Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 18, 2018 | 讘壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 61b

If the Jew makes wine that belongs to the non-Jew but plans to sell to a Jew – if it is stored in a house of a different non-Jew, is there less of a concern that the non聽Jewish owner will come in contact with the wine? It is forbidden to benefit from salary that one makes from dealing with wine that was used as a libation to idols聽or rent from a donkey that was renting in order to transport that wine. The gemara questions how can this be tranferred to salary as we see in other similar situations,the benefit that is forbidden is for the item itself or if it the item is transferred to money but not to a salary?

讛转诐 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Ashi replied: There, the mishna is referring to a case where the barrel is not actually thrown. Rather, it is propelled by the gentile, and again propelled by him, until it reaches the vat. Therefore, if the gentile did so not in anger, there is reason to be concerned that he might have touched the wine.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 (讜)讘讘讬转 讛驻转讜讞 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注讬专 砖讻讜诇讛 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬砖讘 讜诪砖诪专

MISHNA: In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile鈥檚 grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and although a Jew has not yet paid for the wine he then places the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain in a house that is open to a public thoroughfare until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If this occurs in a city in which there are both gentiles and Jews, the wine is permitted, as the gentile does not touch the wine lest the Jews see him doing so. If this occurs in a city in which all its inhabitants are gentiles, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew sits and safeguards the wine.

讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讬讜转 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 诪讜转专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗

But the watchman is not required to sit and guard the wine constantly; even if he frequently leaves the place and comes in again later, the wine is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, as the Gemara will explain.

讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讛诇讛 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 砖讗谉 讜讗住专讜

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile鈥檚 grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and he then places the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If that one, the gentile, writes for the Jew: I received money from you in payment for the wine, even though he did not yet receive the actual payment, the wine is permitted. This is because the wine is considered the Jew鈥檚 property and the gentile does not venture to touch it. But if the Jew desires to remove the wine and the gentile does not allow him to do so until the Jew gives him the money due to him, this was an incident that occurred in Beit She鈥檃n and the Sages deemed the wine prohibited. In this case the gentile believes that he has a lien upon the wine, and therefore he has no compunctions about touching it.

讙诪壮 讘注讬专 砖讻讜诇讛 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讻诇讬谉 讛诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘注讬讬专讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讬专 砖讬砖 诇讛 讚诇转讬诐 讜讘专讬讞

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 distinction between a city with Jewish inhabitants and a city without Jewish inhabitants: The wine should also be permitted in a city in which all its inhabitants are gentiles, as aren鈥檛 there Jewish peddlers who travel around the various towns? Consequently, the gentile refrains from touching the wine, lest the Jewish peddlers see him touching it. Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a city that has double doors and a crossbar, and the residents know when outsiders enter the city.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讞诇讜谉 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讗砖驻讛 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讚讬拽诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬

With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that the wine is permitted only if the gentile鈥檚 house is open to a public thoroughfare, Rav Yosef says: And if a Jew鈥檚 window is open to that place it is considered like a public thoroughfare. And similarly, a trash heap is considered like a public thoroughfare as many people frequent it, and a palm tree is considered like a public thoroughfare, as the gentile is concerned lest someone climbing the palm tree see him.

驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讚住诇讬拽 讛转诐 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讘讚讛 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讜住诇讬拽 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

With regard to a case where the top of the palm tree was cut off, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree: One of them deems the wine prohibited and one of them deems it permitted. The Gemara explains: The one who deems the wine prohibited holds that since no fruit grows on the palm tree, why would someone climb up there? The gentile therefore has no reason for concern lest someone see him, and he has no compunctions about touching the wine. And the one who deems the wine permitted holds that it happens on occasion that someone loses an animal and he climbs up the palm tree to look for it. The gentile is therefore concerned lest someone climbing the palm tree see him, and he does not touch the wine.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讬讬谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚专 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪讜转专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

The Sages taught: In the case of a Jew who purchases a house or one who rents a house in a gentile鈥檚 courtyard, and a Jew filled the house with barrels of wine, if another Jew dwells in the same courtyard, the wine is permitted. This halakha applies even if that Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine.

讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is also permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession, as this prevents the gentile from gaining access to the wine.

讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚专 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 诪讜转专

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted, and the wine is in the gentile鈥檚 domain, if another Jew dwells in the same courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the tanna reciting the baraita: In this case you should teach that even if that Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted.

讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 讗住讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The baraita continues: If the second Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is prohibited, even when that Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜诪专 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 讛讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

And the Rabbis deem the wine prohibited, unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

讞讻诪讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬住专 拽讗 讗住专 讜讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚住讬驻讗 讜讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: To which case in the baraita are the Rabbis referring? If we say that they are referring to the last clause, this is difficult, as in that case the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, also deems the wine prohibited. Rather, perhaps they are referring to the first clause of the last clause, with regard to a case where a Jew renders a gentile鈥檚 wine permitted and another Jew dwells in the same courtyard. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna reciting the baraita: You should teach that even if the Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted? It may be assumed that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讚专讬砖讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜诪专 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 讛讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

Rather, the Rabbis are referring to the last clause of the first clause, with regard to a Jew鈥檚 wine that was placed in a house in a gentile鈥檚 courtyard, as the first tanna says: If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine. And the Rabbis say: It is always prohibited unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

诪诪讜谞讛 讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉 讙专讬注讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

The Gemara questions this ruling: If an appointed person comes at set times, it is detrimental, as the gentile knows when to expect the watchman, and he may do as he pleases the rest of the time. Rather, emend the baraita and teach that the wine is prohibited unless an appointed person comes, and this is referring to a watchman who does not come at set times. Rather, he comes whenever he chooses to do so.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讛拽诇 讗讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛拽诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专

搂 The mishna teaches that if a Jew renders the wine of a gentile permitted and leaves the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew guards the wine. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar come to be lenient or to be stringent? Rav Yehuda says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient. Rav Na岣an says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛拽诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻砖诐 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讗住讜专 讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda says that Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: Just as the wine is prohibited when it is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain, so too the wine is prohibited when it is left in the domain of another gentile, as the bailee might allow the owner to touch the wine. And we are concerned that they might be in collusion and the bailee will not reveal that the gentile owner touched the wine, as the owner reciprocates on other occasions.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that not all the domains of gentiles are considered as one. In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, as his actions might become known. And we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the other opinion. Rav Na岣an says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, and we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, and the wine is prohibited, as it is possible that the gentile bailee is in collusion with the owner.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who says that Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The domain of gentiles is all one, due to the swindlers. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is presenting a more stringent opinion.

讚讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 讞诪专讗 讙讘讬 讗专讬住讬讬讛讜 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讗讬 讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗专讬住讬讛 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛 讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier鈥檚 sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讬专转转 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬专转转 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞驻讬 注诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗

Rava said to the Rabbis: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion, that statement applies only where the other gentile is not afraid of the wine鈥檚 owner. But here, since the sharecropper is afraid of the vizier, he covers up for him and testifies on his behalf that he did not touch the wine.

讛讛讜讗 讻专讻讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讜专

There was a certain city in which a Jew鈥檚 wine was placed. A gentile was found standing among the barrels of wine. Rava said: If the gentile can be caught as a thief if he touches the wine, the wine is permitted. Since he is afraid of being caught he does not have the presence of mind to offer the wine as a libation. But if not, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from the wine, as it is assumed that the gentile certainly touched it and offered it as a libation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 61b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 61b

讛转诐 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Ashi replied: There, the mishna is referring to a case where the barrel is not actually thrown. Rather, it is propelled by the gentile, and again propelled by him, until it reaches the vat. Therefore, if the gentile did so not in anger, there is reason to be concerned that he might have touched the wine.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 (讜)讘讘讬转 讛驻转讜讞 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注讬专 砖讻讜诇讛 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬砖讘 讜诪砖诪专

MISHNA: In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile鈥檚 grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and although a Jew has not yet paid for the wine he then places the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain in a house that is open to a public thoroughfare until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If this occurs in a city in which there are both gentiles and Jews, the wine is permitted, as the gentile does not touch the wine lest the Jews see him doing so. If this occurs in a city in which all its inhabitants are gentiles, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew sits and safeguards the wine.

讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讬讜转 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 诪讜转专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗

But the watchman is not required to sit and guard the wine constantly; even if he frequently leaves the place and comes in again later, the wine is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, as the Gemara will explain.

讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讛诇讛 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 砖讗谉 讜讗住专讜

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile鈥檚 grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and he then places the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If that one, the gentile, writes for the Jew: I received money from you in payment for the wine, even though he did not yet receive the actual payment, the wine is permitted. This is because the wine is considered the Jew鈥檚 property and the gentile does not venture to touch it. But if the Jew desires to remove the wine and the gentile does not allow him to do so until the Jew gives him the money due to him, this was an incident that occurred in Beit She鈥檃n and the Sages deemed the wine prohibited. In this case the gentile believes that he has a lien upon the wine, and therefore he has no compunctions about touching it.

讙诪壮 讘注讬专 砖讻讜诇讛 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讻诇讬谉 讛诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘注讬讬专讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讬专 砖讬砖 诇讛 讚诇转讬诐 讜讘专讬讞

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 distinction between a city with Jewish inhabitants and a city without Jewish inhabitants: The wine should also be permitted in a city in which all its inhabitants are gentiles, as aren鈥檛 there Jewish peddlers who travel around the various towns? Consequently, the gentile refrains from touching the wine, lest the Jewish peddlers see him touching it. Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a city that has double doors and a crossbar, and the residents know when outsiders enter the city.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讞诇讜谉 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讗砖驻讛 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讚讬拽诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬

With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that the wine is permitted only if the gentile鈥檚 house is open to a public thoroughfare, Rav Yosef says: And if a Jew鈥檚 window is open to that place it is considered like a public thoroughfare. And similarly, a trash heap is considered like a public thoroughfare as many people frequent it, and a palm tree is considered like a public thoroughfare, as the gentile is concerned lest someone climbing the palm tree see him.

驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讚住诇讬拽 讛转诐 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讘讚讛 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讜住诇讬拽 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

With regard to a case where the top of the palm tree was cut off, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree: One of them deems the wine prohibited and one of them deems it permitted. The Gemara explains: The one who deems the wine prohibited holds that since no fruit grows on the palm tree, why would someone climb up there? The gentile therefore has no reason for concern lest someone see him, and he has no compunctions about touching the wine. And the one who deems the wine permitted holds that it happens on occasion that someone loses an animal and he climbs up the palm tree to look for it. The gentile is therefore concerned lest someone climbing the palm tree see him, and he does not touch the wine.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讬讬谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚专 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪讜转专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

The Sages taught: In the case of a Jew who purchases a house or one who rents a house in a gentile鈥檚 courtyard, and a Jew filled the house with barrels of wine, if another Jew dwells in the same courtyard, the wine is permitted. This halakha applies even if that Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine.

讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is also permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession, as this prevents the gentile from gaining access to the wine.

讛诪讟讛专 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚专 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 诪讜转专

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted, and the wine is in the gentile鈥檚 domain, if another Jew dwells in the same courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the tanna reciting the baraita: In this case you should teach that even if that Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted.

讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 讗住讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The baraita continues: If the second Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is prohibited, even when that Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜诪专 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 讛讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

And the Rabbis deem the wine prohibited, unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

讞讻诪讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬住专 拽讗 讗住专 讜讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚住讬驻讗 讜讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: To which case in the baraita are the Rabbis referring? If we say that they are referring to the last clause, this is difficult, as in that case the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, also deems the wine prohibited. Rather, perhaps they are referring to the first clause of the last clause, with regard to a case where a Jew renders a gentile鈥檚 wine permitted and another Jew dwells in the same courtyard. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna reciting the baraita: You should teach that even if the Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted? It may be assumed that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讚专讬砖讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讜转专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪驻转讞 讜讞讜转诐 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜诪专 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 讛讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

Rather, the Rabbis are referring to the last clause of the first clause, with regard to a Jew鈥檚 wine that was placed in a house in a gentile鈥檚 courtyard, as the first tanna says: If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine. And the Rabbis say: It is always prohibited unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

诪诪讜谞讛 讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉 讙专讬注讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诪诪讜谞讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇拽讬爪讬谉

The Gemara questions this ruling: If an appointed person comes at set times, it is detrimental, as the gentile knows when to expect the watchman, and he may do as he pleases the rest of the time. Rather, emend the baraita and teach that the wine is prohibited unless an appointed person comes, and this is referring to a watchman who does not come at set times. Rather, he comes whenever he chooses to do so.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讛拽诇 讗讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛拽诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专

搂 The mishna teaches that if a Jew renders the wine of a gentile permitted and leaves the wine in the gentile鈥檚 domain, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew guards the wine. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar come to be lenient or to be stringent? Rav Yehuda says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient. Rav Na岣an says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛拽诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻砖诐 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讗住讜专 讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda says that Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: Just as the wine is prohibited when it is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain, so too the wine is prohibited when it is left in the domain of another gentile, as the bailee might allow the owner to touch the wine. And we are concerned that they might be in collusion and the bailee will not reveal that the gentile owner touched the wine, as the owner reciprocates on other occasions.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that not all the domains of gentiles are considered as one. In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, as his actions might become known. And we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讙讜讬 讗讞专 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the other opinion. Rav Na岣an says that Ze鈥檈iri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner鈥檚 domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, and we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, and the wine is prohibited, as it is possible that the gentile bailee is in collusion with the owner.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 专砖讜转 讙讜讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who says that Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The domain of gentiles is all one, due to the swindlers. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is presenting a more stringent opinion.

讚讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 讞诪专讗 讙讘讬 讗专讬住讬讬讛讜 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讗讬 讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗专讬住讬讛 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛 讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier鈥檚 sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讬专转转 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬专转转 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞驻讬 注诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗

Rava said to the Rabbis: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion, that statement applies only where the other gentile is not afraid of the wine鈥檚 owner. But here, since the sharecropper is afraid of the vizier, he covers up for him and testifies on his behalf that he did not touch the wine.

讛讛讜讗 讻专讻讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讜专

There was a certain city in which a Jew鈥檚 wine was placed. A gentile was found standing among the barrels of wine. Rava said: If the gentile can be caught as a thief if he touches the wine, the wine is permitted. Since he is afraid of being caught he does not have the presence of mind to offer the wine as a libation. But if not, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from the wine, as it is assumed that the gentile certainly touched it and offered it as a libation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

 

Scroll To Top