עבודה זרה סא

עבודה זרה סא

הָתָם, דְּקָאָזֵיל מִינֵּיהּ וּמִינֵּיהּ.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי, וְנוֹתְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ (ובבית) [בְּבַיִת] הַפָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים — מוּתָּר, בְּעִיר שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ גּוֹיִם — אָסוּר, עַד שֶׁיֵּשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר.

MISHNA: In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile’s 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’s 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.

וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס — מוּתָּר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: רְשׁוּת גּוֹיִם אַחַת הִיא.

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.

הַמְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְהַלָּה כּוֹתֵב לוֹ: ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ מָעוֹת״ — מוּתָּר, אֲבָל אִם יִרְצֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹצִיא וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁאָן וְאָסְרוּ.

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile’s grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and he then places the wine in the gentile’s 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’s 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’an 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.

גְּמָ׳ בְּעִיר שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ גּוֹיִם נָמֵי, וְהָאִיכָּא רוֹכְלִין הַמַּחְזִירִין בָּעֲיָירוֹת! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ דְּלָתַיִם וּבְרִיחַ.

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna’s 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’t 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.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וְחַלּוֹן כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמֵי, וְאַשְׁפָּה כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמֵי, וְדִיקְלָא כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמֵי.

With regard to the mishna’s statement that the wine is permitted only if the gentile’s house is open to a public thoroughfare, Rav Yosef says: And if a Jew’s 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.

פְּסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ — פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָסַר, וְחַד שָׁרֵי. מַאן דְּאָסַר — לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּסָלֵיק הָתָם? וּמַאן דְּשָׁרֵי — זִימְנִין דְּאָבְדָה לֵיהּ בְּהֵמָה, וְסָלֵיק לְעַיּוֹנֵי בָּתְרַהּ.

With regard to a case where the top of the palm tree was cut off, Rav Aḥa 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׂוֹכֵר בַּיִת בַּחֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי, וּמִילְּאָהוּ יַיִן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר — מוּתָּר, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ.

§ The Sages taught: In the case of a Jew who purchases a house or one who rents a house in a gentile’s 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.

בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת — מוּתָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ.

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.

הַמְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר — מוּתָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא, תָּנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ — מוּתָּר.

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted, and the wine is in the gentile’s 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 Yoḥanan 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.

בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת — אָסוּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שׁוֹמֵר יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא מְמוּנֶּה הַבָּא לְקִיצִּין.

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.

חֲכָמִים אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא — תַּנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי מֵיסָר קָא אָסַר! וְאֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא דְּסֵיפָא, וְהָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: תָּנֵי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ!

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’s wine permitted and another Jew dwells in the same courtyard. But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan does not disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis.

וְאֶלָּא, אַסֵּיפָא דְּרֵישָׁא, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת מוּתָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שׁוֹמֵר יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא מְמוּנֶּה הַבָּא לְקִיצִּין.

Rather, the Rabbis are referring to the last clause of the first clause, with regard to a Jew’s wine that was placed in a house in a gentile’s 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.

מְמוּנֶּה בָּא לְקִיצִּין גְּרִיעוּתָא הוּא! אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא מְמוּנֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא לְקִיצִּין.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: רְשׁוּת גּוֹיִם אַחַת הִיא. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר לְהָקֵל אוֹ לְהַחְמִיר? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לְהָקֵל. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לְהַחְמִיר.

§ The mishna teaches that if a Jew renders the wine of a gentile permitted and leaves the wine in the gentile’s 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’eiri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient. Rav Naḥman says that Ze’eiri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent.

רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר זְעֵירִי לְהָקֵל, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתוֹ אָסוּר, כָּךְ בִּרְשׁוּת גּוֹי אַחֵר נָמֵי אָסוּר, וְחָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין.

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri 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’s 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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת גּוֹי אַחֵר — מוּתָּר, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין.

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’s 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.

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר זְעֵירִי לְהַחְמִיר, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת גּוֹי אַחֵר — מוּתָּר, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל רְשׁוּת גּוֹיִם אַחַת הִיא.

The Gemara explains the other opinion. Rav Naḥman says that Ze’eiri 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’s 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.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר זְעֵירִי לְהַחְמִיר: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל רְשׁוּת גּוֹיִם אַחַת הִיא מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Ze’eiri 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.

דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא אוֹתִיבוּ חַמְרָא גַּבֵּי אֲרִיסַיְיהוּ, סְבוּר רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר: כִּי חָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין — הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מוֹתֵיב הַאי גַּבֵּי הַאי, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דַּאֲרִיסֵיהּ לָאו דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ בֵּי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא — לְגוֹמְלִין לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

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’s 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.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִירְתַת מִינֵּיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּמִירְתַת מִינֵּיהּ — מְחַפֵּי עֲלֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.

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’s 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.

הָהוּא כַּרְכָא דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּיהּ חַמְרָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אִשְׁתְּכַח גּוֹי דַּהֲוָה קָאֵי בֵּינֵי דַּנֵּי. אָמַר רָבָא: אִם נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב — חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אָסוּר.

There was a certain city in which a Jew’s 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.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.