine). This implies that everything requires a seal within a seal!

Answer: "Everything" is referring to the other parts of the acronym "ChaVIS" (discussed in the Gemara there, namely milk, meat, and Techeiles). However, "ChaMFaG," which refers to a certain fruit or grass called Chiltis, fish oil, bread, and cheese are stated later as being able to be guarded in one seal.

Opinion#2: Rashi understands that wine in the hands of a Kusi, and certainly in the hands of a Nochri, requires the ability to recognize the seal. If one would recognize the seal, one seal would be enough, as is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. This implies that even Rebbi Elazar requires recognizing the seal when he sends from city to city.

Observation: Even according to Rabeinu Tam who says that the Beraisa is according to the Rabbanan, we can understand from the Rabbanan's opinion what Rebbi Elazar would hold. If the Rabbanan say that fish brine and oil can have one seal as long as the seal is recognized, according to Rebbi Elazar who holds that it is sufficient for wine to have one seal, he must recognize the seal.

Observation (cont.): If so, one should be careful that if he sends wine to his friend and he is not planning on going there to check his seal, he should send it with two seals. Alternatively, he can send the intended recipient of the wine a letter describing the one seal, and let the Nochri messenger know that the recipient was sent a description of the seal. Being that the Nochri knows the recipient will recognize the seal, he will be scared and will not forge the seal.

Observation: Rabeinu Tam explains that according to Rebbi Elazar who does not suspect forgeries, one does not need to recognize the seal. Even if the recipient will not recognize the seal and the sender does not send a note describing his seal, it is still permitted (with one seal). He proves this from the fact that the Gemara later (69b) says that now that we rule like Rebbi Elazar who does not suspect forgery, why don't we send wine with Nochrim etc. B'Dieved, one can rely on the ruling of Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion#1: The way that a barrel should be sealed was explained by Rabeinu Baruch. This is what he says. "It is proper to seal the mouth of the barrel with the waste of the flax or with something else. He should put leather over this covering and nail in nails. He should write letters, half on the leather and half on the walls of the barrel, which is comprised of planks of wood. If the Nochri will raise the skin, he will not be able to make it sit as it did originally. He should put on it a thick strap of leather around the bottom of the barrel, where the planks of the barrel are fastened. He should put it in with nails, in order to safeguard the waste of the flax. This ensures that it (i.e. a section of it) does not get taken out by the Nochri, who will then stuff it back in the barrel. Any spouts in the barrel should be cut off, and leather should be fastened on that area with nails, or planks should be fastened in order to cover all of the bottom of the barrel and its spouts." He should send his friend a letter, as we have stated above (describing the seal).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak bar Yehudah wrote to Rabeinu Shimon in a response that in the days of the Gemara, the barrels were made out of earthenware. When the mouth of the barrel was closed, it was enough to hold like Rebbi Elazar. However, our barrels, even after all of the openings of the barrel and its spouts are sealed, can still be penetrated by a knife inserted between the planks by a Nochri, who can then drink from the wine. According to this response, one should forbid the wine even if it was sealed as stated above.

Opinion#3: Some are stringent, and they therefore cover the entire wall of the barrel with leather bands. This takes away any suspicion.

Opinion#4: Some are lenient, and permit sending wine with a Nochri as long as it has one seal, even if the recipient does not recognize the seal, and the sender did not send him a letter describing the seal.

Opinion#4 (cont.): They explain that when the Beraisa states, "if he would recognize his seal" it does not mean that he is going to recognize it. Rather, it means that if he went and found his seal on a barrel it is permitted, being that it clearly was not forged. However, if he did not recognize that the seal was as he left it, he should suspect that it was forged by the Nochri. If he did not go to see it after he sealed it, and another Jew finds it, he is permitted to use it. However, if one is stringent, he should receive a blessing (from Heaven for doing so).

Opinion#5: Rabeinu Moshe from Kutzi wrote in his book that being that there are those who are lenient and those who are stringent, we have no clear proof to forbid such sealed barrels. We will explain the law of empty barrels at the end of Avodah Zarah (74b) when we get there, with the help of Hash-m.

Explanation: The prohibition against beer is not mentioned in the Mishnah or Beraisa. Perhaps they forbade it in the days of the Amoraim.

Question: According to the opinion that beer of Nochrim is forbidden due to the fact that they leave it out uncovered, why isn't this listed in our Mishnah along with cheese? Cheese is also prohibited due to this reason!

Answer: Rav Nachman does not agree with the reasoning presented later (35b) that the reason cheese of Nochrim was prohibited was due to its being left uncovered. Rather, he understands the reason is because it sits in sap of fruit that is Orlah.

Question: According to the opinion that the problem with cheese is that it sits uncovered, why doesn't the Mishnah list beer?

Answer: There is no reason to suspect that it is uncovered if it is made in a place where they do not leave the water to sit. Similarly, in a place where they put in hops, it is not clear this presents a problem of being uncovered (being that it possibly weakens the snake poison, as stated in our Gemara).

Question: According to the opinion earlier that Nochrim are careful about cleanliness (and they therefore cover their water), how can we explain this suspicion?

Answer: It is possible to answer that they are not so careful to cover their beer, being that they will eventually take away all of the bad parts of it when it will be ready and fermented. If it settles (i.e. a stones that sinks), it will stay with the sediments that are not meant for drinking. (They therefore are indeed careful about cleanliness in this case, but they do not cover their beer.)

Opinion: However, both of them would not drink in a house of Nochrim. This indicates that one must be careful not to drink beer in the house of a Nochri, as Rav Papa and Rav Acha were later Amoraim and they would not do so.

Opinion (cont.): However, someone who is a guest in the house of a Nochri can possibly send someone to go into the city to buy some beer from a Nochri. This is because it is as if he is drinking it in the house of a Jew. Even if the Nochri is his guest, he may give the Nochri some beer to dispel any hatred that may arise (if he does not give him any beer). This is because they only forbade drinking beer with Nochrim in a manner which promotes marrying them, such as drinking in a permanent fashion in their store or constantly drinking in Nochri houses. However, in a temporary fashion, this is permitted.

Opinion (cont.): Included in beer is beer of dates or grain.

Implied Question: One cannot forbid beer made from grain due to Bishul Akum, as we indeed forbid cooked beets and porridge, even though grain is not fit to eat when raw. (Why not?)

Answer#1: This is because we hold like the other version of Rav who says that any food that does not go on the tables of kings is not prohibited due to Bishul Akum. We indeed find that Rebbi Yochanan (59a) holds like Rav, as he does in Yevamos (46a).

Answer#2: There is another reason to say that the prohibition of Bishul Akum does not apply to beer. Being that the grain is nullified opposite the water, causing us to say a Shehakol (and not a Mezonos), it is also nullified regarding the prohibition of Bishul Akum.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara says in Shabbos (86b), regarding the semen of a Jew in the womb of a Nochris, that being that a Jew worries about Mitzvos his body is hotter than that of a Nochri. (Here, Rav says that the body of a Nochri is hotter than that of a Jew. How can we reconcile these two Gemaros?)

Answer: Regarding being saved from poison, the heat produced due to being worried about Mitzvos does not help compared to the heat produced from eating Shekatzim and Remasim, as the fact that these are already inside their body helps them build immunity towards snake venom.