Einer [ein Jude], der die Trauben eines Nichtjuden in Kashruth betrat [um sie an einen Juden zu verkaufen (dem Nichtjuden kein Geld zu geben, bis er es in Zukunft verkauft)] und der sie in seine [die Nichtjuden] legte. Domain, in einem öffentlich zugänglichen Haus —In einer Stadt, in der es Nichtjuden und Juden gibt, ist es erlaubt, [der Nichtjude befürchtet, dass ein Jude, der durch die Öffentlichkeit geht, ihn sehen (den Wein berühren) und ihm einen Verlust verursachen könnte. Auch ohne Schlüssel oder Siegel ist dies zulässig. Dies unter der Bedingung, dass er (der Nichtjude) kein Pfandrecht an diesem Wein hat, wie als er (der Nichtjude) ihm (dem Juden) schrieb: "Ich habe von Ihnen (Geld für den Wein" erhalten, wie unten angegeben (Mischna 12) )]. In einer Stadt, in der es nur Nichtjuden gibt, ist es verboten, es sei denn, er stellt dort einen Wächter auf. Und der Wächter muss nicht dort sitzen und (ständig) Wache halten, aber obwohl er hinausgeht und hereinkommt, ist es erlaubt R. Shimon sagt: "Alle" im Bereich eines Nichtjuden "sind eins. [Hier gibt es eine Meinungsverschiedenheit zwischen R. Shimon b. Elazar und der ersten Tanna. Die erste Tanna gilt, wenn der Jude den Wein in die Domäne eines Nichtjuden, des Besitzers des Weins—Erst dann muss das Haus für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglich sein und die Stadt muss sowohl Juden als auch Nichtjuden sein. Aber im Bereich eines anderen Nichtjuden, der nicht der Besitzer ist—Es ist sogar in einer Stadt erlaubt, in der es keine Juden gibt. Und R. Shimon b. Elazar sagt: Alles "im Bereich eines Nichtjuden" ist eins, und genau wie wenn der Wein im Bereich des nichtjüdischen Besitzers des Weins ist, ist es verboten, es sei denn, es befindet sich in einer Stadt, in der sowohl Juden als auch Nichtjuden leben und wo Das Haus ist öffentlich zugänglich. Auch hier, im Bereich eines anderen Nichtjuden, sind diese beiden Bedingungen erforderlich. (Die Halacha entspricht R. Shimon b. Elazar.) Und wenn Schlüssel und Siegel in der Hand des Juden sind, sowohl im Bereich des Besitzers des Weins als auch im Bereich eines anderen Nichtjuden, ist dies gemäß zulässig an alle.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Avodah Zarah
המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים – an Israelite who tread on the grapes of an idolater in a state of religious fitness in order to sell them to [another] Israelite, he doesn’t give money to the idolater until he sells them after a while.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah
Introduction
This mishnah and the one that follows discuss wine owned by a non-Jew but produced by a Jew with the intent that the non-Jew will be able to sell it to the Jews, without it having the status of yen nesekh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Avodah Zarah
ונותנו ברשות – of the idolater.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah
If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew. If a Jew were to prepare wine belonging to a non-Jew and then leave it on the non-Jew’s property we need to know whether or not the non-Jew had contact with the wine and thereby made it into yen nesekh. If the house was open to the public domain and there were both Jews and non-Jews living in the city, the wine is permitted. The reason is that the non-Jew will fear that if he touches the wine a Jew passing by might see him and tell the other Jews, in which case they won’t buy the wine from him. This non-Jew from the outset wanted to sell to non-Jews therefore he won’t perform any act that might cause him to lose his ability to sell the wine. However, if there are only non-Jews in the city, the non-Jew does not fear that they will see him and report him to the Jews. Since in this case he is not afraid to touch the wine, the wine must be guarded to make sure that it doesn’t become yen nesekh. If it is not guarded the law is strict and it is forbidden. This guardian need not sit and guard the wine 24 hours a day. It is sufficient for him to come in and out occasionally. As long as the non-Jew does not know when he will come in and out, the non-Jew will be too afraid to touch the wine for fear that he will be caught. This is similar to the way that Jewish kashruth supervisors work today. They are not present in restaurants at all times. It is enough for the restaurant owner to know that they might show up at any time for him to be afraid to break the rules of kashruth. The words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are not easy to explain. The Talmud explains that according to the previous opinion in the mishnah, if the Jew were to leave the wine on a different non-Jew’s property he need not place a guard. Since the wine is not his, this non-Jew will not touch it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees. He holds that all of non-Jewish property is the same and therefore it doesn’t matter where the wine was left; it is forbidden unless it was guarded.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Avodah Zarah
they pass in the public domain and causes him loss, and even if there is no key or lock, it is permitted, as long as he doesn’t have a lien on that wine, such as the case where he wrote to him: “I have received it from you as we stated [later on- see Mishnah 12 of this chapter].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah
Questions for Further Thought: • What would the ruling be if the house was not open to the public domain?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Avodah Zarah
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל רשות עכו"ם אחת היא – There is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar and the First Tanna/Teacher for the first Tanna/teacher holds that when the Israelite left wine in the domain of the idolater, the owner of the wine, it is in this case where we require that the house be open to the public domain, and it be a city where Israelites and idolaters live in it. But in the domain of another idolater who is not the owner [of the wine], even in a city where Israelites do not dwell, it is permitted. But Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar states that it is all one whatever the domain of an idolater. For just as that in the domain of the idolater who is the owner of the wine, it is prohibited other than in a city where Israelites and idolaters live there and the house is open to the public domain, so too here, in the domain of another idolater, the city must be one in which Israelites and idolaters live in and the house is open to the public domain. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar. And at a time when the key and the lock is in the hands of an Israelite whether in the domain of the owner of the wine, whether in the domain of another idolater, it is permissible according to the words of everyone.
