Avodah Zarah 61a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: It is not difficult for the words of Rav Ashi, because

there

, our Mishna is speaking

where it rolls from him and from him

, the barrel rolls from him and from him; that is, the gentile himself rolls it and lowers it into the pit. Therefore, if he is not doing it in his anger, the wine in the pit is forbidden, because there is concern that perhaps he touched it.

But if he rolled it in his anger, it is without intention to touch, and it is permitted.

We learned in the preceding Mishna: If a gentile is found standing beside a pit of wine, if he has a debt claim upon it, it is forbidden. That is, in the winepress of a Jew and with wine belonging to a Jew, and the concern is that perhaps the gentile touched it.

But our Mishna discusses the winepress of a gentile and grapes belonging to a gentile, and a Jew rented them in order to make them wine in accordance with the requirements, for the purpose of selling the wine to Jews; and concerning this wine there is a great concern that perhaps the gentile, knowing that it belongs to him, will touch the wine and libate it.

Our Mishna permits the wine under certain conditions of guarding and supervision that prevent the gentile and frighten him from touching the wine.

In the first part of our Mishna, the Mishna discusses the manner of guarding and supervision, and in the latter part it requires a condition: that the gentile must write for the Jew an explicit written undertaking that the wine is not mortgaged for the rental payment of the winepress and the grapes. This undertaking removes from the gentile a feeling of “partnership” in the wine. Moreover, it deters him from touching the wine, since he knows that the Jew will not take the wine from him, and he will remain with the wine and lose his profits and his rental payment.

Rashi, according to our version, which is his later recension, holds that the first part and the latter part of our Mishna overlap. That is, besides the guarding and supervision required of him, mentioned in the first part, he must also obtain the written undertaking mentioned in the latter part. And besides the written undertaking, guarding is also necessary. One of them is not sufficient [rather, our Mishna divided the laws in the formulation of first part and latter part].

But in the beraita in the Gemara, another condition of guarding is brought, which is not mentioned in the Mishna. It is that the key and the seal of the winepress and the barrels remain in the hands of the Jew.

Rashi holds that our Mishna, which did not address this condition, does not require that the key and the seal remain in the hands of the Jew, since the entrance is open to the public domain; there is no need to leave the key and the seal in his hands.

That is, the requirement of leaving the key and the seal is a substitute for the guarding mentioned in the Mishna.

Mishna:

A Jew

who purifies the wine of a gentile

, to make it in accordance with the requirements in order to sell it to Jews, and rented the winepress house, but had not yet paid the gentile its rental fee,

and leaves it in his domain

, and leaves the wine in the gentile’s domain—

If the wine is found

in a house open to the public domain

, so that if the gentile enters there the people of the public domain will see him, and it is

in a city that has

both

gentile

and

Jewish inhabitants, it is permitted

—the wine even for drinking, because the gentile is afraid to touch it, lest Jews passing through the public domain see him and tell the Jewish owner of the wine, causing him to lose his wages and his profits.

And if it is

in a city entirely populated by gentiles

—

it is forbidden

until he sits and guards it. For if he indeed wishes to render the wine fit, he should sit and guard it, so that the gentile will not touch it [the version of the Bach:

until he seats a guard

, to guard in his place].

And the Mishna explains the quality of the guarding:

And the guard need not sit and guard

, all day and all night, but

even though he

, the guard,

goes out and enters

, at irregular times,

it is permitted

for drinking. Because the gentile is afraid lest they catch the guard as though he were a thief. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is one domain.

And it will be explained in the Gemara.

A Jew

who purifies the wine of a gentile and leaves it in his domain

, as above—

And the latter

, the gentile,

writes for him, “I have received money from you,”

: I am as though I received from you the payment for the wine and the rental, and you may take out the wine whenever you wish, and he does not prevent you—

it is permitted.

But

, if he does not write this for him, and

if a Jew wishes to take out

the wine

and he does not

[the version of the Bach:

he does not

allow him, until he gives him his money

let him do so until he gives him his money —

this was an incident in

the city of

Beit Shean, and they forbade

the wine, because the gentile is not afraid to touch it, thinking that the wine belongs to him.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: In a city entirely populated by gentiles, it is forbidden until he sits and guards it.

And we object: In

a city entirely populated by gentiles, also

, why did the Sages impose such a stringency?

But there are peddlers

, Jews,

who circulate in the towns

to sell their wares, and the gentile is afraid of them, lest they see him touching the wine, since the winepress house is open to the public domain ?

And we answer:

Shmuel said

: Indeed, if peddlers are commonly found there, it is permitted. But our Mishna, which forbids, is speaking

of a city that has doors and a bolt

, and one enters it only with permission, and the inhabitants of the city know when strangers enter. And the gentile can beware of a Jewish peddler during his stay in the city.

We learned in our Mishna: In a house open to the public domain and so forth.

The Gemara brings statements of amoraim who hold that if the house is open to a courtyard, but there are other forms of supervision, its law is like that of a house open to the public domain, and this is sufficient.

Rav Yosef said: And a window

, belonging to a Jew, open opposite the entrance of the house, and the Jewish owner of the window can see the gentile as he enters the house,

is considered like the public domain

, and it is permitted.

Another interpretation: Rashi explains that if the house is open to a courtyard, but a window of the house is open to the public domain, it is also permitted, as though the house were open to the public domain.

Likewise, if the house is open to a courtyard,

and a refuse heap

is elevated and located opposite the entrance,

it is considered like the public domain

, and it is permitted, since the gentile is afraid lest a Jew stand on the refuse heap and see him touching it.

And

likewise,

a palm tree

, a Jewish palm tree standing opposite the entrance of the house,

is considered like the public domain

, because the gentile is afraid to touch it, lest the Jewish owner see him when he ascends to pick the fruit of the palm tree.

And now the Gemara discusses a case in which there was a palm tree opposite the winepress house in the courtyard, but there was no fruit upon it.

The sides of the doubt will be explained in the Gemara.

If it is

a severed head

, the head of the palm tree was cut off—

They disagree about it

, about this law,

Rav Aha and Ravina.

One

, one of them,

forbade, and one

, the other,

permitted

, permitting even in this manner.

And the Gemara explains their disagreement:

The one who forbids

—his reason is that the gentile thinks:

Why should he ascend there

, what need does he have to climb the tree, since there is no fruit upon it? Therefore this is not effective guarding.

And the one who permits

holds that the gentile thinks:

Perhaps

it can happen

that an animal was lost to him

, belonging to the Jewish owner of the palm tree,

and he ascends

, climbing the palm tree,

to look after it

, to search for it from afar. Therefore he is afraid to enter the wine house, lest they see him and he be apprehended as a thief.

And now the Gemara brings a beraita discussing wine belonging to a Jew found in the house of a gentile, and likewise one who purifies the wine of gentiles.

The Sages taught:

1.

Both one who purchases and one who rents

, whether the Jew purchased or whether he rented

a house in the courtyard of a gentile and filled it

, the house with

wine—

And a Jew

, if a Jew

dwells in that courtyard

—it is permitted.

it is permitted.

Even though the key

of the house

and the seal

of the barrel are not

in his hands

, in the hands of the Jew.