Avodah Zarah 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: This is not difficult according to the statement of Rav Ashi, because

there

, our Mishna is speaking of a case

where it rolls from one side to the other

: 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 so in anger, the wine in the pit is forbidden, because there is concern that perhaps he touched it.

But if he rolled it in anger, it is without the intention of touching it—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 loan secured against it, the wine is forbidden. That is, the winepress belongs to a Jew and the wine belongs to a Jew, and the concern is that perhaps the gentile touched it.

But our Mishna discusses a winepress belonging to a gentile and grapes belonging to a gentile, with a Jew having hired them in order to make them into kosher wine, for the purpose of selling the wine to Jews. With regard to this wine, there is a substantial concern that perhaps the gentile, knowing that it belongs to him, will touch the wine and pour it as libation.

Our Mishna permits the wine under certain conditions of guarding and supervision that prevent the gentile, and cause him to fear, from touching the wine.

In the first clause of our Mishna, the Mishna discusses the manner of guarding and supervision, while in the latter clause it requires the condition that the gentile must write the Jew an explicit written commitment that the wine is not pledged as security for the rental fees of the winepress and the grapes. This commitment removes from the gentile any sense of “partnership” in the wine. Moreover, it deters him from touching the wine, knowing that the Jew will not take the wine from him, and that he will be left with the wine and lose his profits and rental fees.

According to our version, which is his later recension, Rashi holds that the first and latter clauses of our Mishna overlap. That is, in addition to the required guarding and supervision mentioned in the first clause, he must also obtain the written commitment mentioned in the latter clause. And in addition to the written commitment, guarding is also required. Neither one of them alone is sufficient [rather, our Mishna divided the laws into the formulation of a first clause and a latter clause].

But in the beraita cited in the Gemara, an additional condition of guarding is mentioned, one that is not mentioned in the Mishna: The key to the winepress and the seal of the barrels must remain in the Jew’s possession.

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

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

Mishna:

A Jew

who purifies a gentile’s wine

, to prepare it in accordance with kosher requirements in order to sell it to Jews, and he has rented the winepress house but has not yet paid the gentile its rental fee,

and leaves it in his domain

, leaving the wine in the gentile’s domain—

If the wine is located

in a house open to the public domain

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

in a city in which there are

also

gentiles and

also

Jews, it is permitted

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

But if it is

in a city inhabited entirely by gentiles

—

it is forbidden until he sits and guards it. If he truly wishes to render the wine kosher, he must sit and guard it so that the gentile does not touch it [the Bach’s version:

. If he truly wishes to prepare the wine in accordance with Jewish requirements, he must sit and guard it so that the gentile will not touch it. [According to the version of the Bach:

until he appoints a guard

to guard it in his place] .

And the Mishna explains the quality of the guarding:

The guard need not sit and guard

all day and all night; rather,

even if he

, the guard,

comes and goes

at irregular times,

the wine is permitted

for drinking. This is because the gentile is afraid that the guard might catch him as though he were a thief. These are the words of the Sages .

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

This will be explained in the Gemara.

A Jew

who purifies a gentile’s wine and leaves it in his domain

, as stated above—

And the latter

, the gentile,

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

meaning: It is as though I have received from you the payment for the wine and the rental fee, you may remove the wine whenever you wish, and I do not prevent you from doing so—

it is permitted.

But

, if he does not write this for him, and

if the Jew wishes to remove

the wine,

and he does not [the Bach’s version:

According to the version of the Bach:

he does not]

allow him to do so until he gives him his money—

let him do so until he gives him his money —

this was the incident in

the city of

Beit She’an, and they forbade

the wine, because the gentile was not afraid to touch it, thinking that the wine belonged to him.

Gemara:

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

And we raise an objection: In

a city inhabited entirely by gentiles as well

, why did the Sages impose such a stringency—

but there are peddlers

, Jews,

who travel among the towns

to sell their merchandise, 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, the wine is permitted. But our Mishna, which forbids it, is speaking

of a city that has doors and a bolt

, and people enter it only with permission; the residents of the city know when strangers enter. The gentile can therefore be careful to avoid a Jewish peddler while he is in the city .

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

The Gemara cites statements of amoraim who maintain that if the house opens onto a courtyard, but there are other means of supervision, its law is the same as that of a house open to the public domain, and this is sufficient.

Rav Yosef said: And a window

, belonging to a Jew, that opens opposite the entrance to the house, so that the Jewish owner of the window can see the gentile when he enters the house—

is deemed like the public domain

, and the wine is permitted.

Another interpretation explains Rashi: If the house opens onto a courtyard, but a window of the house opens onto the public domain, the wine is likewise permitted, as though the house opened onto the public domain.

Likewise, if the house opens onto a courtyard

and a refuse heap

is raised opposite the entrance—

it is deemed like the public domain

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

And

likewise,

a palm tree

, a Jewish-owned palm tree standing opposite the entrance to the house—

is deemed like the public domain

, because the gentile is afraid to touch the wine, lest the Jewish owner see him when he climbs up to pick the palm’s fruit .

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

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

If it is a

severed palm tree

, whose top has been cut off—

They disagree about it

, this law,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina.

One

of them

forbade it, and one

of them

permitted it

, permitting the wine even in this circumstance.

And the Gemara explains their disagreement:

The one who forbids

bases his view on the fact that the gentile thinks:

Why would he climb up there

? What need would he have to climb the tree, when it has no fruit? Therefore, this is not effective guarding.

And the one who permits

reasons that the gentile thinks:

Sometimes

it can happen

that an animal was lost to him

, meaning that the Jewish owner of the palm tree lost his animal,

and he climbs up

and scrambles up the palm tree

to look for it

, searching for it from a distance. Therefore, he is afraid to enter the wine house, lest he be seen and caught as a thief.

The Gemara now cites a beraita discussing a Jew’s wine located in a gentile’s house, as well as one who purifies the wine of gentiles.

The Sages taught:

1.

Whether one who purchases or one who rents

, whether the Jew bought or rented

a house in a gentile’s courtyard and filled it

with

wine

—

And if a Jew

resides in that courtyard

—

it is permitted.

it is permitted

even though the key

and seal

are not

in his possession

—in the Jew’s possession.