(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah 61

AVODAH ZARAH 61 (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).



(a) We already discussed the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Metaher Yeino shel Akum ve'Nosno bi'Reshuso', there where the Nochri writes the Yisrael a receipt in advance of the payment. The Reisha of the Mishnah permits the wine, even where he did not do so - provided his house is open to the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Jews and not just Nochrim, live in the town.

(b) He also permits the wine if a Yisrael guards the wine-press - which means that he comes and goes unexpectedly (but not necessarily that he sits and watches the wine-press incessantly).

(c) The problem with our Mishnah, which requires Yisre'elim to specifically live in the town - is why it will not suffice for them to come in to town as peddlers.

(d) So Shmuel establishes our Mishnah when the town-gates are kept locked - and the town's residents generally know who is granted entry rights. Consequently, whenever there are no Jews in town, the Nochri will not be afraid to be Menasech the wine.

(a) When Rav Yosef compares a window that opens to a Reshus-ha'Rabim, he might mean that the Nochri's house opens out to the Chatzer and there is a corresponding window in the wall between the street and the Chatzer - or he might mean that a Yisrael lives in the vicinity, whose window opens out to the Chatzer of the Nochri.

(b) Beside a trash-heap, Rav Yosef also compares - a date-palm to a Reshus ha'Rabim in this regard (since the Nochri will be afraid to be Menasech the wine, in case the Yisrael is climbing his tree at that moment to pick dates and spots him).

(c) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over a date-palm which has had its top cut off, and there is no fruit to pick, and the reason of the one who nevertheless permits the wine in the wine-press is - that the Nochri is still afraid that the Yisrael might spot him being Menasech the wine, as he climbs the tree to look for an animal that went astray.




(a) In a case where someone purchases or rents a house in a Chatzer belonging to a Nochri, and he fills it with barrels of wine, the Beraisa makes a distinction between whether a Yisrael lives in the same Chatzer - in which case the wine is permitted, even if he *does not possess the key and the seal* to the wine-press, or a neighboring one - in which case it is only permitted if he *does*.

(b) The Beraisa adds that a Yisrael who is Metaher the wine of a Nochri in the Nochri's domain, and a Yisrael lives in the same Chatzer as the Nochri - the wine is permitted only if he possesses the key and the seal to the wine-press.

(c) The Tana is more stringent in this case than in the previous one - because, seeing as the wine is his own, the Nochri is less afraid to touch it.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan suggested to the Beraisa-expert however, to change this latter statement to read 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein Mifte'ach ve'Chosem be'Yado, Mutar (like in the Reisha).

(a) In the previous case, but where a Yisrael lives in a neighboring Chatzer, the Beraisa rules - that the wine is forbidden, even if the Yisrael possesses the key and the seal.

(b) The author of the Beraisa until now is Rebbi Meir. The Chachamim, who require a Shomer, cannot be referring to ...

1. ... this last case - since Rebbi Meir requires a Shomer, too.
2. ... to the Reisha de'Seifa (where the Yisrael lives in the same Chatzer) - since Rebbi Yochanan changed Rebbi Meir's ruling to a more lenient one, something that he would not have done, had the Chachamim been more strict than Rebbi Meir.
(c) In fact, the Chachamim refer to - the Seifa de'Reisha, where the wine belongs to the Yisrael, but the Yisrael lives in a neighboring Chatzer (which they now equate with the ruling of the Seifa de'Seifa, where the wine belongs to the Nochri).
(a) The Beraisa then equates the Din of a Shomer with a 'Memuneh ha'Ba le'Kitzin'. This cannot be correct however - because if the appointee comes at fixed times, which the Nochri knows in advance, why on earth should the wine be permitted?

(b) So we amend it to read - 'ad she'Yavo Memuneh she'Eino Ba le'Kitzin'.

(a) We learned in the Reisha of our Mishnah, ('ha'Metaher Yeino shel Akum ... be'Ir she'Kulah Ovdei-Kochavim'), that the Tana Kama forbids the Yisrael to leave his wine in the Reshus of the Nochri. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says - 'Reshus Ovdei-Kochavim Achas Hi'.

(b) We ask whether he comes to be more lenient than the Tana Kama or more strict. If he is more lenient - then his statement is a rhetorical question, which means 'Do you really think that all Nochrim are one collective domain?'; whereas if he comes to be more strict - his words are a statement, and what he means is that they are indeed all considered one domain.

(a) When ...
1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Ze'iri says that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar comes to be more lenient, he means - that the Rabbanan forbid the wine, irrespective of whether it is lying in the domain of the seller, or in the domain of another Nochri.
2. ... Rav Nachman Amar Ze'iri says that he comes to be more strict, he means - that the reverse is true; it is the Rabbanan who are lenient, and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar who is strict.
(b) The reason for being strict (despite the fact that the Nisuch will take place in a third party's house), is because of the 'S'vara' of 'Gomlin' (today Jack will allow John to creep into his house and be Menasech the wine, so that tomorrow, when *he* sells the Yisrael wine, he will receive the same favor from John).

(c) The opinion of Rav Nachman Amar Ze'iri (who maintains that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is strict) has the support of a Beraisa. The Tana quotes Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar as saying - that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is strict in that he considers the domain of all Nochrim as one, because of the swindlers (who practice 'Gomlin').

(a) Parzak Rufila was - a man named Parzak, who was 'Rufila' (viceroy) of Persia.

(b) The argument of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan, who thought that, when Parzak Rufila's family deposited wine that Jews had purchased on credit, with their Arisim, the wine was permitted, even according to Rav Nachman, who holds 'Gomlin' was - that seeing as it is not the way of Arisim to deposit wine with their landowners, 'Gomlin' did not apply, and there was therefore no reason to forbid the wine.
2. ... Rava, who disillusioned them and forbade the wine even according to those who don't hold 'Gomlin' was - based on the assumption that the Arisim would be afraid of the property owners, and would therefore cover up for them, in the event that they sneaked in and were Menasech the wine (with or without 'Gomlin').
(c) With regard to a Nochri who was found among barrels of wine belonging to Jews (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Hu'), Rava ruled - that if he was a nonentity, who was afraid of the judges of the town, then the wine was permitted; but if he was an important person, then it was forbidden.

(d) When Rava said ...

1. ... 'Chamra Shari', he meant - even to drink.
2. ... 'Chamra Asur', he meant - even be'Hana'ah.
***** Hadran Alach, 'Rebbi Yishmael' *****

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,