Avodah Zarah, Daf Samech Aleph, Part 3

 

Introduction

The baraita in today s section discusses whether we can trust that a non-Jew has not opened and drank from a Jew s wine in his possession.

 

ת"ר אחד הלוקח ואחד השוכר בית בחצירו של עובד כוכבים ומילאהו יין וישראל דר באותה חצר מותר ואף על פי שאין מפתח וחותם בידו

בחצר אחרת מותר והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו

 

Our rabbis taught: Whether [a Jew] purchases or rents a house in the courtyard of a non-Jew and fills it with [casks of] wine, and a Jew resides in that courtyard, it is permitted even though the key and seal ae not in his [the Jew s] possession.

If [he resides] in another courtyard, it is permitted only when the key and seal are in his possession.

 

The question we need to ask is whether the non-Jew will enter the house and take a sip from the Jew s wine. If there is another Jew living in the courtyard, then he will not do so, out of fear that the Jew will report him to his fellow tribesman. If the Jew has the key and seal, then he will not be able to enter without breaking the lock and seal. But if there are no other Jews in the courtyard, and the non-Jewish landlord has the key and seal, then we need to be concerned. After all, he thinks he will not be caught.

המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים ברשותו וישראל דר באותה חצר מותר והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו

 

If [a Jew] prepares the wine of a non-Jew in a state of ritual purity in his (the non-Jew s) domain and a Jew resides in that courtyard, it is permitted should the key and seal be in his possession.

 

In this case, the wine belongs to the non-Jew and the Jew is simply producing it. Here it is even more likely that the non-Jew would touch the wine, because, after all, it is his wine. In this case, the Jew must have the key and seal even if another Jew lives in the courtyard. Since the wine belongs to the non-Jew, it would not be inappropriate for him to try some. The only reason he would not is that he does not have access.

 

א"ל רבי יוחנן לתנא תני אע"פ שאין מפתח וחותם בידו מותר

 

R. Yohanan said to the tanna: Read [as follows]: Even though the key and seal are not in his possession it is permitted.

 

R. Yohanan emends the baraita. Since a Jew resides in the courtyard, the other Jew does not have to possess the key and seal for it to be permitted. If the non-Jew drinks, the Jew will see and tell the other Jew.

 

בחצר אחרת אסור אע"פ שמפתח וחותם בידו דברי ר"מ וחכמים אוסרין עד שיהא שומר יושב ומשמר או עד שיבא ממונה הבא לקיצין

 

[Should he reside] in another courtyard, it is prohibited even if the key and seal are in his possession, the words of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit it unless a supervisor sits and watches or until somebody is appointed to go there at regular intervals.

 

The baraita continues with the case of the Jew preparing wine belonging to the non-Jew. If there are no Jews living in the courtyard, then the non-Jew is even more likely to go taste what is, after all, his own wine. R. Meir rules that the wine is kosher if the Jew holds the key. The other rabbis require at least a supervisor who goes in at regular intervals. We shall analyze this below.

 

חכמים אהייא אילימא אסיפא תנא קמא נמי מיסר קא אסר

 

The sages refer to which clause?

If I say it is to the last, the first tanna also prohibits it.

 

The Talmud tries to analyze what exactly the sages are referring to. If they are referring to the immediately preceding clause then all agree the wine is prohibited unless there is a Jew present.

 

ואלא ארישא דסיפא והא קאמר ליה ר’ יוחנן לתנא תני אע"פ שאין מפתח וחותם בידו

 

Perhaps it is to the first half of the second clause. But R. Yohanan told the tanna: Read [as follows]: Even though the key and seal are not in his possession [the wine is permitted] !

 

If the sages are referring to the first half of the second clause, where the Jew is preparing the non-Jew s wine, then we also have a problem. How could R. Yohanan allow such wine without a Jew even having possession of the key and seal if the sages rule that the wine is prohibited without a guard? Would R. Yohanan rule against the sages?

 

ואלא אסיפא דרישא דקאמר ת"ק בחצר אחרת מותר והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו וחכמים אומרים לעולם אסור עד שיהא שומר יושב ומשמר או עד שיבא ממונה הבא לקיצין

 

Rather they refer to the second half of the first clause, for the first Tanna said: If [he resides] in another court, it is permitted only when the key and seal are in his possession. And the sages say that it is always prohibited unless a supervisor sits and watches or until somebody is appointed to go there at regular intervals.

 

The Talmud resolves that the sages refer to the first clause. The situation is that the wine belongs to the Jew. According to the first tanna, the wine is permitted if the Jew holds the key. No Jew needs to be living in the courtyard. The sages say that a guard needs either to be there permanently or at least to be coming in at regular times. Without some sort of supervision, the fact that the Jew holds the key is not sufficient.

ממונה בא לקיצין גריעותא הוא אלא עד שיבא ממונה שאינו בא לקיצין:

 

But his going in there intermittently is not as good!

Rather [must the statement be amended to]: Until somebody is appointed to go there not for stated periods.

 

A guard who enters in at regular intervals is worse the non-Jew will know when he comes in and will be able to time his stealing a drink.

The Talmud therefore emends the baraita. The guard needs to come in intermittently. This is indeed how modern kashrut supervision works.