IsraeliYid – that is really interesting. Thank you for sharing. Personally, when I asked the sheilah that was not was I told despite the fact that there were extenuating circumstances – I think even more than in your situation.
What I was told was that there are opinions that as long as he doesn’t actually touch the wine (which would be a pretty weird thing to do, IMHO), that it’s okay. I was told that I could rely on this, b’dieved, (meaning that the wine was not assur once it had already been served when the person was present). I did not have the impression that I was supposed to rely on this, l’chatchila, but that may have had to do with the way in which the question was asked, so I can’t say for sure.
In any case, it seemed clear that according to this Rav, the prohibition definitely existed; the issue was that it had not been violated as long as he didn’t actually touch the wine.
One of the reasons that I wrote that most Rabbanim hold this way was that I was thinking that this Rav was not the machmir type and he didn’t mention another opinion despite the fact that there were extenuating circumstances. But I just remembered that I’m not sure how machmir/maikel he is, so it may not be a raayah.
On the other hand, this is a topic that has come up several times, whether it was a sheilah that I had, or in other peoples’ homes when the sheilah arose or in conversations, etc, and I have never heard that opinion before (despite the fact that I know many “types” of people with varied hashkafos) , so I was surprised to hear such an opinion, and it makes me wonder if it is a “mainstream” opinion or not, but it’s definitely possible. I’m sure there are many things that I have never heard of before.