The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain gentile girl who was found among wine barrels and she was holding wine froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted, as it is reasonable to say that she took it from the outside of the barrel and not from inside the barrel. And even if there is no more of the froth on the outside of the barrel, it is reasonable to say that she happened upon the froth while it was still there, even though it is no longer there.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered Neharde’a and opened many barrels of wine. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident that was brought before Rabbi Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted. But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a gentile army, the ancillaries were mostly Jews.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why did he permit the wine? Is this a case of uncertainty with regard to entry? It is clear that the ancillaries came and opened the barrels, so it is a case of uncertainty with regard to contact, i.e., whether they touched the wine or not, and Rabbi Eliezer agrees that such a case is treated stringently. The Gemara answers: Since they opened many barrels, it is reasonable to say that they opened the barrels only with the intention of finding money and had no interest in the wine itself. And therefore it is similar to a case of uncertainty with regard to entry.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain female owner of a wine shop who transferred the key [iklida] to the door of her wine shop to a gentile woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Elazar said: There was a similar incident that was brought before the Sages in the study hall, and they said: She transferred to her the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone but did not authorize her to enter the tavern, so there is no concern that she entered there.

Abaye said: We learn this halakha in a mishna as well (Teharot 7:1): In the case of one who transferred keys to one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz], even though contact with an am ha’aretz renders pure items impure, his pure items are pure, because he transferred to the am ha’aretz the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone and did not authorize him to enter. Now that the mishna has determined that his pure items are pure, is it necessary to state that this principle with regard to the halakhot of wine used for a libation?

The Gemara asks with regard to Abaye’s reasoning: Is this to say that the halakhot of ritually pure items are more stringent than those concerning wine used for a libation? The Gemara answers: Indeed, that is so. As it was stated that there was a dispute with regard to a courtyard whose owners divided it among themselves with a low partition [meseifas]. Rav says: If one’s neighbor on the other side of the partition is an am ha’aretz, one’s pure items that he leaves in the courtyard are rendered impure, but in the case of a gentile neighbor, this does not render his wine an idolatrous libation. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: His pure items remain pure as well. Evidently, Rav considers the halakhot of purity more stringent than those of wine used for a libation.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If the inner courtyard belongs to a ḥaver, i.e., one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, and the outer courtyard to an am ha’aretz, that ḥaver may lay out his produce there, in the inner courtyard, and place his vessels there, without concern that the am ha’aretz will touch them and render them impure. And this applies even if the hand of the am ha’aretz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who holds that even in a situation where there is a partition there is concern about contact with an am ha’aretz.

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha’aretz to tamper with the produce, he could be caught and accused as a thief, as he has no business being in the inner courtyard. Therefore, there is no concern that he will tamper with it.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear support for Rav’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 9:11): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the roof of a ḥaver is above the roof of his neighbor who is an am ha’aretz, that ḥaver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, provided that the hand of the am ha’aretz cannot reach there; but if it is within his reach, the pure items of the ḥaver are rendered impure. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who deems permitted pure items in a courtyard divided by a low partition.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha’aretz to be discovered reaching up to the upper roof, he has a way to excuse his behavior by saying: I merely stretched myself; I was not intending to tamper with anything.

Come and hear that which is taught in that same baraita: If the roof of a ḥaver is beside the roof of an am ha’aretz, that ḥaver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, even if hand of the am ha’aretz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: Isn’t there the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, which stands in accordance with my opinion with regard to roofs that are next to one another? What I say is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

MISHNA: In the case of a military unit [boleshet] that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, then after the soldiers leave the open barrels of wine are forbidden, but the sealed barrels are permitted. If the unit entered in wartime, both these barrels and those barrels are permitted, because in wartime there is no time to pour wine for libations, and one can be certain that the soldiers did not do so.