It is prohibited to derive benefit from nondescript wine of a gentile, and the wine imparts the ritual impurity of liquids when it has the volume of one-quarter of a log. With regard to the wine of one who deposits his wine with a gentile, one is prohibited from drinking it, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 11b): With regard to one who deposits his produce with a gentile, it has the status of the produce of a gentile with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year and with regard to tithe, as the gentile might have exchanged the Jew’s produce with untithed produce or produce of the Sabbatical Year. According to this logic, wine deposited with a gentile should be entirely prohibited, due to the concern that the gentile exchanged it with his own. The Gemara answers: It is permitted for one to derive benefit from the wine in a case where the gentile designated a corner for the Jew’s wine, i.e., if the wine was locked away in a specific place to which only a Jew has access.

The Gemara questions this: If that is so, drinking from the wine should also be permitted. As Rabbi Yoḥanan once happened to come to Parod, where the deceased tanna bar Kappara had lived. When he arrived, he said: Is there any Mishna of bar Kappara here? In response, Rabbi Tanḥum of Parod taught him the following baraita, citing bar Kappara: With regard to one who deposits his wine with a gentile, drinking from the wine is permitted.

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan read the following verse about him: “Where the tree falls, there it shall be” (Ecclesiastes 11:3). Does it enter your mind that this means that the tree itself will be there? It is obvious that a fallen tree lands where it falls. Rather, the verse is saying: There its fruits shall be. The verse is a metaphor for a Sage, and its fruits represent his disciples. Rabbi Yoḥanan was intimating that although bar Kappara may have died, Rabbi Tanḥum, his disciple, perpetuates his wisdom.

In any event, it is apparent from the baraita quoted by Rabbi Tanḥum that there is a case in which it is permitted to drink wine deposited with a gentile. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. Rabbi Zeira said that it is not difficult. This baraita, which permits drinking wine deposited with a gentile, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rabbi Zeira elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to both one who purchases or one who rents a house located in a gentile’s courtyard, and they filled the house with containers of wine, and the key to the house or a seal is in the possession of a Jew, so that the gentile cannot access the wine, in which case it is even more secure than when a corner is designated for the Jew’s wine, Rabbi Eliezer permits the wine, and the Rabbis prohibit it.

Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says: Abba bar Ḥama said to me that this is what Ze’eiri said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Elazar says: All substances are sufficiently secured by one seal, except wine, which is not sufficiently secured by one seal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even wine is secured by one seal. And they do not disagree in their reasoning. Rather, this opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that opinion of Rabbi Elazar is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar says: All substances are secured by a seal within a seal, i.e., two seals, except wine, which is not secured by a seal within a seal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even wine is secured by a seal within a seal. And both hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to one seal, but in the case of a seal within a seal, they concede that there is no concern that the gentile might have opened it, and therefore they permit the wine. And one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that they prohibited even wine that was secured by a seal within a seal.

The Gemara asks: What is a seal within a seal like? Rava says: A basin placed over the mouth of a barrel that is smeared with clay and stamped with a seal is considered a seal within a seal. And if not, it is not considered a seal within a seal. If a basket is placed over a barrel and is fastened to it, this is a seal within a seal; if it is not fastened to the barrel, it is not a seal within a seal. With regard to a wineskin that is placed in a sack [disakaya], if the wineskin’s stopper is facing downward, this is a seal within a seal; if its stopper is facing upward, this is not a seal within a seal. And if he bends the wineskin’s bottleneck inward and ties the sack and seals it, this is also considered a seal within a seal.

§ The Sages taught: At first, the Sages would say that wine from the Samaritan city of Ein Kushi is prohibited, due to the concern that it might have come into contact with the idolatrous inhabitants of Birat Serika, and similarly the wine of Barkata is prohibited due to the idolatrous inhabitants of the village of Parshai, and the wine of Zagdor is prohibited due to the village of Shaleim. Subsequently, they retracted and began saying: Open barrels are prohibited but sealed barrels are permitted.

The Gemara asks: What did they reason initially, and what did they reason ultimately? The Gemara answers: Initially they reasoned: A Samaritan is not particular about the touch of an idolatrous gentile, and there is no difference in this regard between open barrels and sealed barrels. And ultimately they reasoned: When Samaritans are not particular about agentile’s touch, this is only with regard to open barrels, but with regard to sealed barrels, they are particular. Since Samaritans ensure that gentiles do not handle sealed barrels of wine, this wine is permitted.

The Gemara asks: But are sealed barrels permitted? And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this notion