Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin, Part 6
ההיא מסוביתא דמסרה לה איקלידא מפתחה לעובדת כוכבים א"ר יצחק א"ר אלעזר עובדא הוה בי מדרשא ואמרו לא מסרה לה אלא שמירת מפתח בלבד
There was a Jewish woman who sold wine who left the key of her door in charge of a non-Jewish woman. R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Elazar: This happened in our Bet Midrash [and they permitted the wine because] they maintained that she only entrusted her to guard the key.
We do not need to assume that the Jewish woman gave her the key so that she could enter the room. She may have been given the key just to watch the key, not so that she can enter the store.
אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא המוסר מפתחות לע"ה טהרותיו טהורות לפי שלא מסר לו אלא שמירת מפתח בלבד השתא טהרותיו טהורות יין נסך מיבעיא
Abaye said: We have also taught in a baraita: If a person entrusts his keys to an am ha-aretz his things which are pure remain pure because he only entrusted him to guard the key. Since his things which are pure remain pure, would we even need to say this about yayin nesekh.
Abaye cites a baraita to prove the above ruling. The baraita says that we can assume that the am ha aretz was entrusted only with the key and will not go in and defile all of the pure things. All the more so we can make this assumption about yayin nesekh whose rules are assumed here to be more lenient.
למימרא דטהרות אלימי מיין נסך אין דאיתמר חצר שחלקה במסיפס אמר רב טהרותיו טמאות ובעובד כוכבים אינו עושה יין נסך ורבי יוחנן אמר אף טהרותיו טהורות
Is this to say that the laws of purity are more stringent than those of yayin nesekh? Yes, for it has been stated: If a courtyard that was divided off by a low partition, Rav said that the pure things [of the haver] are impure, but [if the resident on the other side is] a non-Jew he does not render the wine [of the haver] nesekh; and R. Yohanan said: Also his pure things remain pure.
The Talmud confirms that the laws of purity are more stringent than those governing yayin nesekh. The halakhah here refers to a case where a courtyard was divided with a low partition and a haver, one who strictly maintains the laws of ritual purity, lives on one side and an am ha aretz, who does not maintain his own purity, lives on the other. According to Rav we must assume that the am ha aretz touched the pure things belonging to the haver and defiled them. But if a non-Jew is living on the other side, we need not assume that he touched the wine and caused it to be nesekh.
מיתיבי הפנימית של חבר והחיצונה של ע"ה אותו חבר שוטח שם פירות ומניח שם כלים ואע"פ שידו של עם הארץ מגעת לשם קשיא לרב
אמר לך רב שאני התם שנתפס עליו כגנב
They raised a difficulty: [If there are two courtyards one within the other,] the inner belonging to a haver and the outer to an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the am ha-arez can reach it.
This is a difficulty for Rav!
Rav can answer you: It is different in this case because he can be regarded as a thief.
The baraita refers to a case where there is an inner and outer courtyard, the inner one belonging to a haver and the outer one belonging to the am ha aretz. Although the am ha aretz could stretch out his hand and touch the haver s belongings, we do not have to assume that he did so. The haver s stuff remains pure. This seems to contradict Rav.
Rav answers that this refers to a case where the am ha aretz will fear getting caught looking like a thief. Thus he will be deterred from touching the haver s pure things. But if he has no such fear, the pure things would have to be considered defiled.
ת"ש רשב"ג אומר גגו של חבר למעלה מגגו של ע"ה אותו חבר שוטח שם פירות ומניח שם כלים ובלבד שלא תהא ידו של ע"ה מגעת לשם
קשיא לרבי יוחנן אמר לך רבי יוחנן שאני התם דאית ליה לאישתמוטי מימר אמר אימצורי קא ממצרא
Come and hear: R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says: If the roof of a haver is higher than the roof of an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, provided the hand of the am ha-aretz cannot reach to it.
This is a difficulty for R. Yohanan!
R. Yohanan could answer: It is different in this case because he could offer the excuse that he was only stretching.
This time the difficulty is against R. Yohanan. This baraita proves that if the am ha aretz can reach the haver s stuff, we must consider it impure.
R. Yohanan could answer that in this case the am ha aretz could have an excuse he was only stretching his hand.
ת"ש גגו של חבר בצד גגו של עם הארץ אותו חבר שוטח שם פירות ומניח שם כלים ואע"פ שידו של עם הארץ מגעת לשם קשיא לרב אמר לך רב לאו איכא ר"ש בן גמליאל דקאי כוותי אנא דאמרי כר"ש בן גמליאל:
Come and hear: If the roof of a haver was next to that of an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the am ha-aretz can reach to it.
This is a difficulty against Rav!
Rav could say to you: Is there not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel who agrees with me? I made my statement in agreement with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.
This baraita clearly disagrees with Rav and holds that even if the am ha aretz could reach there, the haver s things remain pure.
Rav admits that he does not agree with this baraita. He holds like R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, whose opinion we saw above. Amoraim cannot hold opinions that disagree with all tannaim, but if there is disagreement among the tannaim, they can hold like whichever opinion they want, although there is still a preference for the majority opinion.