Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin, Part 5
ההיא רביתא דאישתכח דהות בי דני והות נקיטא אופיא בידה
אמר רבא חמרא שרי אימר מגבה דחביתא שקלתיה ואע"ג דליכא תו אימר אתרמויי איתרמי לה
A [non-Jewish] girl was found among jars of wine and she was holding some of the froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted for I can say that she took it from the outside of the cask, and even though there is none there any more, I can also say that she happened to find some there.
Rava again demonstrates his ability to explain away suspicious circumstances with regard to wine. Although it very much looks like the girl touched the wine, we are allowed to assume that she only touched the froth on the outside of the jug.
ההוא פולמוסא דסליק לנהרדעא. פתחו חביתא טובא. כי אתא רב דימי אמר עובדא הוה קמיה דרבי אלעזר ושרא ולא ידענא אי משום דסבר לה כרבי אליעזר דאמר ספק ביאה טהור אי משום דסבר רובא דאזלי בהדי פולמוסא ישראל נינהו
A certain army once came up to Nehardea and opened several casks. When R. Dimi arrived [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: This same thing happened in front of R. Elazar and he permitted [the wine], but I do not know whether he did so because he agreed with the view of R. Eliezer who said that when there is uncertainty whether he entered [an impure place] he is pure or because he holds that the majority of the men who were in the troops were Jews.
R. Elazar allowed the casks of wine, but R. Dimi is not sure why. It could be that he holds that this is a case where we are not sure if he entered an area with impurity in it (below the Talmud will raise a difficulty on this) or it could be that the majority of the soldiers were Jewish (this seems unlikely to me).
א"ה האי ספק ביאה ספק מגע הוא כיון דמפתחי טובא אימא אדעתא דממונא פתחו וכספק ביאה דמי
But if that is so this is not a case of uncertainty about entrance; but uncertainty about touching!
Since, they opened many, I could say that they opened them with the intention of [searching for money] and so it is like a case of uncertainty about entrance.
The story does not seem to be like a case where it is uncertain whether they entered a certain area. Rather it is like a case where we know they entered a certain area that had an impure thing there but we just do not know whether they touched the impure thing. After all, we know they opened many casks of wine. Thus even R. Eliezer should be stringent in such a case.
The answer is that there is in essence another uncertainty in play here. Since they opened so many casks, it could be that they were looking for money and not looking for drink. Therefore, this is like a case of uncertainty about whether he even entered and R. Eliezer would indeed rule leniently.