Avodah Zarah 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

b. A esli evrei zhivet

v drugom dvore -

razresheno, i eto

tolko pri uslovii,

chto klyuch i pechat u nego.

Do sih por barayta rassmatrivala vino evreya, nakhodyashcheesya vo dvore goya.

Teper barayta rassmatrivaet vino goya, kotoroe evrei ochistil i ostavil v dome goya. Zakon o etom vine strozhe, chem o vine evreya vo dvore goya, poskolku vino prinadlezhit emu i potomu on ne tak silno boitsya.

G.

Tot, kto ochistil vino inovertsa v ego vladenii,

u goya -

a evrei zhivet v tom zhe dvore -

razresheno, i eto

tolko pri uslovii,

chto klyuch i pechat u nego.

Prezhde chem Gemara privodit vsyu baraytu, ona preryvaet ee i govorit:

Skazal rabbi Yohanan tannayu,

tomu, kto izuchal etu baraytu pered nim:

uchish

baraytu sleduyushchim obrazom:

daже esli klyuch i pechat ne nakhodyatsya u nego -

razresheno.

Poskolku evrei zhivet v tom zhe dvore, on okhranyaet vino; i podobno tomu, kak Mishna razreshila v sluchae okhrannika, tak razresheno i v sluchae etogo evreya, zhivushchego tam.

D. Tot, kto ochistil vino goya, a evrei zhivet

v drugom dvore -

zapreshcheno, daже esli klyuch i pechat u nego.

Takovy

slova rabbi Meira.

A mudretsy zapreshchayut, poka okhrannik ne budet sidet i okhranyat ili poka ne pridet nadziratel, kotoryi prikhodit v neopredelennye sroki.

Smysl slov mudretsov zaklyuchaetsya v tom, chto okhrannik i nadziratel prikhodyat v opredelennye vremennye intervaly. I v dalneyshem Gemara vozrazhaet: naprotiv! Esli u nego est opredelennoe vremya, v ostalnye chasy goy ne boitsya i prikosnetsya k vine.

No snachala Gemara obyasnyaet slova mudretsov: s kakim iz chetyryokh zakonov barayty mudretsy ne soglasny s rabbi Meirom?

Mudretsy -

o kakom sluchae,

o kakom zakone idet rech?

Esli skazhesh,

esli predpolozhit

v kontse,

o chetvertom zakone, kotoryi privel rabbi Meir: kogda davilnya i vino prinadlezhat goyu, a evrei zhivet v drugom dvore, zapreshcheno, daже kogda klyuch i pechat u nego -

voznikayet vopros: chto novogo vnesli mudretsy, zapretiv eto? Ved

razve pervyi tanna tozhe ne zapreshchaet? [I nelzya skazat, chto oni prishli vvesti razreshenie v sluchae sidyashchego i okhranyayushchego, poskolku eto ochevidno: po mneniyu vseh i vo vseh obstoyatelstvakh razresheno, kogda ustanovlena okhrana.]

A esli tak,

esli skazhesh, chto mudretsy sporyat

o nachale kontsa,

o nachale kontsa,

to est o tret'em zakone: kogda vino i davilnya prinadlezhat goyu, a evrei zhivet v tom zhe dvore, rabbi Meir razreshil pri uslovii, chto klyuch i pechat nakhodyatsya u evreya. Именно s etim razresheniem mudretsy ne soglasny i zapreshchayut -

eto ne slyshitsya iz teksta,

ved skazal emu rabbi Yohanan, tannayu: “Uchi! Daже esli klyuch i pechat ne nakhodyatsya u nego”,

a znachit, chto v etom sluchae rabbi Yohananu ochevidno razreshit, poskolku evrei zhivet vmeste s nim v odnom dvore -

i nepravdopodobno skazat, chto mudretsy ne soglasny s nim v tochno protivopolozhnom smysle i zapreshchayut, daже esli klyuch i pechat u evreya, poka on ne ustanovil okhranu.

I my zaklyuchaem:

a esli tak,

mudretsy sporyat

o kontse nachala,

to est o vtorom zakone: o vine evreya, nakhodyashchemsya vo dvore goya, kogda evrei ne zhivet v etom dvore -

kotoryi privodit pervyi tanna,

to est pervyi tanna schitaet:

v drugom dvore razresheno, i eto

pri

uslovii, chto klyuch i pechat u nego,

potomu chto goy boitsya poddelat klyuch ili pechat: vdrug evrei zametit eto, daже esli zhivet v drugom dvore -

o etom zakone barayta uchit:

“A mudretsy govoryat: vsegda zapreshcheno, daже esli klyuch ili pechat u nego” -

poka okhrannik ne budet sidet i okhranyat ili poka ne pridet nadziratel, kotoryi prikhodit v neopredelennye sroki.

I my udivlyaemsya:

nadziratel, kotoryi prikhodit v neopredelennye sroki -

v opredelennye vremennye intervaly?

Naprotiv, eto nedostatok

: eto lish umenshaet okhranu, poskolku goy znaet takzhe vremya, kogda okhrannik za nim ne nablyudaet, i togda prikosnetsya k vine?

I otvechaem:

no

nuzhno ispravit formulirovku barayty i skazat tak:

poka ne pridet nadziratel, kotoryi ne prikhodit v opredelennye sroki,

a prikhodit v sluchaynye, neustanovlennye momenty, tak chto goy boitsya ego v kazhdyi chas.

My uchili v nashhey Mishne:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar govorit: vladenie inovertsev schitaetsya odnim”.

Nasha Mishna rassmatrivaet sluchay, kogda i dom, i vino prinadlezhat odnomu goyu. I v etom sluchae Mishna potrebovala usilennuyu okhranu, poskolku on schitaet sebya vladelcem vina i est opaseniye, chto on proizvedet nisukh.

Teper Gemara rassmatrivaet sluchay, kogda evrei proizvel vino iz vinograda odnogo goya i ostavil vino v dome drugogo goya. Vtoroi goy, u kotorogo ostavili vino, ne stol boitsya proizvesti nisukh, poskolku on ne vladelec vina i boitsya voiti v mesto, gde nakhoditsya vino: esli ego tam zakhvatyat, on budet vyglyadet kak vor

. Odnako ostayetsya opaseniye, chto goy-vladelec doma razreshit vladelcu vina voiti i proizvesti nisukh iz printsipa “vzaimnoy uslugi”, to est v sleduyushchiy raz, esli u nego kupyat vino i ostavyat ego v dome vtorogo goya, on razreshit emu proizvesti nisukh tak zhe, kak tot razreshil emu, i “otblagodarit” ego uslugoy za uslugu.

Gemara obyasnyaet mnenie rabbi Shimona ben Elazara i to, v chem on ne soglasen s pervym tanna.

Voznik u nikh vopros,

uchashchiesya v dome ucheniya somnevalis:

rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

ne soglashaetsya li

v storonu oblegcheniya

so slovami pervogo tanna

ili v storonu usugubleniya?

Kak budet obyasneno.

I razreshaem vopros:

Rav Yehuda skazal

ot imeni

Zeiri: v storonu oblegcheniya.

A

Rav Nahman skazal

ot imeni

Zeiri: v storonu usugubleniya.

I obyasnyaem:

Rav Yehuda skazal ot imeni Zeiri: v storonu oblegcheniya.

I vot chto skazal pervyi tanna:

rabbi Shimon ben Elazar ponyal slova pervogo tanna tak, chto tot schitaet: v gorode, polnostyu naselennom goyami, zapreshcheno ostavlyat vino v dome goya, vladelca davilni; i krome togo pervyi tanna schitaet:

kak v ego vladenii

etogo goya

zapreshcheno, tak i vo vladenii drugogo inovertsa tozhe zapreshcheno, i my opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi,

kak bylo obyasneno.

S etimi slovami pervogo tanna ne soglashaetsya rabbi Shimon ben Elazar i govorit: razve vladenie inovertsev schitaetsya odnim?! No poskolku vino nakhoditsya ne v dome ego vladelca, vladelec doma ne razreshit emu proizvesti nisukh, poskolku boitsya tak postupit; i mudretsy ne opasalis vzaimnoy uslugi.

Sledovatelno:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar govorit: o kakom sluchae idet rech?

V gorode, polnostyu naselennom goyami, zapreshcheno ostavlyat vino u goya

v ego vladenii,

esli ego ostavlyayut u vladelca vina.

No,

kogda ego ostavili

vo vladenii drugogo inovertsa,

ne yavlyayushchegosya vladelcem vina,

razresheno, i my ne opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi.

Rav Nahman skazal ot imeni Zeiri: v storonu usugubleniya.

I vot chto skazal pervyi tanna: o kakom sluchae idet rech?

V ego vladenii, no vo vladenii drugogo inovertsa -

razresheno, i my ne opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi.

S etimi slovami ne soglashaetsya

rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

i

govorit: vsya territoriya inovertsev schitaetsya odnim vladeniyem,

i zapreshcheno, poskolku my opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi.

Prepodano

v barayte

sootvetstvuyushchee emu,

v sootvetstvii so slovami

Rav Nahman skazal ot imeni Zeiri -

v storonu usugubleniya:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar skazal: “Vsya territoriya inovertsev schitaetsya odnim vladeniyem iz-za obmanshchikov”,

kotorye okazivayut drug drugu vzaimnye uslugi.

V etoy barayte pryamym tekstom skazano: “iz-za obmanshchikov”.

Gemara privodit sluchay, kogda vino goev bylo ostavleno v dome “arendatora”, kotoryi byl arendatorom goya-vladelca vina. Gemara rassmatrivaet, est li raznitsa mezhdu arendatorom i obychnym goyem.

Lyudi

odnogo goya po imeni

Parzak,

a on byl

Rufila,

zamestitelem tsarya Vavilona vo vremena amoraim; evrei izgotovil u nikh vino v sootvetstvii s zakonami kashruta, i oni

ostavili vino u svoikh arendatorov,

to est ostavili vino u svoikh arendatorov, takzhe goev.

Etot vopros o vine byl dostavlen v yeshivu Ravy.

Mudretsy, sidyashchie pered Ravoy, predpolozhili skazat,

tak schitali mudretsy, sidyashchie pered Ravoy,

chto my opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi. Po kakomu osnovaniyu mudretsy zapreshchayut iz-za vzaimnoy uslugi?

Vot chto imeetsya v vidu:

eti slova

otnosyatsya k sluchayu,

kogda odin ostavlyaet vino u drugogo,

to est k obychnym goyam, kogda odin ostavlyaet vino u drugogo, a v sleduyushchiy raz vtoroi ostavlyaet vino u pervogo.

No zdes,

v nashom sluchae,

poskolku ego arendator ne imeet obyknoveniya ostavlyat vino,

arendator ne imeet obyknoveniya vnov ostavlyat vino u

lyudey Parzaka Rufily,

poetomu

my ne opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi,

i vino razresheno k upotrebleniyu.

Skazal im Rava

mudretsam svoey yeshivy:

naprotiv!

Daже po mneniyu togo, kto govorit: “My ne opasaemsya vzaimnoy uslugi”, eti slova

otnosyatsya k sluchayu,

kogda on ne boitsya ego: odin goy ne boitsya drugogo, i esli vladelec vina prikosnetsya k nemu, a eto ne ponravitsya vladelcu doma, vozmozhno, vladelec doma donесhet na nego i vystupit protiv nego svidetelem.

No zdes, poskolku on boitsya ego,

arendator boitsya svoego gospodina i ne stanet donosить na nego. Bolee togo, esli Parzak Rufila prikosnetsya, on

pokroet ego, zaschishchaya ego

i zasvidetelstvuet, chto tot ne prikasalsya.

Poetomu Rava schitaet, chto v etom sluchae vino zapreshcheno po mneniyu vseh.

Gemara privodit eshche odin sluchay po etomu voprosu

. V odnom bolshom gorode,

v odnom bolshom gorode,

gde nakhodilos vino evreya,

to est tam bylo ostavleno vino evreya.

Obnaruzhili,

chto tam nakhodilsya

inoverets, stoyavshiy mezhdu bochkami,

stoyavshiy mezhdu bochkami.

Skazal Rava: esli eto slabyi goy, to est ne obladayushchiy vlastyu i boyashchiysya gorodskikh sudey, i

esli

ego obnaruzhat prikasaющимся

k nemu otnesutsya kak k voru,

i obyazhut ego zaplatit -

vino razresheno,

vino razresheno daже k upotrebleniyu, poskolku mozhno polozhitsya na ego strakh pered gorodskimi sudyami.

A esli net,

esli on ne boitsya sudey -

zapreshcheno

vino daже k polucheniyu polzy.

My zavershaem izuchenie tebya, razdel Rabbi Yishmaela

Introduction (based on the Meiri):

The chapter before us completes the details of the prohibitions concerning yayin nesekh that were explained above. Consequently, some of the laws of other prohibitions are also clarified in it.

Accordingly, the topics of the chapter are divided into six sections:

The first: the prohibition against deriving benefit from yayin nesekh, and its wages and proceeds.

The second: the law of a mixture containing yayin nesekh, and setam yeinam.

The third: completing the laws concerning a gentile who was left alone with wine, whether it was in a Jew’s domain or in another setting.

The fourth: the laws of mixtures of other substances from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

The fifth: how to render kosher winepress vessels in which there is a concern that yayin nesekh may be mixed.

The sixth: how to render kosher gentile vessels that were used for cooking, eating, or drinking, and in which the taste of a prohibited substance has been absorbed.