Avodah Zarah 61b — the Talmud in English

b. And if the Jew resides

in another courtyard—

it is permitted, and he is

only on condition

that the key and seal are in his possession.

Until here, the beraita dealt with wine belonging to a Jew that is found in the courtyard of a gentile.

Now the beraita deals with wine belonging to a gentile, which the Jew has rendered pure and placed in the gentile’s house. The law of this wine is more stringent than that of wine belonging to a Jew in the courtyard of a gentile, since the wine belongs to him, and he is therefore not so afraid.

c. The one who renders pure the wine of a gentile

in his domain,

of the gentile—

and the Jew resides in the same courtyard—

it is permitted, and he is

only on condition

that the key and seal are in his possession.

And before the Gemara cites the entire beraita, the Gemara interrupts and says:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the tanna,

to the one who recited this beraita before him:

Recite

the beraita as follows:

Even though the key and seal are not in his possession—

it is permitted.

Since the Jew resides in the same courtyard, he watches over it; and just as the Mishna permitted it when there is a watchman, so too in the case of this Jew who resides there.

d. One who renders pure the wine of a gentile, and the Jew resides

in another courtyard—

it is forbidden, even though the key and seal are in his possession.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages prohibit it until a watchman is sitting and watching, or until an appointed person comes who comes at irregular times.

The meaning of the words of the Sages is that the watchman and the appointed person come at fixed times. And later the Gemara asks: On the contrary! If he has a fixed time, the gentile is not afraid during the other times, and he will touch the wine.

And first the Gemara explains the words of the Sages: concerning which of the four laws of the beraita do the Sages disagree with Rabbi Meir?

The Sages—

with regard to which

law are their words referring?

If you say,

if it is said that it refers

to the end,

to the fourth law stated by Rabbi Meir, that when the winepress and the wine belong to the gentile, and the Jew resides in another courtyard, it is forbidden even when the key and seal are in his possession—

it is difficult: What did the Sages innovate by prohibiting it? Surely

the first tanna also prohibits it? [There is no possibility of saying that they came to innovate a permission when one is sitting and watching, for it is obvious that according to all views and in all circumstances, it is permitted when he establishes supervision.]

A esli tak,

But rather,

if you say that the Sages come to disagree

with the beginning of the end,

with the third law, when the wine and the winepress belong to a gentile, and the Jew resides in the same courtyard, which Rabbi Meir permitted on condition that the key and seal are in the Jew’s possession—and it is this permission that the Sages come to dispute and prohibit—

this is not implied,

for Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the tanna: Recite! Even though the key and seal are not in his possession;

it follows that in this case it was obvious to Rabbi Yoḥanan to be lenient, since the Jew resides with him in the courtyard—

and it is not reasonable to say that the Sages disagree from one extreme to the other and prohibit it even though the key and seal are in his possession, so long as he does not establish supervision.

And we conclude:

But rather,

the Sages disagree

with the end of the beginning,

with the second law, concerning wine belonging to a Jew that is found in the courtyard of a gentile, when the Jew does not reside in that courtyard—

for the first tanna says,

that the first tanna holds:

In another courtyard it is permitted, and he is

on condition

that the key and seal are in his possession,

because the gentile is afraid to counterfeit the key or seal, lest the Jew notice him, even though he resides in another courtyard—

concerning this law the beraita taught:

But the Sages say: It is always forbidden, even when the key or seal is in his possession—

until a watchman is sitting and watching, or until an appointed person comes who comes at irregular times.

And we wonder:

an appointed person who comes at irregular times,

at fixed times?

On the contrary, it is a deficiency,

for this matter merely weakens the supervision: the gentile knows the times when the watchman does not supervise him, and then he will touch the wine?

And we answer:

Rather,

the wording of the beraita must be corrected and stated as follows:

until an appointed person comes who does not come at fixed times,

but rather at occasional, non-fixed times, and the gentile is afraid of him at every hour.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

Our Mishna deals with a case in which both the house and the wine belong to one gentile. Concerning him, the Mishna required superior supervision, since he considers himself the owner of the wine, and there is concern that he will libate it.

Now the Gemara discusses a case in which the Jew made the wine from the grapes of one gentile, and deposited the wine in the house of another gentile. Regarding the gentile with whom it was deposited, there is not such great concern that he will libate it, since he is not the owner of the wine, and he is afraid to enter there, to the place of the wine, because if they catch him there, he will appear to be a thief .

Rather, a concern remains lest the gentile who owns the house permit the owner of the wine to enter and libate it, with the intention of “reciprocity”—that is, the next time, if they purchase the wine from him and deposit it in the house of the second gentile, he will permit him to libate it just as he permits him, and will “repay” him with a favor for a favor.

And the Gemara explains the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and in what way he disagrees with the first tanna.

They raised a dilemma before them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

does he disagree

to be lenient

with the words of the first tanna,

or to be stringent?

As will be explained.

And we resolve it:

Rav Yehuda said

in the name of

Ze’iri: To be lenient.

Whereas

Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Ze’iri: To be stringent.

And we explain:

Rav Yehuda said: Ze’iri [ruled] to be lenient.

And this is what the first tanna said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar understood the words of the first tanna to mean that he holds that in a city entirely inhabited by gentiles it is forbidden to leave it in the house of the gentile who owns the winepress; and the first tanna further holds:

Just as in his domain

of this gentile

it is forbidden, so too in the domain of another gentile it is likewise forbidden, and we are concerned about reciprocity,

as explained.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with these words of the first tanna and says: Is the domain of gentiles one domain?! Rather, since the wine is not in the house of its owner, the master of the house will not permit him to libate it, because he is afraid to do so; and the Sages were not concerned about “reciprocity.”

Therefore:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When is this statement applicable?

In a city entirely inhabited by gentiles, it is forbidden to leave the wine with the gentile

in his domain,

if he leaves it in the domain of the owner of the wine.

But,

when he left it

in the domain of another gentile,

who is not the owner of the wine,

it is permitted, and we are not concerned about reciprocity.

Rav Naḥman said: Ze’iri [ruled] to be stringent.

And this is what the first tanna said: When is this statement applicable?

In his domain, but in the domain of another gentile—

it is permitted, and we are not concerned about reciprocity.

And

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with these words

and

says: Every domain of gentiles is one domain,

and it is forbidden, because we are concerned about reciprocity.

It was taught—

we learned a beraita

in accordance with his view,

in accordance with the words

of Rav Naḥman in the name of Ze’iri—

to be stringent:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Every domain of gentiles is one domain, because of the swindlers,

who reciprocate with one another.

And in this beraita it is stated explicitly: “Because of the swindlers.”

And the Gemara brings an incident in which wine belonging to gentiles was deposited in the house of a sharecropper, and he was the sharecropper of the gentile who owned the wine. And the Gemara discusses whether there is a distinction between a sharecropper and an ordinary gentile.

The household of

a certain gentile named

Parzak,

and he was

Rufila,

the deputy to the king of Babylonia in the days of the amoraim, and a Jew made wine for them in accordance with the requirements of purity, and they

placed the wine with their sharecroppers,

deposited the wine with their sharecroppers, gentiles like themselves.

This question concerning the wine was brought before Rava’s academy.

The Sages before Rava thought to say,

the Sages who sat before Rava thought to say

that we are concerned about reciprocity—

that in this case the Sages were concerned and prohibited it on account of “reciprocity”—

these matters

apply

where this one deposits with that one,

in the case of ordinary gentiles, where one deposits with the other and, the next time, the other deposits with the first.

But here,

in our case,

since it is not the way of his sharecropper to deposit with him,

it is not the way of the sharecropper to deposit again with

the household of Parzak Rufila,

therefore

we are not concerned about reciprocity,

and the wine is permitted for drinking.

Rava said to them,

to the Sages of his academy:

On the contrary!

Even according to the one who says: We are not concerned about reciprocity, these matters

apply

where he is not afraid of him,

where one gentile is not afraid of the other; and if the owner of the wine touches it and the master of the house does not find favor in it, it is possible that the master of the house will inform against him and testify concerning him.

But here, since he is afraid of him,

the sharecropper is afraid of his master and will not inform against him. And furthermore, even if Parzak Rufila touches it, he will

cover for him with a defense,

will defend him and testify concerning him that he did not touch it.

Therefore Rava holds that in this case it is forbidden according to all views.

And the Gemara brings another incident concerning this matter .

There was a certain large city,

in one large city,

in which Jewish wine was situated,

where wine belonging to a Jew had been deposited.

It was found

there

a gentile who was standing among the barrels,

standing between the wine barrels.

Rava said:

If he is a weak gentile, meaning that he is not a person of authority and is afraid of the city’s judges,

and if

they find him touching it,

he will be apprehended as a thief,

and they will obligate him to pay—

the wine is permitted,

the wine is permitted even for drinking, because one may rely on his fear of the city’s judges.

But if not,

if he is not afraid of the judges—

it is forbidden,

the wine is forbidden even for benefit.

We have returned to you, chapter Rabbi Yishmael

Introduction (according to the Meiri:

The chapter before us completes the details of the prohibitions of yayin nesekh that were explained above. And through this, some of the laws of other prohibitions were also explained.

And in this way, the matters of the chapter will be divided into six parts:

The first: the prohibition of benefit from yayin nesekh, and its wages, and its money.

The second: the law of a mixture of yayin nesekh, and ordinary wine of gentiles.

The third: completion of the laws of a gentile who was secluded near the wine, whether in the domain of a Jew or in another manner.

The fourth: the laws of mixtures of other prohibitions from which benefit is forbidden.

The fifth: how to render fit a winepress vessel in which there is a concern that yayin nesekh is mixed.

The sixth: how to render fit vessels of gentiles, which they used for cooking, eating, or drinking, and in which the taste of prohibition is absorbed.