Avodah Zarah Chapter 5, Mishnah 4. We continue from where we left off: before us are further cases in which a Jew leaves his wine in a place where a non-Jew could touch it, and the Mishnah's question is when we assume that he actually did touch it.
"HaManiach yeino b'keron o bisfinah":
A Jew who leaves his kosher, sealed wine in a wagon or on a boat together with a non-Jew, "v'halach lo b'kapandaria" - and he went off, but by way of a shortcut.
The word "kapandaria" appears in the ninth chapter of Tractate Berachos as well, and it means a shortcut: the halachah there forbids using a synagogue as a shortcut; one must go around rather than pass through it. In the context of our Mishnah, it means that the Jew walks off in a manner that creates the impression that he is going only a short distance away, leaving the non-Jew in the wagon or on the boat with the assumption that he will return at any moment.
Since that is what the non-Jew thinks, even if "nichnas lam'dinah v'rachatz" - even if in fact the Jew was gone a long time, entered the city and lingered a good while in the bathhouse - the wine is permitted when he returns. The non-Jew does not expose himself and does not touch the wine, since the owner of the wine is liable to come back at any moment.
Two novel points in this Mishnah:
The non-Jew has no business with the wine here in the first place, and therefore it would seem that even if the barrel were not sealed at all he would not touch it. This differs from the previous Mishnah, where the non-Jew was working for the Jew, in which case he has a pretext to touch the wine and to explain his actions. This is the less significant side of the novelty.
The main novelty: if the principles are identical to those of the previous Mishnah, why was this Mishnah needed? You might have thought that the non-Jew could conceal his act by moving the wagon or the boat while he pours a libation, so that when the Jew returns he will not find the wagon in its place and will not catch him; and if the Jew demands an accounting from him - "What happened here? Where is the wagon? What did you do?" - the non-Jew will explain that he was forced to find another parking spot. The Mishnah teaches that we do not suspect this.
Obviously, if the Jew found that the wagon was missing from its place, or that the wine had been touched - that is a different story. But as long as no such evidence is found, the wine is kosher.
He informed the non-Jew that he is setting off:
However, if the Jew informed the non-Jew who remained in the wagon or on the boat that he is going away for a long time, and the time he was actually absent is enough for the non-Jew to bore a hole, reseal it, and have the seal dry - the wine is forbidden. The measures are the same measures taught above: to remove the seal entirely, to place a new seal, and to wait until it dries. Once the non-Jew believes he can cover up his act, and the span of time is indeed sufficient for that, we must assume that he tried to do so, and the wine is forbidden.
The third case: a Jew's store with a non-Jewish worker in it:
A Jew who has a store with a non-Jewish worker in it - sweeping the floor, stocking the shelves, and the like - and the wine in the store belongs to the Jew. Should we be concerned that when the Jew is not looking, the worker will stick his finger into the wine? Generally the answer is no: the Jew keeps an eye on his wine, and the non-Jew knows that he is forbidden to touch it, and therefore he will not do so.
Even if the Jew goes in and out of his store all day long, as people normally do, since he is liable to return at any moment, and since the gentile worker has no business with the wine, it is safe to assume that he did not stick his finger in to pour a libation.
However, "im hodi'o shehu maflig" - that the storekeeper informs the worker that he is going away for a while and will return later in the day - and he was gone long enough, the Tannaim disagree:
Tanna Kamma - "kedei sheyishtom v'yistom v'yigov": the amount of time needed to drill a hole, to seal it up again, and to wait for it to dry. Given that much time, we must be concerned that he did so, and the wine is forbidden.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - "kedei sheyiftach v'yagof v'yigov": the amount of time needed to remove the seal entirely, to reseal it, and to wait until the seal dries.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's reasoning is the same as his reasoning in the previous Mishnah: if a person drills a hole only from above, evidence remains afterward on the inside or underneath that the barrel was tampered with, and therefore he will not do so. The halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, so the required amount of time is somewhat longer.
Why is this law taught a third time?
Here too the rule appears identical to the previous ones, and we must ask why this Mishnah was necessary. The answer is that you might have thought that since the gentile worker can lock the door of the store and thereby conceal what he is doing, he will not be caught when the Jew returns, for he will offer the excuse: "I locked the door because I did not want anyone breaking in." The Mishnah teaches that we are not concerned about this.
As long as the Jew is liable to come and go at any moment, the gentile is not suspected of handling the wine; and as long as the Jew has not given the impression that enough time has passed to open the barrel and reseal it, the wine remains permitted. And the halachah, as stated, follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.