Avodah Zarah 69b — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

It concerns ![](pamud.bmp "precise page location"

in

the case in which the homeowner can

come to them by a circuitous route [

that is, he can suddenly appear by a shortcut], and therefore the porters are apprehensive because of him and do not allow anyone to touch the pure items.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

in

the latter clause also,

why are his pure items impure? After all, the homeowner can appear at any moment?

The Gemara answers:

Since he said to them, “Go, and I am coming after you,” their minds rely on this,

and they are not apprehensive lest he suddenly appear.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who leaves a gentile in his shop, and so on; one who leaves his wine in a wagon or on a ship”

and so on:

The Gemara explains what novelty is taught in each case brought in the Mishna.

And

this is the explanation of the Mishna:

It is necessary:

there is a novelty in each one of the cases!

For if it had taught,

if we had taught only the case stated in the first clause,

“A gentile

who was transporting wine-jars with a Jew,”

we would have said that only in this case, if the wine is presumed to be guarded, it is permitted, because the gentile is apprehensive about touching the wine,

for he reasons: Perhaps he will come and see me [

perhaps the Jew will come and see me].

But “

one who leaves his wine

in a wagon or on a ship,” we would say,

we would have said that the wine is forbidden in every case, since the gentile is not apprehensive about the Jewish owner,

for he can sail away in his ship and do whatever he wishes [

for he can sail away in his ship and do with the wine whatever he wishes].

And if it had taught,

if we had taught only “one who leaves his wine

in a wagon or on a ship,”

there would be room to say that only in this case, if he left it presumed to be guarded, it is permitted,

because

the gentile is apprehensive about touching the wine,

for he reasons: Perhaps he will come by another road, stand on the riverbank, and see me [

perhaps the owner will come by another road, stand in a high place, and see me from a distance].

But “

one who leaves

a gentile in his shop,” we would say,

we would have said that the wine is forbidden in every case, since

he holds the door shut and does whatever he wishes, [

the gentile can close the shop door and do whatever he wishes, and is not apprehensive about the owner].

And therefore,

it teaches us [

the tannaitic authority teaches us] that in all the cases, if he left it presumed to be guarded, it is permitted.

We learned in the Mishna: “And if he informed him that he was departing, enough time for him to unseal it, reseal it, and for it to dry. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: enough time for him to open the barrel, seal it, and for it to dry.”

The Gemara explains in what the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagree:

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The disagreement

between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is only

with

barrels sealed with a stopper

of

white lime, and only then, according to the Sages, is there concern lest he make a hole in the stopper and reseal it. Since all the lime is white, it is not recognizable whether he resealed it.

But with

barrels sealed with a stopper

of clay,

which is black at first and becomes white only after some time,

everyone agrees

that we do not fear lest he perforate the stopper and reseal it, since the resealing is visible to the eye. Therefore, the wine is not forbidden unless he remained for enough time

to open

the stopper completely,

and seal it [

make a new stopper in its place]

and for it to dry [

the new stopper to dry].

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected:

we learned in a baraita:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said to the Sages:

why are you apprehensive lest he perforate the stopper and reseal it,

when, after all, its resealing is recognizable both from above and from below?”

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon's words:

Granted, if you say that the disagreement is with

a stopper

of clay, this is why it teaches, “its resealing is recognizable both from above and from below.”

But if you say that the disagreement is with

a stopper

of lime, granted, below it is recognizable, [

that is, the resealing is recognizable, since it is impossible to match it to the stopper],

but

from

above,

since he can match it to the old stopper,

is it not recognizable?

The Gemara answers: It can always be said in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan's words, that with a clay stopper the Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon that there is no concern lest he unseal and reseal it,

But

it was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who did not know what the Sages were saying, and this is what he said to them: If you are speaking of clay,

then

its resealing is recognizable both from above and from below,

as stated above.

And if you are speaking of lime, although above it is not

recognizable,

since it is possible to match the resealing to the old stopper, nevertheless

below,

when they open the stopper,

at least it is recognizable [

the resealing is recognizable].

And the Sages

thought

, since above it is not recognizable, he does not bring to mind turning it over and seeing it [

the Jew does not think to inspect the stopper when he opens it].

Alternatively, sometimes it becomes filled [

sometimes the hole becomes properly filled even from below, and is not recognizable at all].

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. Since we learned

in the latter clause of our Mishna

an anonymous statement in accordance with him.

For we learned

in our Mishna

, “If he was eating with him at the table, and he left

the Jew

wine-jugs [

a wine jug]

on the table, and a jug on the dulbaki [

a sideboard used for storing food]

, and left him

the gentile alone

and went out.

What is on the table is forbidden.

Since it is the way of diners to take wine themselves from the jug placed on the table, and there is concern lest the gentile touched it. But the jug

that is on the dulbaki is permitted.

Since it is not the way of diners to take from food placed on the counter.

And if he said to him

the Jew said to the gentile:

“Pour and drink,”

and left him alone in the house and went out,

even

the jug

that is on

the dulbaki is forbidden.

Since he gave him permission to pour, the gentile considers it permitted for himself to pour from every jug found in the room.

And therefore, all

barrels

of wine

that were open

in that room

, are forbidden.

Lest the gentile touched them.

But if there were wine barrels there

that were sealed, they are permitted.

And if he remained there for

enough time to open, seal, and for it to dry,

they are forbidden.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious!

After all, it is an explicit Mishna in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Did Rava come to teach us an explicit Mishna?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say,

without Rava's words there would have been room to say that

the entire passage was taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

That is, the intention of the tannaitic authority is not to state anonymously in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, but the latter clause is a continuation of the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel that were taught above, at the beginning of the Mishna.

It teaches us

Rava that the latter clause is treated as an “anonymous statement of the Mishna,” and consequently we learn that the halakha accords with the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But since it is established for us in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, that he does not suspect unsealing [

he does not suspect the making of a hole in the barrel's stopper],

and

conversely, we do not establish the halakha according to his words with regard to his concern that the gentile will open the barrel completely and seal it with a new stopper, but rather

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer

above (31a

who does not suspect forgery, [

he does not suspect the making of another seal, since this involves great effort],

then

nowadays, for what reason do we not place wine [

why is it forbidden to leave a sealed wine barrel]

in the hands of gentiles?

After all, on the one hand, we do not suspect “lest he unseal and reseal,” and on the other hand, we do not suspect lest he make a new stopper for the barrel?

The Gemara answers: There is still concern

because of a shayakha [

a small hole made in the stopper of the barrel in order to smell the wine], and we suspect lest the gentile enlarge that hole slightly and draw wine from there.

The Gemara discusses additional cases in which a gentile was near wine: when there is concern that he touched the wine and poured it as libation.

Rava said: A gentile prostitute, with Jews reclining at her,

and they brought wine with them,

the wine is permitted [

the wine is permitted].