Avodah Zarah 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

The case concerns a situation in which the homeowner can

come to them by a circuitous route

in a case where the homeowner can

come to them by a circuitous route [that is, he can suddenly appear by way of a shortcut], and therefore the porters are wary of him and do not allow anyone to touch the tahorot.

[that is, he might suddenly appear by taking a shortcut], and therefore the porters are afraid of him and do not allow anyone to touch the ritually pure food.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

in

the latter clause as well,

why are his tahorot deemed impure? After all, the homeowner can appear at any moment?

The Gemara answers:

Since he said to them, “Go, and I will come after you,” they rely on this,

and are not concerned that he might suddenly appear.:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

etc.:

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

And

this is the explanation of the Mishna:

It is necessary:

a new point is taught in each of the cases!

For if it had taught,

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

“A gentile

who was transporting wine-jars with a Jew,”

we might have said that only in this case, if the wine is presumed to be under supervision, it is permitted, because the gentile is afraid to touch the wine,

as 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 might say

that the wine is prohibited in every case, since the gentile is not afraid of the Jewish owner,

as he can sail away in his ship and do whatever he wishes

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

And if it had taught,

and if we had learned 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 under supervision, it is permitted,

because

the gentile is afraid to touch the wine,

as he reasons: Perhaps he will come by another route, stand on the riverbank, and see me

[perhaps the owner will come by another route, stand in an elevated place, and see me from a distance].

But “

one who leaves

a gentile in his shop,” we might say

that the wine is prohibited in every case, since

he can secure the door and do whatever he wishes

[the gentile can close the shop door and do whatever he wishes, and is not afraid of the owner].

Therefore,

it teaches us

[the tanna teaches us] that in all the cases, if he left it presumed to be under supervision, it is permitted.

We learned in the Mishna: “And if he informed him that he was traveling away, enough time for him to pierce it, reseal it, and for it to dry. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Enough time for him to open the barrel, reseal it, and for it to dry.” The Gemara explains the subject of the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel:

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel applies only

to

barrels sealed with a stopper

of

white lime. Only then, according to the Sages, is there concern that he might make a hole in the stopper and reseal it, since all lime is white and it cannot be discerned whether it was resealed.

But with

barrels sealed with a stopper

of clay,

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

everyone agrees

that there is no concern that he might pierce the stopper and reseal it, since the resealing is visible. Therefore, the wine is prohibited only if he remained for enough time

to open

the stopper completely,

and reseal it

[make a new stopper in its place],

and for it to dry

[for the new stopper to dry].

The Gemara raises an objection:

Meitivi,

we learned in a beraita:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said to the Sages,

why are you concerned that he might pierce the stopper and reseal it,

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

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon's words:

Granted, if you say that the dispute concerns

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 dispute concerns

a stopper

of lime, granted, below it is recognizable,

[that is, the resealing is recognizable, since it is impossible to make it identical to the stopper],

but

from

above,

since he can make it identical to the old stopper,

is it not unrecognizable?

The Gemara answers: It is still possible to say in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan's statement, that with a clay stopper the Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon that there is no concern that he might pierce it and reseal it,

However,

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 about clay,

then

its resealing is recognizable both from above and from below,

as stated above.

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

recognizable,

since it is possible to make the resealing identical to the old stopper,

below,

when they open the stopper,

at least it is recognizable

[the resealing is recognizable].

And the Rabbis

held

, since it is not recognizable from above, it does not occur to him to turn it over and inspect it

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

Alternatively, sometimes it becomes properly filled

[at times 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 unattributed ruling in accordance with his view.

For we learned

in our Mishna

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

the Jew

jugs

[wine jugs]

on the table, and a jug on the dolbeki

[a sideboard used to store food]

, and left him

the gentile alone

and departed.

What is on the table is prohibited.

Since it is customary for diners to take wine themselves from the jug placed on the table, there is concern that the gentile may have touched it. But the jug

that is on the dolbeki is permitted.

Since diners do not customarily take food from what is placed on the sideboard.

And if he said to him

the Jew said to the gentile:

“Pour and drink,”

and left him alone in the house and departed,

even

the jug

that is on

the dolbeki is prohibited.

Since he gave him permission to pour, the gentile assumes that it is permissible for him to pour from any jug found in the room.

Therefore, all

open

wine

barrels

that were in that room

, are prohibited.

Perhaps 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, reseal, and for it to dry,

they are prohibited.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious!

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 statement, there would have been room to say that

the entire passage was taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

That is, the tanna did not intend to issue an unattributed ruling in accordance with Rabbi Shimon; rather, the latter clause continues the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated earlier, at the beginning of the Mishna.

He teaches us

Rava that the latter clause is treated as an “unattributed Mishna,” and consequently we learn that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But once it is established that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who is not concerned about piercing

[he is not concerned that a hole was made in the barrel's stopper],

and

conversely, we do not establish the halakha in accordance with his view concerning his concern that the gentile might open the barrel completely and seal it with a new stopper; rather,

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer

above (31a)

who is not concerned about forgery,

[he is not concerned that a different seal was forged, since doing so entails considerable effort],

if so,

nowadays, for what reason do we not deposit wine

[why is it prohibited to leave a sealed barrel of wine]

in the hands of gentiles?

After all, on the one hand we are not concerned that he might pierce and reseal it, and on the other hand we are not concerned that he might make a new stopper for the barrel.

The Gemara answers: There is still cause for concern

because of a shayakha

[a small hole made in the barrel's stopper in order to smell the wine], and we are concerned that the gentile might enlarge that hole slightly and draw out wine from it.

The Gemara discusses additional cases in which a gentile was near wine: when are we concerned that he touched the wine and rendered it yayin nesekh?

Rava said: In the case of a gentile prostitute, with Jews reclining at her establishment,

and they brought wine with them,

the wine is permitted

[the wine is permitted].