Comentário sobre Avodá Zará 4:14

רבי ישמעאל אומר. זו בצד זו – and all the more so, one on top of two which is the essence of Merkulis/Mercury/Hermes. [Merkulis is the name of idolatry that is called in their languages, Merkuris.]

Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a merculis, they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted.
The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.
In Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that one who throws stones at a statue of merculis (the Roman god, mercury) is guilty of worshipping the idol, for that his how merculis is typically worshipped. Our mishnah deals with the status of stones found next to the merculis statue.
According to Rabbi Ishmael, if three stones were found next to the merculis statue, we can assume that they were used in worshipping the statue, and they are therefore prohibited. If there were only two, then we cannot assume that they were placed there for such a purpose and they are permitted.
According to the Sages the issue is not the number of stones but rather their proximity to the statue. Those found next to the idol are prohibited and those found further away are permitted. Even if three are found further away, we can assume that they were not used in worship.

בצד מרקוליס – at the side four cubits of Merkulis, meaning to say, that the stones are four cubits distant from Merkulis and it is known and that they did not fall from him, and on this, Rabbi Yishmael states that three stones are prohibited for Merkulis is not less than three stones and they make a small Merkulis at the side of a large Merkulis and a small one made at the side of a large one, they worship it with anything and we should not suspect that there will be one [stone] on top of two [stones]. But the Rabbis hold that we do not make a small Merkulis at the side of a large Merkulis. Therefore, it appears with it, meaning to say, next to it, for one can say that it fell from it. Whether two [stones] or three [stones], it is forbidden. If it is not seen with it, it is permitted. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מצא בראשו – of Merkulis.

If he found on top [of a mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted;
[But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.
Mishnah two continues to discuss items that are found in proximity to the mercurius idol, and whether or not these items are assumed to have been used in idolatrous worship and therefore prohibited.
In the previous mishnah we learned that one typical way of worshipping the mercurius idol was to lay stones next to it. In today’s mishnah we see ways in which mercurius was not worshipped. It was not worshipped by having money, clothes or other vessels laid next to it. Since this is not typical mercurius worship, it is permitted for Jews to use these items.
However, if anything that is normally sacrificed is found next to a mercurius, these items are forbidden to Jews. Since these items are generally used in idol worship, and evidently also in the worship of mercurius, they are forbidden if they are found in proximity to the idol.

מעות כסות או כלים מהרין אלו מותרין – and this as long as they are not placed for adornment [such as, for example], that the monies were placed in a pouch tied and suspended from it on its neck. Folded clothing folded up and placed on its shoulder, or on its head. Utensils also placed on its head, and wall of these are not in the manner of adornment.

שלא בטובה – that he should raise a salary for the [idolatrous] priests.

If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage.
If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.
Mishnah three discusses a garden or bathhouse that is in the courtyard of an idolatrous shrine.
If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse in its courtyard, there are certain circumstances in which the garden or bathhouse may nevertheless be used. First of all one may always use them as long as one doesn’t give any advantage to the idolaters. This means that one could use the garden or bathhouse as long as he does not pay the idolatrous priests for such use. Secondly, if the garden or bathhouse was jointly owned by the shrine a private individual, one could always use them, and even pay for their use. Even though some of the money may go to the shrine, the Jew can consider the payment as going to the individual partner.
We should note that Maimonides explains that “to the advantage of” does not mean paying money as we explained above, but rather giving verbal recognition to the owners. If the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, one may give verbal advantage to the owners, and even to the idolatrous priests, however, according to Maimonides, one may not pay for the use.

ע"ז של נכרי אסורה מיד – as it is written (Deuteronomy 7:25): “[You shall consign] the images of their gods [to the fire], for once it has been declared unfit, it becomes for him a god.

Introduction The first part of mishnah four discusses when an idol becomes prohibited from being used by a Jew. The second half of the mishnah discusses when an idol that was once worshipped becomes “annulled” as an idol and thereby permitted to be used by a Jew. Note that we already discussed the process of “annulling” an idol in the last mishnah of chapter three.

ושל ישראל עד שתעבד – as it is written (Deuteronomy 27:15): “[Cursed be anyone who makes a sculptured or molten image, abhorred by the LORD, a craftsman’s handiwork,] and sets it up in secret,” until he does for it secretive things, meaning to say, that he worships it, for an Israelite does not serve idolatry other than in secret, because he is afraid of the Jewish court.

The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped. As soon as an idol is made by a non-Jew it is prohibited, even before it is worshipped. The reason is that we can safely assume that the non-Jew will worship the idol, and it was certainly made for idolatrous purposes. However, an idol made by a Jew is only forbidden for Jewish use once it has been worshipped. The reason is that we cannot be sure that the Jew will worship the idol. It potentially could be used for decorative, non-idolatrous purposes.

נכרי מבטל ע"ז שלו – as it is written (Deuteronomy 7:25): “You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire,” when they practice regarding them the custom of godliness, but if he annulled it, they are permitted.

An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. One who is engaged in idolatry can annul an idol that belongs to him and one that belongs to others. We will learn in the proceeding mishnayoth how one annuls idols. However, a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.

ושל ישראל – when he has regarding it a partnership, and the Halakha is not like this. For an idolater cannot annul [the sanctity of] the idolatry of an Israelite even when he has a partnership with him in it.

He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited. If one annuls an idol, all of the things that go with the idol, for instances the plates used to make offerings to it, are also annulled. Since these things are ancillary to the main idol, they are effected by its change of status. However, if one annuls the things that pertain to the idol, without specifically annulling the idol, the idol is still forbidden.

אינו מבטל ע"ז של נכרי – and even if the heathen gave him permission [to do so].

פחסה – [if he smashed it] in its face. If he crushed it with a mallet until he removed the shape of the face.

Introduction Mishnah five discusses how a non-Jew can annul an idol.

גררה – dragged and cast within the mud.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. In order to annul an idol, the non-Jew must treat the idol with enough disrespect that we can be confident that the idol is no longer considered to be holy by the non-Jew. Note, that the issue is not a physical issue. The mishnah is not asking the question, does this still look like an idol. Rather the issue is psychological. At one point can an outside observer assume that the owner of the idol no longer is relating to it as a god, but rather as merely a physical item devoid of religious meaning. The first way for the owner to annul the idol is to somehow physically damage it. If he cuts off one of its appendages, this is sufficient physical damage for it to be annulled. Furthermore, if he defaces, meaning he distorts the facial features of the idol, it is annulled, even if he has not diminished the material used to make the idol.

אינה בטלה – for according to the hour, he got hot regarding it and he retracted and worshipped it.

If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. Acting in a disgraceful way in front of the idol does not annul it. According to the Talmud, the non-Jew may being do this out of anger at the idol, without annulling its divinity. In other words, merely getting angry at the idol does not mean that the pagan assumes that it is no longer a god. When his anger cools down he will again worship the idol, and therefore the idol was never annulled. Another possible explanation is that sometimes performing a disgraceful act in front of an idol is a means of worship. In mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that pagans worshipped ba’al p’eor by throwing feces at it. Therefore we cannot assume that other disgraceful acts to other idols are also not worship.

רבי אומר בטלה – there is a dispute between Rabbi [Judah the Prince] and the Sages when he sold it to an idolater, but if he sold it to an Israelite goldsmith/smelter, according to all, it is annulled and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it. If a non-Jew sells or uses the idol as a pledge, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] he has annulled the idol. Since he treated it in a profane matter, and did something that one would not do to a divine idol, he must no longer be considering it to be an idol. The other Sages disagree with Rabbi.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think the list in section one is exhaustive or merely a sample of ways of annulling the idol? What would be the ruling if he removed a leg, or a toe?

שהניחוה עובדיה – and it wasn’t their intention to return.

An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted,
in time of war it is prohibited.
Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.
Mishnah six discusses idols which have been abandoned by those who previously worshipped them. The question is, can we assume that the worshipper has annulled the idol by abandoning it and it is therefore permitted to the Jew.
Section one: If an idolater abandoned his idol in time of peace the idol is permitted since we can assume that the idolater has no intention of returning to worship the idol. For instance if Maximus the idolater decides to move from Jaffa to Caesarea and he leaves his idols behind, he has shown that he doesn’t intend to worship them anymore. However, if Maximus the idolater flees his home during a war and in distress leaves his idols behind, he may intend to return and worship them when the war is over. Therefore they are not considered to be annulled.
Section two: Pedestals which were set up on the sides of roads to place upon them idols when kings pass by are not forbidden to Jews, since they are only temporarily used by the kings. During other times, when normal people pass them by, they do not worship these pedestals.
The mishnah connects these two issues because the pedestals are like idols that have been abandoned by their owners. When the kings are not there these idols are “abandoned”.

בשעת שלום מותרת – since they left knowingly and did not take it with them, they annulled/destroyed it.

בימוסיות של מלכים – hewn stones that were prepared for the procession of the king and when the king passes through the, they set up idolatry there and he worships it. And in the Gemara (Talmud Avodah Zarah 53b) explains because they leave it, meaning to say, they are not designated to establish there idolatry every hour but rather at the time when the kings pass, and sometimes the kings pass through another road and we don’t suspect them. Therefore, it is not considered to be the usages of idolatry.

אף אנו מחזיקים ידיהם של אלו – those who worship the sun and/or the moon, if they would see that the rest of idolatry had been destroyed of its own and these exist, they would give thanks to those.

They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?”
They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!”
They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!”
They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”
This mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between the Sages of Rome and some idolaters. Note the different style of this mishnah. Although most mishnayoth contain brief halakhic (legal) discussions, occasionally the Mishnah does contain aggadic (philosophic) material.
In the fascinating discussion in this mishnah some pagans in Rome pose a serious theological problem to Jewish sages: if God is all-powerful why doesn’t he destroy any of his competitors. The basic answer given is that God doesn’t destroy things which are necessary for the existence of the world. If He were to destroy the sun, moon and stars our universe would not be able to function. The pagans then ask why God doesn’t destroy the things that are worshipped and that are not necessary, such as idols. The answer is that if he were to do so, this would seemingly demonstrate the power of those things that were not destroyed. By doing so God would actually increase the number of idolaters in the world.
An interesting question with regards to this mishnah is whom are these idolaters supposed to be representing? Are these Greek philosophers? According to the Rambam (Maimonides) Greek philosophy does not believe in the influence that inanimate objects such as stars and planets can have on human lives. The Rambam, who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and in his book “The Guide of the Perplexed” applied philosophical principles to Torah, claims that these pagan beliefs are believed by the masses, but not by “true philosophers” who understood the unity of God. He even claims that there are Jewish sages who believe that the stars and planets hold such a power over our lives, but that it is nevertheless forbidden by the Torah to worship them. In this commentary the Rambam explains the astrological roots of idolatry.

גת בעוטה – that the idolater had trampled and stamped.

A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a until it descends into the vat.
When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.
In chapter two, mishnah three, we learned that Jews may not drink wine touched by non-Jews, lest they had used the wine as a libation. The remainder of tractate Avodah Zarah will deal with the prohibition of non-Jewish wine. Our mishnah defines at what point in the process of wine-pressing do the grapes and grape juice begin to be considered wine.
Section one: A Jew may buy a winepress and all of the grapes that are being trodden in it from a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew has lifted up the trodden grapes and moved them into a different heap. At this point in their processing the grapes are not yet considered wine, and therefore their being handled by a non-Jew does not make them “yen nesek”, which is forbidden to Jews. In other words, while we might suspect that non-Jews offer up libations with wine, they will not do so with grapes that are not yet fully pressed, nor will they do so with grape juice. Only when the juice has descended into the vat where it will ferment into wine is it considered yen nesek.
When the wine does descend from the winepress into the vat, the wine which is in the vat is prohibited. However, that which remains above in the winepress is still permitted, even though it has been handled by a non-Jew.

אע"פ שהוא נוטל בידו – grapes from the wine and place them on the pile (i.e., the place on the altar where the ashes are piled up), the place of the gathering of the grapes that is made like a heap that is called תפוח/grape-heap, and our Tanna/teacher holds that it does not become libation wine until it flows down to the cistern and according to the hour, he becomes excited and returns and worships it. But this is the earliest version of the Mishnah and it is not Halakha, but rather, since the wine began to be drawn, it became libation wine.

מה שבבור אסור – if an idolater would come in contact with it afterwards.

דורכין עם העכו"ם בגת – and we don’t say that he is making a living with what is prohibited from deriving benefit, for this Tanna/thinks [that even] with drinking, it is permitted as long as he doesn’t go down into the cistern. But there isn’t anything concerning causing ritual defilement for from the time when the idolater treads upon them [a little bit], they were ritually defiled, so it is found that the Israelite did not cause the ritual defilement.

Introduction This mishnah discusses what actions a Jew may or may not do to help a non-Jew in the winemaking process. The second and third sections of the mishnah discuss helping ritually impure winemakers and bakers. These sections are only brought into our tractate due to their similarity to the halakhah in section one.

אבל לא בוצרין עמו – because he places them into a ritually impure vat for wine pressing. For the idolater defiles the grapes through his contact and the Israelite who cuts with him causes ritual defilement. But this Tanna/teacher holds that it is forbidden to cause ritual defilement for non-holy produce that is in the Land of Israel, even if they belong to the idolater. But the Halakha is not according to this Mishnah for we hold that since the wine began to be drawn, it became libation wine, therefore, we do not tread with the idolater in the vat for wine pressing. And we hold that it is permissible to cause ritual from produce, there is nothing in this. But however, an Israelite who harvests his vineyard ab initio, the idolater should not take with him, even to bring the grapes to the vat, because we say, “go around Nazirite, etc. (that you may not come near the vineyard” – see Numbers Rabbah 6:10).

A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. A Jew is allowed to tread grapes in a winepress with a non-Jew, since the wine does not become yen nesekh until it goes down into the vat (see previous mishnah). However, a Jew may not pick grapes with the non-Jew for the non-Jew causes the grapes to become impure. When the non-Jew puts the grapes in his impure winepress, the grapes will become impure. If a Jew helps him to do so, the Jew is helping to make produce grown in the land of Israel impure. The reason that treading on the grapes is permitted is that as soon as the non-Jew touches them, they are already impure.

וישראל העושה פירותיו בטומאה – he commits a sin because he defiles the Priest’s Due and Tithes that are within them. Therefore, it is forbidden to assist him in order that he become accustomed to this.

If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. An Israelite who works in a winepress while impure is committing a sin, for he is impurifying the terumah and tithes and thereby rendering them inedible. Since this is forbidden, another Jew may not even tread in the winepress with him, because that would be aiding a transgressor. However, the other Jew may help this Jew before the process begins by bringing jugs to the winepress and he may help him remove the jugs when the pressing is over. In other words, it is only forbidden to help him while the impure pressing is going on. Before and after it is permitted.

אבל מוליכין עמו – an empty barrel to the vat, and he brings it with him filled barrels from the winepress, for what has happened has happened for after they have been ritually defiled, it is permissible to put the wine in impure barrels.

If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery. The same rules that were stated in section two with regards to helping a winemaker who presses his wine while impure, are also true with regards to the impure baker. One may not help him in the baking process, for he causes impurity to the terumah and tithes. However, one may help him after the loaves are already baked.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is it permitted to help the non-Jew tread but not to help the impure Jew, even though both cause the grapes to become impure?

אם יש עליו [מלוה] אסור – if he has towards him a lien on the wine, it is prohibited, for this wine is mortgaged to him in his liability, so it is like his money and he came in contact with it to see how it is.

Introduction This mishnah discusses different types of contact that a non-Jew may have with wine that may or may not make the wine into yen nesekh, which is forbidden to Jews.

נפל – the idolater [fell] into the cistern filled with wine.

If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but should he not have loaned money to the Jew, then it is permitted. If a non-Jew is seen standing next to a vat of wine we need to know if the non-Jew touch the wine, for if he did touch the wine he would have made it into yen nesekh. Our mishnah teaches that if the non-Jew had loaned money to the Jew then the wine is prohibited. In such a case, the non-Jew has a lien on the Jews wine and might at some point say to the Jew, give me the wine and I will forgive you the loan. Since he has this financial connection to the Jew, and in some sense he has ownership over the wine as well, he will feel free to take some of the wine for himself. Therefore we must assume that he has come into contact with the wine. If, however, he has not loaned money to the Jew, then we do not assume that he had come into contact with the wine, and it is permitted.

ועלה – dead, even though he came in contact with it at the time that he fell in, he (i.e., the Jew) is not prohibited to benefit since he did not intend to come in contact with it, but uf he came up alive, through his ascending he makes it forbidden, because he admits to idolatry on that he was saved.

If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. This section lists all sorts of circumstances in which a non-Jew might come into contact with wine and yet it is highly unlikely that he used it to make a libation. Since in all of these cases we can be almost one hundred per cent sure that he didn’t do so, there is room to be lenient. The Sages, in front of whom cases such as these came, said that the wine could be sold to a non-Jew. In other words, it is forbidden to drink the wine but it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it. If it had truly been considered yen nesekh, then it could not even be sold. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows a person to even drink the wine.

ומודדו בקנה – or that the idolater measures the wine of the Israelite with a reed.

If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking]. If a non-Jew throws an empty cask into a vat of wine the wine in the vat is not forbidden at all. Since in this case the non-Jew certainly did not make a libation with the wine, it is permitted and a Jew may even drink the wine.

והתיז – or the idolater flipped out the hornet from the wine of the Israelite through a reed and did not actually make contact with the wine with his hand.

המורתחת – the barrel was rising with heat and the idolater slapped it with his hand on the foaming – this is not the manner of libations.

רבי שמעון מתיר – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

זה היה מעשה והכשירוהו – even through drinking.

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.

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.

ונותנו ברשות – of the idolater.

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.

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].

Questions for Further Thought:
• What would the ruling be if the house was not open to the public domain?

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.

והלה כותב לו שנתקבלתי ממך מעות מותר – if the house is open to the public domain and Israelites live in that city as we have stated above (in the previous Mishnah).

Introduction The final mishnah in chapter four is a continuation of mishnah eleven. It continues to discuss a Jew who makes wine that belongs to a non-Jew, with the intent of the Jew purchasing it.

אבל אם רצה – for now, the wine is a as a deposit with the idolater. And since he has a lien on the wine, it is prohibited, and that it does not bubble/ferment, he holds that if he sees me and claims it from me, I would say that it is mine. But even though the key and the lock are in the hand of an Israelite, it is prohibited.

Again, what we constantly need to know in the types of circumstances mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one is the likelihood that the non-Jew touched the wine. If he did so it is forbidden as yen nesekh.

If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. In this case the non-Jew has already written out a receipt that he has received the money for the wine. Even if he preemptively wrote the receipt before he received the money, in this case the non-Jew will assumedly not touch the wine. If the Jew really has paid the money then it simply belongs to the Jew, and the non-Jew will not touch wine that doesn’t belong to him. If the Jew has not really paid the money, the non-Jew will not touch it for if he does, the Jew will not pay him. However, the Talmud adds that the wine must be kept under lock in order to make these assumptions.

If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it. However, if the non-Jew demonstrates that he doesn’t consider the wine to really belong to the Jew until he pays the money, then we cannot assume that he has not touched it. Since the non-Jew still considers himself the owner, he may allow himself to take some of the wine, even though the Jew made it in order to subsequently pay for the wine. The mishnah relates that this case actually happened in Beth Shan (see also Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:4, for another case that happened in Beth Shan).

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why do you think that the Talmud demands that the wine must be kept under lock? Think of the similarities between this situation and that in the previous mishnah.