1) HALACHAH: DOES WINE REQUIRE ONE OR TWO SEALS?
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a person buys or rents a house in the courtyard of a Nochri, and he wants to leave his wine there. Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue whether such wine -- which is left in the possession of a Nochri -- requires one seal or two seals in order to prevent it from becoming forbidden as Stam Yayin (wine touched or owned by a Nochri that was not known to have been used for Avodah Zarah). Rebbi Eliezer says that if the Jew has the key to the house in which the wine is located, or if there is one seal on the wine, then it is permitted. The Rabanan argue and say that the wine needs two seals. The Gemara quotes Rav (or Ze'iri) who states that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer.
The ruling of Rebbi Eliezer seems to contradict a number of rulings elsewhere in the Gemara. The Gemara earlier (29b) quotes Rav Ashi who states that vinegar and Yayin Mevushal do not need two seals in order to remain permitted. This implies that regular wine does need two seals. Rava, in the Gemara here, discusses exactly what constitutes a seal within a seal. Why does Rava involve himself in a matter which is not relevant? Furthermore, Rav himself says later (39a) that wine is something which is forbidden when it has only one seal! How can these Gemaras be reconciled with the ruling of Rebbi Eliezer?
(a) TOSFOS (DH d'Amar) quotes RABEINU TAM who answers that the Halachah indeed follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer. All of the Gemaras that imply differently are not discussing wine left with a Nochri. They deal with wine deposited with a Jew who is suspected of pouring wine for Avodah Zarah. Since he is a fellow Jew, he is more comfortable with his brethren and he thinks that they will definitely believe him when he says that he did not tamper with the single seal of the wine. To ensure that this does not happen, the Chachamim required a double seal for wine left with this kind of Jew.
Tosfos has difficulty with this approach, because those Gemaras make no mention of a Jew who is suspected of idolatry. On the contrary, all of those Gemaras seem to be discussing Nochrim.
(b) Tosfos explains that there is a difference between one who sends wine to his friend using a courier who is a Nochri, and one who entrusts his wine with a Nochri for safekeeping with intention to take his wine back with the seal intact. When one sends wine with a courier, the courier knows that the intended recipient does not necessarily know exactly what the seal is supposed to look like. Hence, he has no inhibitions about opening the single seal, pouring some wine to Avodah Zarah, and fixing the seal. However, if he knows that the owner himself will recognize that the seal was tampered with, then he will be scared that his act of pouring the wine to his idol will be discovered. In this case, one seal suffices.
Tosfos proves this from the wording of the Gemara. Rebbi Eliezer states his ruling with regard to one who deposits his wine with a Nochri. Usually, a deposit is retrieved by the owner after a period of time has passed. On the other hand, Rav Ashi is discussing vinegar and Yayin Mevushal that was "b'Yad Akum," in the hands of a Nochri. This implies that the wine was sent from one Jew to another via a courier who is a Nochri. RASHI (39b, DH Asurim) explains that the case of Rav also involves sending the wine with a Nochri messenger. This is why those cases require two seals for regular wine.
(c) The RAN gives another explanation. The Ran writes that according to the text of his Gemara, Rebbi Eliezer requires both conditions: the Jew must have the key to the house, and the wine should have a seal. This is also the text of RABEINU CHANANEL, the RIF, BEHAG, and other Rishonim. Although the Ran at first gives credence to Rashi's text and quotes Tosfos' second explanation, he also gives an explanation based on this text. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that wine needs two seals. However, he maintains that if the Jew has a key to the area where the wine is being kept, this is also considered like a seal even though it is not an actual seal on the body of the wine barrel. The Rabanan argue that the wine barrel itself must have two seals, and a key is not a seal at all. The ROSH and RAMBAN also give this explanation according to the Rif and the Behag.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 118:1) first records the opinion that wine must have two seals, and then he records the second explanation of Tosfos. The REMA says that b'Di'eved one may rely on Rabeinu Tam's opinion. The TAZ (YD 118:4) comments that nowadays everyone agrees that one seal is enough, since the Nochrim do not pour wine for Avodah Zarah as they used to do. This opinion is found in the OR ZARU'A in the name of the RASHBAM (#160, DH Nod), and in the ME'IRI in the name of the ACHARONEI HA'RABANIM. The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN (YD 118:13), MINCHAS YITZCHAK (32:32), and others also rule like the Taz. (Y. MONTROSE)

31b----------------------------------------31b

2) MEASURES FOR THE PREVENTION OF INTERMARRIAGE
OPINIONS: The Gemara explains the reason for the prohibition against drinking the beer of Nochrim. Rebbi Yitzchak says that it is because of "Chasnus" -- in order to prevent Jews from becoming too amicable with Nochrim which would led to intermarriage. Rav Nachman says that the reason is "Giluy," the danger of drinking a beverage that was left uncovered, from which poisonous animals might have licked. The Gemara relates that Rav Papa would drink the beer of Nochrim while standing next to the doorway of the store, and Rav Achai would drink it in his house. Their conduct indicates that they agreed with the reason of Rav Nachman, because according to the reason of Rebbi Yitzchak (that there might be poison in the beer of Nochrim), it does not make a difference where one drinks it.
The conduct of Rav Papa and Rav Achai implies that whenever something is forbidden because of Chasnus, it is permitted to do that act in a manner in which there is no fear of intermarriage. Is this indeed the law, or does the allowance apply only to drinking the beer of Nochrim?
(a) The TESHUVOS HA'RAN (#5) introduces the discussion with a different question. He explains that drinking the wine of Muslims is not prohibited because of Yayin Nesech, the concern that the Nochrim use the wine to worship Avodah Zarah, but rather it is prohibited because of Chasnus. We know that wine that has been cooked ("Mevushal") is not rendered forbidden by a Nochri's touch. Accordingly, a Jew may drink a Nochri's wine that was cooked, and there is no concern for Chasnus (see Insights to 30a). The Ran continues and says that one might wonder how it is possible that such wine -- that was originally forbidden because of Chasnus -- becomes permitted. He cites the Gemara here to show that this is not a problem, because we find that both Rav Papa and Rav Achai drank the beer of Nochrim in a way which did not present any concern of Chasnus, even though that beer was forbidden previously. The Ran states that anything forbidden because of Chasnus is forbidden only when done in a manner which might realistically lead to intermarriage. This logic is also mentioned by the OR ZARU'A (#163) in the name of RABEINU SHMUEL.
This explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara later (35b) discusses the prohibition against eating the bread of Nochrim, which is also because of Chasnus, and it records an opinion that states that one is forbidden to eat the bread of Nochrim while in a field just as one is forbidden while in the city! According to that opinion, why does the prohibition apply in a field, where there is no concern of Chasnus?
The SEDER YAKOV answers that the Gemara later might be following the view of Rav Achai and not Rav Papa. Accordingly, the only time that a prohibition of Chasnus is lifted is when the food is taken home and not eaten in any public place (including a field).
(b) The RAN gives a second explanation and says that the prohibition against drinking the beer of Nochrim differs from other prohibitions that were enacted because of Chasnus, and, therefore, we cannot apply its leniencies to other prohibitions. He gives two possible explanations for why bread poses a more serious threat of Chasnus (as mentioned above) than beer. One reason is that bread is something that everyone needs, as it is a staple food. Another reason is that bread is commonly made by women, which creates a greater concern for Chasnus. He mentions a third reason (but seems to disagree with it) -- that the prohibition against beer of Nochrim was a later prohibition that was originally a stringent custom which was then accepted as law. Consequently, it does not have the same severity as the other prohibitions that the Rabanan enacted due to Chasnus.
The Ran concludes that one should follow his second explanation and not permit any prohibition that was enacted because of Chasnus, even when the act is being done in a way that does not pose a problem of Chasnus.
The BI'UR HA'GRA (YD 123:56) asserts that the first opinion of the Ran is illogical, and that only the second explanation of the Ran is correct. He apparently understands that the prohibition against Nochri beer is fundamentally different from other prohibitions, in that the beer itself was not prohibited, but rather the act of drinking it with Nochrim was prohibited. This is in contrast to the bread and wine of Nochrim, for which the Rabanan decreed that the object itself is prohibited. Accordingly, we can understand why the Rabanan permitted the consumption of Nochri beer in certain situations, while they did not permit the consumption of other things that are prohibited because of Chasnus.
It is interesting to note that the Bi'ur ha'Gra prefers the last explanation cited by the Ran (with which the Ran seems to disagree, as he addresses it by saying, "And even according to the one who says...") as the correct explanation for why the prohibition against drinking the beer of Nochrim is more lenient than the other prohibitions enacted because of Chasnus. (Y. MONTROSE)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF