Avodah Zarah, Daf Samekh Tet, Part 3
Introduction
Today s section explains the clause in the first part of yesterday s mishnah If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard. What does this last phrase mean?
גמ׳ היכי דמי בחזקת המשתמר כדתניא הרי שהיו חמריו ופועליו טעונין טהרות אפילו הפליג מהן יותר ממיל טהרותיו טהורות ואם אמר להן לכו ואני בא אחריכם כיון שנתעלמה עינו מהם טהרותיו טמאות
GEMARA. What is a case of and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard ? As it has been taught: Behold a man’s donkey-drivers and workmen are laden with pure things, even if he goes more than a mile from them, his pure things are considered pure; but if he said to them, Go on and I will follow you, as soon as he can no longer see them, his pure things are impure.
To understand our mishnah, the Talmud cites a parallel from the rules of purity. The situation describes a Jew who wants to preserve the ritual purity of his food, but hires workers who are not ritually pure. If he just leaves them alone with his food, the food remains pure. But if he tells them he is going, then as soon as they are out of his site he must be concerned that they have touched the food and thereby defiled it.
מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רב יצחק רישא במטהר חמריו ופועליו לכך
What is the difference between the first and second circumstance?
R. Yitzchak said: The first refers to when he purified his donkey-drivers and workmen for the task.
The Talmud asks why in the first case the food is assumed to be pure and the second it is assumed to be impure. R. Yitzchak explains that in the first case the Jew made sure that his workers were pure. We should not that this is clearly not the simple reading of the baraita.
Clearly the difference is between telling them that he was going away and simply going away. The Talmud will get to such an explanation below.
אי הכי סיפא נמי אין עם הארץ מקפיד על מגע חבירו
אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי נימא הכי
If that is so, it should apply also to the second clause!
An am ha aretz is not particular about the touch of his fellow.
If that is so, it should apply also to the first clause!
The Talmud struggles with R. Yitzchak s interpretation. First of all, if the Jew had his workers purify themselves, then the same would seem to be true in the second clause? If we answer that the am haaretz, while himself pure, will not make sure that others, who are not pure, do not touch the pure things, then the same should be true of the first clause. When the Jew leaves, there is no way of ensuring that someone impure did not touch the pure food.
אמר רבא בבא להם דרך עקלתון
Rava said: It refers to when [the owner] could come upon them by some roundabout path.
Rava says that in the first clause the pure things remain pure because the owner could come back in some roundabout path and they would not see him coming. Since they cannot see him coming, they will be afraid to touch the food.
כיון דאמר להם לכו ואני בא אחריכם סמכא דעתייהו:
If that is so, the same should apply to the second clause!
Since he had told them, Go on and I will follow you, their mind is at rest.
This interpretation gets closer to the simple meaning of the mishnah. In the second clause, since he told them that he was going away, they will not worry that he is coming back very soon. Therefore, even if the owner could surprise them by coming back on a roundabout path, they will not be concerned.