Jewish audio on Chabad.org. This שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף ס״א עמוד א׳, we will start from the top of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says, המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים, if someone works with the wine of a גוי, prepares the wine of a גוי, but he wants to make it in such a way that יידן should be able to use it, so the ייד works on it, and he works on it in such a way that it shouldn't turn the wine into יין נסך. If he works on it, ונותנו ברשותו, but he leaves the wine in the רשות, in the possession, in the domain of the גוי, but if it is בבית הפתוח לרשות הרבים, it's in a house which is open to the street, open to the public domain, בעיר שיש בה עובדי כוכבים וישראלים, and it's a city where גוים and יידן live, which means that יידן also live in that city, מותר, then the wine is permitted, because we don't suspect that the גוי touched the wine. Even though he left the wine in the רשות of the גוי, but nevertheless, since it is open to the רשות הרבים, and it's a place where יידן also live, we assume that the גוי probably would be afraid to touch the wine, because he won't know maybe at the time he will be touching the wine a ייד will pass by and see it, וממילא none of the יידן in the city will buy the wine, because this one ייד who will see it will tell everybody else that the גוי touched it, וממילא he will lose the business, so we assume that the גוי probably is afraid to do it, and therefore the wine is מותר. But if it is

בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים, if it's a city that all the people that live there are גוים, אסור, then the wine is forbidden even if it is open to the street, because who will pass by? Only גוים. So the גוי that owns the wine will not be afraid to touch it, עד שישב וישמר, or as the ב״ח is גורס, עד שיושיב שומר, until, unless he sits and watches it, or he appoints a guard to watch it. So then even if it's a city that only גוים live there, if there is somebody watching the wine that the גוי doesn't touch it, then the wine is מותר. And the משנה explains, ואין השומר צריך להיות יושב ומשמר, the שומר, the guard, doesn't have to sit there constantly and watch it, אף על פי שהוא יוצא ונכנס מותר, even if he just goes out and in, it is allowed. If the שומר walks in and out, and the גוי doesn't know when he's going to come, so then it is מותר even if he doesn't sit there the whole time to watch that the גוי doesn't touch it. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר says, רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא, that all the domains of גוים is one. And the גמרא later on will explain what רבי שמעון בן אלעזר meant, whether he meant to say that even if it was left not in the רשות of the owner of the wine, but in the רשות of another גוי, it has the same דין because the רשויות of the גוים are all one, or the גמרא will say later that maybe רבי שמעון בן אלעזר came to say just the opposite, that only if it was left in the רשות of the owner that's when it's אסור, but if it's left in the רשות of another גוי, then it's מותר. And the words of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר should be read that he is saying רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא, is the רשות of all גוים one? In other words, only in the רשות of the owner it is אסור, but in the רשות of another גוי it wouldn't be אסור. And the גמרא will explain later the reason for both ways of learning the words of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר. Then the

משנה continues, המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים ונותנו ברשותו, if a ייד is trying to prepare the wine of a גוי in a way that it should be טהור and כשר, and he leaves it in the רשות of the גוי, והלה כותב לו, and the גוי writes to him, התקבלתי ממך מעות, I received from you the money for the wine, which means that now the wine is owned by the ייד, even though the ייד did not pay him for the wine yet, but he gives him a שטר, a document where he says I received the wine for the money for the wine, וממילא the wine now belongs to the ייד. The ייד still owes him money, because the ייד never paid him yet, so he owes him the amount of money that he was supposed to pay for the wine, but we don't consider it that he owes him the money for the wine, because for the wine itself he wrote that it's as if he received it, so he owes him a debt, but the wine belongs to the ייד. So the דין is that this wine is מותר, is allowed. אבל אם ירצה ישראל להוציא, אינו מניחו, but if the case would be that if the ייד would want to take the wine out of the רשות of the גוי, the גוי wouldn't let him, עד שיתן לו את מעותיו, unless he pays him, which means that even though he wrote to him it's as if you paid me, but if he actually would want to take the wine out of the רשות of the גוי, the גוי wouldn't let him, זה היה מעשה בבית שאן, this actually happened in בית שאן, ואסרו, the חכמים said it's אסור. And the reason is, since the גוי feels that the wine is his, he keeps the wine as a משכון for the debt, even though he doesn't own the money for the wine, because he wrote that he received the money for it, but nevertheless he does owe him money, and if the גוי would not let him take the wine out of the רשות, which means the גוי holds the wine as a משכון, and therefore Now after we finish both cases of the משנה, we see like this, that in the משנה, the first case tells us one way the wine could be מותר, and the second part of the משנה tells us another way the wine could be מותר. In the first part of the משנה, it says that the wine is מותר if it is in the רשות of a גוי which is open to the רשות הרבים, and it's a city where יידן also live. And the second case of the משנה says it's מותר if the גוי writes the ייד a שטר that he's קבלתי ממך מעות, that he received the money from him, so then it's מותר. So רש״י

explains that these are not two separate ways the wine could be מותר, but you must have both conditions. That in the first part of the משנה, where it says that if the the רשות of the גוי is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by, it's מותר, but that is only if the גוי also wrote to the ייד that it's as if he received the money for the wine. Which means the היתר of the second part of the משנה, of the סיפא, must be also in the רישא. And the same is the רישא concerning the סיפא, that in the second part of the משנה, where we learn that if he writes to him that it's as if I received the money for the wine, it's מותר, it's only if it's in the רשות of the גוי which is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by. In other words, what רש״י is really saying, that you have to have both conditions in order for the wine to be מותר. First of all, it's not allowed to belong to the גוי, and therefore, the גוי must write to the ייד, it's as if you paid me for it. And also, the second condition, it must be in the רשות of the גוי that's open to the רשות הרבים where יידן might pass by. If you have both conditions together, then the wine is מותר. So on the רישא, where it just mentions the fact that it has to be open to the רשות הרבים, we have to add that this is only if he wrote in a שטר, he's קבלתי ממך מעות. And the סיפא, where it just mentions the היתר that he writes to the in the שטר, he's קבלתי ממך מעות, it's only if it was open to the רשות הרבים. But then there's a question concerning a third condition, that maybe you should have a third condition, which is mentioned later on in the גמרא. And that is that the ייד should have to hold the מפתח וחותם בידו. The key and the seal should be in the hands of the ייד. And רש״י here on the משנה says that the case of the משנה is talking even if he is not holding the key and the seal. As long as you have the other two conditions, that he writes to him that I received the money for the wine, and it's in the רשות of the גוי which is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by, it is enough to make the wine מותר, and he doesn't have to hold the מפתח וחותם. And even though later on in the גמרא does mention that you have to hold the key and the seal, so תוספות explains that according to רש״י, there it is talking in a case where there are no יידן in that city, and therefore, the fact that it's open to the רשות הרבים doesn't help. So therefore, then it's מותר only if he's holding the seal and the key. But in our משנה, where it says that it's מותר if it is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן live, so in a case like that, we don't have to have that the מפתח וחותם בידו, that the ייד should דוקא hold the key and the seal. But

תוספות asks many קשיות on רש״י, and תוספות learns the פשט in the משנה different, that the משנה is talking דוקא in a case where he is holding the מפתח וחותם. He does have the key and the seal. And תוספות learns that the two parts of the משנה, the רישא and the סיפא, are not connected. Which means that when it says in the רישא that it's מותר because it's in the רשות of the גוי which is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by, it doesn't mean that it's also in a case where he wrote to him קבלתי ממך מעות. In the סיפא, where it says that he wrote to him קבלתי ממך מעות, so there, it doesn't have to be open to the רשות הרבים. And the reason why it's enough if it is open to the רשות הרבים without the גוי writing to him קבלתי ממך מעות is because the ייד has the מפתח וחותם. Since the ייד has the key and the seal, and it is also open to the רשות הרבים, so we're not afraid that the גוי's going to tamper with the wine, and therefore, it's מותר. And also in the סיפא, when it says that he wrote to him קבלתי ממך מעות, there it means even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים. But as long as he writes to him, 'I received the money from you,' and it's not the גוי's anymore, and the ייד has the מפתח וחותם, so therefore, it is מותר even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים where יידן are. So it comes out there is a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות whether the רישא and the סיפא are connected, which means the סיפא is מפרש the פשט in the רישא, or the סיפא and the רישא are not connected, it's two separate conditions, two separate reasons why the wine is מותר. According to רש״י, the סיפא comes to explain the רישא, which means that the only time it's מותר is if it has both conditions, as we said before: if it's open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by plus the גוי wrote to him, 'I received your money,' only then it's מותר. And the reason why it's מותר only if you have these two conditions, because according to רש״י, we're talking here in a case where the ייד does not have the key and the seal to the wine. But according to תוספות, it's talking in a case where the ייד does have the key and the seal, and that's why one of the two conditions are enough: or if it is open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by or if the גוי writes to the ייד, I received the money for the wine from you, and ממילא it is not the גוי's wine anymore, and that's why it is מותר. And תוספות says that this is the way it was written in the original כתבים the way רש"י wrote it. It is only in the מהדורא בתרא when רש"י rewrote this פירוש, that's when רש"י changed and said that the משנה is talking in a case where the מפתח and חותם is not in the hands of the ייד. But originally רש"י himself wrote that the משנה is talking in a case where the מפתח and חותם is ביד ישראל. And the truth is, that in the earlier דף, when the גמרא quoted this משנה, רש"י said clearly there, that the משנה is talking in a case where the key or the seal is in the hands of the ישראל. Now on one hand we've seen that there's a contradiction in the way רש"י learns here, and the way רש"י learns the same משנה when it was brought down in the earlier דף. But the ב"ח, in the earlier דף explains that there is no contradiction in רש"י, and both things are true. He learns that according to רש"י, when it says in the סיפא, that if the גוי wrote to him that I received the money for the wine, it is מותר, so רש"י learns that there are two ways that we can learn the משנה. In other words the משנה meant both ways. The משנה meant that in addition to this דין, that the גוי has to write to him that I received the money for the wine and it's not the גוי's wine anymore, you have to have another condition in order to make the wine מותר: or if it is open to the רשות הרבים, or even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים, if the ייד has the seal or the key, then it is also מותר. So it comes out that what רש"י said earlier in the previous דף, and what רש"י says here, is no contradiction. The way רש"י says here, he is saying that when it says in the second part of the משנה, that if the גוי writes to the ייד, I received the money, it's מותר. So רש"י adds that this is only if it's open to the רשות הרבים. It is true, that if it is open to the רשות הרבים, and the גוי writes, I received the money, that is enough to make it מותר. And in a case like this, the ייד doesn't have to hold the key or the seal. But it is also true that if the ייד is holding the key or the seal, then it doesn't have to be open to the רשות הרבים. And that's what רש"י wrote in the previous דף. So it comes out that the רישא and the סיפא are connected and are not connected. The סיפא is an explanation to the רישא, which means that in a case where it's open to the רשות הרבים, you also must have the condition that the גוי should write to the ייד, I received the money. But on the other hand, the סיפא is also telling us a separate דין, that if he writes to him, I received the money, it doesn't necessarily have to be open to the רשות הרבים. There is another way it could be מותר: if the ייד is holding the מפתח or the חותם. So in the previous דף, רש"י explained the משנה this way: that if the ייד is holding the מפתח and the חותם, then if he writes to him, I received the money, it is מותר. In this דף, when רש"י explains the משנה, he explains the other part, the other ענין that the משנה means: that if it is open to the רשות הרבים, and the גוי writes, I received the money from you, it is enough and you don't have to have the ייד hold the key or the חותם. But there is no contradiction between the two רש"יs, the ב"ח explains, because according to רש"י, both things are true. This is just the way the ב"ח explains, but the ראשונים learn פשט in רש"י that there is a contradiction in רש"י, or that רש"י himself wasn't clear what is the פשט in the משנה. And as we find in the ר"ן, that the ר"ן explains what forced רש"י to write the way he writes in our משנה here, that we're talking in a case where he is not holding the key. And the ר"ן explains it as follows: Since the משנה doesn't mention anything about holding the key or the seal, obviously the משנה means that he is not holding the key or the seal. Now if so, this seems to contradict with what it says later on in the גמרא. Later on the גמרא brings a ברייתא where it says, אחד הלוקח ואחד השוכר בית בחצרו של עובד כוכבים, whether you buy or you rent a house in the yard of a גוי and you fill it up with wine, and a ייד lives in a different חצר, the ייד doesn't live there, the wine is מותר only if the ייד has the key or the חותם in his hand. So from there we see that even if it's a ייד's wine, and even if it's laying in the house, in a רשות מיוחד special for the ייד, because he rented that רשות from the גוי, nevertheless, as long as the ייד doesn't live in that רשות, the wine is אסור unless he holds the key or the חותם. Now this seems to contradict the משנה, because in the משנה it says in the סיפא, that if he writes to him that I received the money, which means, all it does is that it makes the wine that it belongs to the ייד, and there it says it's מותר, but in the ברייתא it says that even if it's originally the ייד's wine, but as long as it's in a חצר where a ייד doesn't live, it is אסור unless the ייד has the seal or the key. And in the משנה it seems that as long as it's the ייד's wine, we don't care that it is in the רשות of the גוי, and you don't even have to have that the ייד should hold the מפתח or the חותם. And as we see it from the fact that the משנה doesn't mention it. So this forces רש"י to learn that the סיפא is really in connection to the רישא. That if the גוי would just write, I received the money for the wine, it would not be enough for the wine to be מותר. Because then you would have to have and the איד hold the key or the seal, as it says in the ברייתא. Therefore we learn that the סיפא means that he is also open to the רשות הרבים where אידן pass by. So when you have these two conditions, that's when it's מותר, and that's why it doesn't contradict this ברייתא. Because the ברייתא is talking in the case where it is not open to the רשות הרבים, and a איד does not live together with the גוי in the חצר there, and that's why the only way it's מותר is if the איד has the מפתח and the חותם. But in the משנה, where we say that the סיפא is in connection to the רישא, that it is open to the רשות הרבים where אידן pass by, then as long as the גוי writes, "I received the money," it's enough for the wine to be מותר, even if he doesn't have the מפתח and חותם. This is the way the ר״ן explains what forces רש״י to learn the way he does that we're talking in a case where the מפתח is not in the hands of the איד, and that the סיפא is an interpretation, explanation to the רישא, it's connected to the רישא. But the ר״ן himself says that really רש״י wasn't clear in it as we see in the previous דף, that רש״י writes that we're talking in a case where the מפתח and the חותם is in the hands of the איד. But it is very hard to say that, the ר״ן says, because in the משנה it's not mentioned. So how can we say that the משנה means that the מפתח and the חותם are in the hands of the איד? And בכלל, the ר״ן asks a קשיא on רש״י, that according to רש״י that the רישא and the סיפא are connected, why did the משנה make it into two cases? Why didn't the משנה make one case out of it? It should have said המטהר יינו של עכו״ם, if a איד wants to make wine of a גוי to be כשר that אידן should be able to buy it, then it has to be open to the רשות הרבים where אידן pass by, and the גוי has to write to him that I received the money for the wine, and then it's מותר. So we would know that you have both conditions, it's מותר. Why did the משנה write it in two separate cases? First the משנה writes that if it's open to the רשות הרבים where אידן pass by it's מותר. And then another case, that if the גוי writes to him התקבלתי ממך, that I received the money, it is also מותר. Is משמע that there are two separate cases. Now, we can't just say simply that there are two separate cases, and as the ר״ן learns, the מפתח and the חותם is not in the hands of the איד, because then it would contradict the ברייתא. If we're going to learn that way, it comes out that the סיפא is saying that even if the מפתח is not in the hands of the איד, and it is not open to the רשות הרבים, as long as the גוי writes, "I received the money," it is מותר, which means because as long as it belongs to the איד, the wine belongs to the איד, it's מותר, but this seems to contradict the ברייתא. So now we

have to understand, how else can we learn פשט? And according to this we can't learn like תוספות either, because תוספות learns that the משנה is talking in a case where the מפתח and the חותם is in the hands of the איד. And therefore we don't connect the רישא and the סיפא. But according to the ר״ן who says that from the fact that the משנה doesn't mention it, obviously the משנה is talking in a case where the מפתח and the חותם is not in the hands of the איד. So then, how can we learn פשט in the משנה? If the key and the חותם are not in the hands of the איד, and we're saying that the רישא and the סיפא are not connected, so it comes out that the סיפא is saying that just by the fact that the גוי writes, "I received the money," it's enough to make it מותר, לכאורה, this contradicts the ברייתא. So the ר״ן brings a third פשט in the name of the ראב״ד. That the ראב״ד says that the רישא and the סיפא are two separate cases. The רישא is saying that as long as it's open to the רשות הרבים and אידן pass by it's מותר. And this is not if he wrote to him, "I received the money," even if he didn't write it, and even if he doesn't hold the key and the חותם. But as long as the איד locked it, then we say that we're not afraid that the גוי will

touch it, because since it's open to the רשות הרבים, and the only way the גוי could get in is through that entrance, since the איד locked it, even though he doesn't have the key, but still, if the גוי is going to want to enter, he'll have to enter through that side, and it's open to the רשות הרבים where אידן pass by, he will be afraid to touch it, he'll be saying that מסתמא a איד will see me, and therefore we say that he probably didn't touch it and it's מותר. That's the פשט in the רישא. And the סיפא is a separate דין, that if the גוי writes to the איד that I received the money from you, that's another reason for it to be מותר. And even if the איד doesn't have the מפתח והחותם. And this is even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים. But the question is, how does that make sense? After all, doesn't the ברייתא say that if a איד has wine in the רשות of a גוי and the איד doesn't live together with the גוי in that רשות, then if he doesn't have the key or the חותם, it is אסור? Why does the משנה say it's מותר? So the ר״ן says we'll have to say that the משנה is talking in a case where it's open to a מבוי, which is open to a side street, and that's why it is מותר without him holding the מפתח והחותם. And the פשט in the המשך of the משנה would be as follows: First the משנה says that if it's open to the רשות הרבים, it's מותר. Then the משנה continues, even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים, there's another way it could be מותר, if the גוי writes, "I received the money," but at least it's open to a מבוי. So it's not as good as being open to the רשות הרבים, but as long as it's open to a מבוי, to a side street, it's still a possibility that a איד will see him do it. And therefore, just by being open to the מבוי it's not enough because it's only a side street, but if you combine the two, it's open to a מבוי plus the גוי writes to him that I received the money for the wine and it's your wine, so then it's מותר. When the

ברייתא says that it's only מותר if the איד is holding the מפתח והחותם, that's the case where it's not even open to a מבוי either. It's not open to anywhere. It's completely locked. So then the only way it's מותר is if the ייד has the מפתח or חותם. So it comes out that according to this פשט, there are three possible היתרים: or, only if it's open to the רשות הרבים where יידן pass by, or, if it's open to a מבוי together with the fact that the גוי writes to him a שטר, that it's as if I received the money for the wine, it's your wine, or, even if it's not open to a מבוי, if it's completely closed, but if the ייד has the key or the חותם, then it's also מותר. And another פשט the ר"ן says is that the difference between the second case of the משנה and the later ברייתא is that in the ברייתא, the גוי himself lives in that חצר where the wine is. So there we're afraid maybe the גוי is going to touch it, and the only way it's מותר is if the ייד is holding the מפתח or חותם. But in the משנה we're talking in a case where the גוי himself doesn't live in that חצר, and the only way for the גוי to touch it is if he's going to have to come from someplace else and enter and touch it. So here we say that as long as he wrote to the ייד that I received the money, and ממילא the wine belongs to the ייד, we don't suspect that he's going to come from someplace else and enter here and touch the wine. And therefore, even if the ייד doesn't have the מפתח or חותם, and even if it's not open to the רשות הרבים and not even open to a מבוי, it is also מותר because the גוי doesn't live there. But

towards the end, the ר"ן himself says that the best פשט is the רבינו תם's פשט, that really the משנה is talking in a case where he is holding the מפתח or חותם. And if he's holding מפתח or חותם, then or if it's open to the רשות הרבים together with the מפתח or חותם is enough, or if he writes to him התקבלתי ממך המעות together with the מפתח or חותם is enough. And that's how the משנה doesn't contradict the ברייתא, because the ברייתא where it says that he has to hold the מפתח or חותם is talking in a case even where it's the ייד's wine, and that's exactly like the סיפא of the משנה, that when the גוי writes to the ייד, "I received the money and ממילא the wine belongs to the ייד", in addition to that you have to have the מפתח or חותם. איי, the question we asked before, that the משנה doesn't mention anything about מפתח or חותם, and that לכאורה seems to show that the משנה is talking in a case where he's not holding the מפתח or חותם. So the ר"ן says that בכלל we see that in the משנה this is never mentioned. So obviously for some reason the משנה takes it for granted that everyone understands that he must have the מפתח or חותם. The משנה is just saying that in addition to this which everyone understands, still if it's wine of a גוי, you must make sure that it's open to the רשות הרבים, or make sure that it's as if the wine belongs to the ייד, and that is by the גוי writing to the ייד התקבלתי ממך מעות. So the משנה is just trying to tell us what is the difference between wine of a ייד and wine of a גוי, that wine of a גוי, if the ייד wants to make it כשר, it has to be open to the רשות הרבים, or consider it as if it's the wine of a ייד by writing התקבלתי ממך. But the fact that you have to have the מפתח or חותם, that's an understood thing and the משנה doesn't even go into it. And now

we'll continue with the גמרא. It said in the משנה that wine has to be open to the רשות הרבים, but it's only good if it's a city where יידן and גוים live. But if it's a city where only גוים live, and even if it's open to the רשות הרבים, it doesn't help. Why? Because there's no ייד that the גוי should be afraid of him to touch the wine. And the גמרא asks: בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים נמי, even in a city where it's only גוים, והאיכא רוכלין המחזירין בעיירות, don't we have the peddlers that go around in the cities? We know that עזרא was מתקן that peddlers should constantly go around the cities in order to sell jewelry and makeup that a woman should be able to buy makeup to look nice for her husband. And since this is something that's always done, and these peddlers were יידן, so even if it's a city where only גוים live, but still יידן pass by, these peddlers. So if it's open to the street, even if it's a city where only גוים live, it still should be מותר because the גוי is afraid to touch the wine because of these Jewish peddlers. And even though the reason for the תקנה that the peddler should pass by the cities is in order for the Jewish women, as we said before, to always have makeup, so לכאורה they only come to the cities where Jews live. Now since we're talking about a city which only גוים live, so the Jewish peddlers wouldn't come there. So תוספות says, but nevertheless, they pass by the cities of the גוים. So the גמרא's question is that since the Jewish peddlers pass by, so even if it's a city full of גוים, the wine should be מותר if it is open to the רשות הרבים. And the גמרא

answers: אמר שמואל, שמואל said: בעיר שיש לה דלתים ובריח, we're talking in a city which has doors and bolts, and which means that they can't just enter, they have to have permission to enter. So since they get permission, so everyone knows that they come. So we, the גוי will know when the ייד is there, so at that moment he won't touch it. But he knows that at any other time there is no ייד in the city, and then we're afraid he might touch the wine. Then the גמרא says: אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said: חלון, a window, כרשות הרבים דמי, is like the street. And רש"י explains that what does that mean? That even if it's a house which is not open to the רשות הרבים, but it is open to the yard, but there's a window that's in the yard open to the רשות הרבים right across the entrance of the house, so then it's as if the house itself is open to the רשות הרבים, and therefore it is מותר. That's one פשט רש"י says. Another פשט that רש"י says is that the case here is that it's not open to the רשות הרבים, but So comes out that there is wine of a ייד. So comes out that there is wine of a ייד in the house of a ייד in the חצר of a גוי, so then it's מותר, but והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו. It's מותר only if the key and the seal are in the hands of the ייד, but otherwise it is אסור, because there's no one there to watch the גוי from touching the wine. Then it continues, המטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים ברשותו, if a ייד is trying to work with wine of a גוי and it remains in the רשות of the גוי, and the ייד wants to make it so that יידן should be able to buy it, וישראל דר באותה חצר, and a ייד lives in that חצר where the wine is made, מותר, it is מותר, but והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו, but that's only if the key and the חותם are in his hand, because here we're talking in a case where the wine is the גוי's. So here, even if a ייד lives in that חצר, still he has to have the מפתח וחותם. The previous case was where it's the ייד's wine, and it's in the ייד's רשות. So there, if a ייד lives in the חצר, you don't have to have the מפתח וחותם.

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לתנא, רבי יוחנן said to the one that was learning, תני, learn like this: אף על פי שאין מפתח וחותם בידו מותר, that if the איד lives in that חצר, so even if he doesn't have the מפתח וחותם, it's also מותר. ובחצר אחרת, if the איד lives in another חצר, אסור אף על פי שמפתח וחותם בידו. So then it's אסור even if the איד has the key and the חותם, because there is no איד in that חצר to watch it. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים אוסרין עד שיהא שומר יושב ומשמר, that the חכמים say it's אסור unless there is a guard sitting and watching, או עד שיבא ממונה הבא לקיצין, or the one that's appointed to watch will come, the one that's appointed to come from time to time. Now, the word לקיצין means that he has a set time when he comes. But that לכאורה is not a reason to be מותר, but it's a reason to be אסור, because if we know that he comes certain times, then any other time we don't expect him to come, so we're afraid the גוי will touch it. And the גמרא will later ask, why is it better if he comes לקיצין than if he wouldn't come לקיצין? But really what this ברייתא is saying here, the way רבי יוחנן said this, that the חכמים say it's אסור unless there is someone watching, or the ממונה will come who is supposed to watch it. But it is not clear in the ברייתא concerning which case the חכמים argue, because we have here a few cases, and the חכמים just say that it's אסור unless there is someone watching. And the גמרא will now go into trying to figure out which case the חכמים argue on רבי מאיר. The גמרא asks: חכמים אהיי? The חכמים, on which case do they go? אילימא אסיפא, if you're going to say they go on the סיפא, the last case, the last case was that if the איד does not live in the חצר of the גוי, it is אסור even if the איד has the key, and that's where the חכמים come and say that it's אסור unless there is someone watching. So then it's the same thing: תנא קמא נמי מיסר קאסר. The first תנא, רבי מאיר, also said that it's אסור. So we can't say that the חכמים are arguing on the second case, because they're not arguing, they're saying the same thing. רבי מאיר said that if the איד lives in another חצר, it's always אסור even if he has the key, then the חכמים come and say that it's אסור unless there is someone watching. It's the same thing, because definitely according to רבי מאיר, if someone watches it, it's מותר. So really it's the same thing, so we can't say that the חכמים have, their words apply to the סיפא of the ברייתא. אלא ארישא דסיפא, therefore we must say that where do they argue? In the first part of the סיפא. And that is the case where it's wine of a גוי that's in the רשות of the גוי, but a איד does live in that yard, and it said in the ברייתא, in a case like that it's מותר as long as the איד has the מפתח and the חותם בידו. And that's where the חכמים come and say that no, even if the איד has the מפתח וחותם בידו, it's still not מותר unless there's a איד watching it. But if we're going to say that, והא אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לתנא, didn't רבי יוחנן say to the תנא, תני, that you have to learn the ברייתא different, that אף על פי שאין מפתח וחותם בידו, that רבי מאיר holds that it's מותר even if he doesn't have the מפתח וחותם בידו, which means that according to רבי יוחנן, he knows for sure that this case is a case which is very lenient. That's why רבי יוחנן changed it, because originally in the ברייתא it said that in this case it's מותר if he has a מפתח וחותם בידו. Came רבי יוחנן and said no, that's wrong, you have to say that according to רבי מאיר, even if he doesn't have the מפתח וחותם בידו, it's still מותר. Obviously רבי יוחנן holds that this is a very lenient case. So how can we say that the חכמים argue here and say that it's never מותר even in this case unless there is a שומר? So we can't say that that's where the חכמים argue. אלא אסיפא דרישא, so we must say that it's on the סיפא of the רישא, which is the case when the wine belongs to a איד, and the איד lives in another yard, that the איד is not in the חצר of the wine. So the ברייתא says that if the מפתח and the חותם is in his hand, it is מותר, because since the wine it belongs to a איד, the גוי will be afraid to touch it, because the איד who lives in the other yard might see it, since the wine belongs to the איד. So it said in the ברייתא that the wine is מותר if the מפתח וחותם is בידו. דקאמר תנא קמא, the תנא קמא says: בחצר אחרת מותר והוא שמפתח וחותם בידו, that if the איד lives in another חצר, it is מותר as long as the מפתח and חותם are in his hands, וחכמים אומרים, so on that the חכמים say that לעולם אסור, it's always אסור, עד שיהא שומר יושב ומשמר, unless there is a שומר who sits and watches, או עד שיבא ממונה הבא לקיצין, or if the ממונה, the one that's appointed to watch it, who comes in certain set times, when he will come. So if he comes, so then, then the wine is מותר. The גמרא asks: ממונה הבא לקיצין גרעותא הוא? We said that one of the things makes it מותר: if the ממונה, the watchman who comes in certain set times will come, so then it's מותר, but this makes it worse! Because since he comes set times, so the גוי knows when he comes, and therefore when he will come, when he will expect him to come, he won't touch it, but any other time he knows he's not going to come, so he might touch it! אלא, therefore we must say, עד שיבא ממונה שאינו בא לקיצין, unless the ממונה comes a person who doesn't come on certain set times, he could come any time. So then, the גוי is always afraid to touch it, because he never knows when the ממונה will come. So this is like a שומר who is יוצא ונכנס, and that's the only time it's מותר. But if there is no שומר there the חכמים say, that since the איד lives in a חצר אחרת, even if he has the מפתח והחותם בידו, according to the חכמים it is אסור. Now

concerning the עצם דין of the משנה says that if you have a שומר that's there, it is מותר, and the שומר doesn't have to sit there the whole time and watch, but it's enough if he's a יוצא ונכנס. So תוספות asks a קושיא, לכאורה the משנה didn't have to say it. It's self-understood from the beginning of the משנה. The משנה says in the beginning that if it's in the רשות of the גוי, but it's open to the רשות הרבים where גוים and אידן live, it's מותר, because the גוי will be afraid to touch it, knowing that a איד might happen to pass by and see him touch it. So we see clearly from there that you don't have to have a איד constantly looking at the גוי to see he doesn't touch it. The fact that a איד is able to pass by is enough to make it מותר. So it's self-understood that when you have the שומר there, the שומר doesn't have to sit and watch the גוי the whole time. If he's just יוצא ונכנס, then the גוי wouldn't touch it, he's always afraid maybe the איד will watch him. So even if the משנה would not mention that the שומר doesn't have to sit there the whole time, but יוצא ונכנס is enough, we would understand that from the beginning of the משנה where it says that if it's open to the רשות הרבים it's מותר. And there definitely it doesn't mean that the איד will watch him the whole time, but just that אידן from time to time pass by. And תוספות says that if the משנה wouldn't say it, we wouldn't know it. We would think that when there are many אידן, so then it's enough if the אידן just pass by. But when there's a שומר that's watching, there's only one איד there, so if he's not sitting and watching the whole time, maybe the גוי wouldn't be afraid. He would take a chance. In the case where there are many people, so he would be afraid to take a chance because there are so many אידן around, you could never know, a איד might walk by and look at him. But in the case where there's only one איד, so he might take a chance when the איד is not there to touch it. איי, he might happen to come in, so we're afraid maybe he'll take a chance. So we would think that this case it's אסור, unless the איד watches the whole time. That's why the משנה has to tell us that even if you have one שומר, it's enough if he's a יוצא ונכנס. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה רב שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רב שמעון בן אלעזר says רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא, the רשות of גוים is one. איבעיא להו, there was a question asked, רב שמעון בן אלעזר להקל או להחמיר? רב שמעון בן אלעזר when he says that the רשות of גוים is one, did he come to be מיקל, is he making the דין more lenient, or is he being מחמיר, is he making the דין more strict? And the גמרא will explain exactly what it means להקל or להחמיר. And the גמרא says, רב יהודה אמר זעירא להקל, רב יהודה said in the name of זעירא that רב שמעון בן אלעזר came to be מיקל. רב נחמן אמר זעירא להחמיר, רב נחמן said in the name of זעירא that he comes to be מחמיר. And the גמרא explains: רב יהודה אמר זעירא להקל, רב יהודה said in the name of זעירא that רב שמעון בן אלעזר came to be מיקל, is the פשט like this: הכי קאמר תנא קמא, this is what the תנא קמא says, כשם שברשותו אסור כך ברשות עובדי כוכבים אחר נמי אסור, that just like if the wine remains in the רשות of the גוי that owns it, it is אסור, unless it's open to the רשות הרבים or the other conditions, the same is if it doesn't remain in the רשות of the owner, if it's taken to the רשות of another גוי, it's the same דין, it's also אסור. Why? וחיישינן לגומלין, because we're afraid that one will do a favor to the other. Which means that even though we're not afraid that the other גוי will touch it, but we're afraid that the owner will come to the other גוי's house and he will touch it. And we're not afraid that the second גוי, the one that the wine is in his רשות, will come and tell that the other גוי touched it, because he's going to want that if it ever happens to him that the other גוי shouldn't tell on him, that if ever his wine will be put in the other גוי's רשות and he will want to touch it, so the other גוי won't tell on him. Each one will do a favor to the other. So he says, we're afraid of that, and therefore, even if it was taken away from the רשות of the owner, the גוי, and was put into the רשות of another גוי, and the other גוי set aside a corner for the wine which belongs to the איד, we're still afraid that the owner will come and touch it, and the גוי in whose רשות it is will not tell. That's the opinion of the תנא קמא. רב שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, so רב שמעון בן אלעזר comes and says במה דברים אמורים ברשותו, that it's not true, that when is the דין that the wine is אסור, only if it remains in the רשות of the גוי who is the owner of the wine, אבל ברשות עובדי כוכבים אחר מותר, but in the רשות of another גוי, it is מותר, ולא חיישינן לגומלין, because we are not afraid לגומלין that one will cover up on the other. And therefore, the גוי will be afraid to come and touch his wine in the רשות of the other גוי, because he's afraid the other גוי is going to tell on him, he's going to tell the איד that this גוי came and touched it. And according to this, the way we have to learn the פשט in the words of רב שמעון בן אלעזר is that not it was a statement, but it was like a question asked. What he said was רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא? Is the רשות of all גוים one? They're two separate רשויות, and therefore only in the רשות of the owner it is

אסור, but in the רשות of another גוי, it's another רשות and it's מותר. This is the way רב יהודה said in the name of זעירא פשט in רב שמעון בן אלעזר. רב נחמן אמר זעירא להחמיר, רב נחמן said in the name of זעירי that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר came to be מחמיר. והכי קאמר תנא קמא, this is what the תנא קמא said, the first opinion, במה דברים אמורים ברשותו, that when the תנא קמא said that if the גוי has the wine in his רשות it is אסור, unless those conditions mentioned in the משנה, the תנא קמא meant only if it's left in his רשות, in the רשות of the owner. אבל ברשות עובד כוכבים אחר, but if it was put in the רשות of another גוי, it is מותר. That's what the תנא קמא held. ולא חיישינן לגומלין, the תנא קמא holds we are not afraid that one will do a favor the other, and cover up on the other. ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר comes and says, כל רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא, all the רשויות of all גוים are one. And according to this פשט, he said it as a statement, not as a question. Because it's a statement that the רשויות of all גוים are one, and therefore it makes no difference whether it's left in the רשות of the owner, or it's put in the רשות of another גוי, we're always afraid לגומלין, we're afraid that one גוי will cover up on the other, and therefore we're afraid that the owner will come to the other גוי and touch his wine, and the other גוי will not tell, and therefore it is אסור even if it's in the רשות of another גוי, unless it has the conditions as the משנה said. And the גמרא says, תניא כוותיה דרב נחמן אמר זעירי להחמיר, we learn in a ברייתא which is like רב נחמן said in the name of זעירי that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר is מחמיר. As it says in the ברייתא, אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said, כל רשות עובדי כוכבים אחת היא מפני הרמאין, all the רשות of גוים are one because of the cheaters. So we see clearly that his statement is a statement להחמיר, because he gives a reason in the ברייתא, because of the cheaters, which means we're afraid that one גוי is going to cover up on the other, really the גוי is going to cheat, but the other גוי will not tell, will cover up, because as we said before of גומלין, because he wants that if it'll ever happen to him the other גוי should cover up on him, and that's why it is אסור even if it's in the רשות of another גוי. But in this ברייתא there is no other way to learn, the way the ברייתא puts it you can't learn that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר was מקיל. So here we see that רב נחמן in the name of זעירי, which says that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר is מחמיר, is right. Then the גמרא continues,

דבי פרזק רופילא, that יידן once bought grapes by פרזק, who was the king's field marshal. אותיבו חמרא גבי אריסייהו, and the יידן put the wine that they squeezed in the רשות of the workers of פרזקי, the field marshal of the king. סברו רבנן קמיה דרבא למימר, so the רבנן who were sitting in front of רבא wanted to say that in this case it should be מותר. And the reason is, even though we said before that according to רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, even if it's put in the רשות of another גוי, it is also אסור, so they thought that in this case it should be מותר. Why? כי חיישינן לגומלין, when are we afraid that one גוי will cover up on the other גוי? הני מילי, that is only היכא דקא מותיב האי גבי האי, when one will put by the other. In other, which means when we have two equal גוים, so we're afraid one גוי will cover up on the other גוי, because he'll want that whenever he'll want the other גוי to cover up on him he'll do the same. So that's where we're afraid לגומלין. אבל הכא, but here, כיון דאריסי לאו דרכיה לאותובי בי פרזק רופילא, but in this case where the workers it is not the דרך that they will put anything in the רשות of פרזק רופילא, here it is hard to say that they'll ever want that פרזקי, the field marshal of the king, would have to cover up on them, because they will put something by him and they will want him to lie for them, because they are his workers. So it's not common that this will ever happen. So therefore in this case לגומלין לא חיישינן, we're not afraid לגומלין, we're not afraid that they will cover up on him, because they have no reason for it, because it'll never come that they would expect him to cover up on them, and therefore it should be מותר. אמר להו רבא, said רבא to them, אדרבה, on the contrary, אפילו למאן דאמר לא חיישינן לגומלין, even according to the מאן דאמר who normally is not afraid לגומלין, the חכמים who normally are not afraid לגומלין, and they say if it's put in another גוי's רשות it is מותר, in this case they would also admit it's אסור. Because הני מילי, when do we say that we're not afraid לגומלין? היכא דלא מירתת מיניה, when this גוי is not afraid of the other גוי. There we say why should he have to lie for the other גוי, he's not afraid of him. אבל הכא, but here the workers of the field marshal of the king, כיון דמירתת מיניה, since they are afraid of him, מחפא עליה סרותיה, they would cover up on him and they would protect him. So here everyone would agree that we're afraid that they're going to lie on his behalf, and therefore we're afraid maybe he came there and he touched the wine, and therefore the wine is אסור. Then the

גמרא continues, ההוא כרכא, there was this big city, דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא דישראל, that there was wine there that belonged to יידן. אשתכח עובד כוכבים דהוה קאי ביני דני, they found a גוי standing amongst the jars. אמר רבא, so רבא said like this, אי נתפס עליו כגנב חמרא שרי, if it's a case that this person would have been arrested had the government found him touching the jars because they would suspect him of stealing, then the wine is מותר, and we assume he probably didn't touch it, because he would be afraid to touch it, because just in case they would catch him and he would be arrested for it. ואי לא, but if he's a person that is not afraid that he would be arrested, in other words he's an important person or whatever reason, he is not afraid that he would be arrested because they wouldn't arrest him if he would touch it, then אסור, the wine is אסור because we are afraid maybe he touched it, and therefore the wine is אסור. הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל, הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל, הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל. שוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו ביין נסך, שכרו אסור. From this לשון where the גמרא says that there was this city that Jewish wine was there, is משמע תוספות says, that the wine was in the street, and also that there were wine of גוים there. וממילא, just for the fact that a גוי was standing there, he wouldn't have been arrested. The only thing he could have been arrested for was for touching it. And nevertheless, the דין is that the wine is מותר, because since he could have been arrested for touching it, we assume that he probably didn't touch it. Even though he had a right to enter that area, but since if he would have touched it, he would have been arrested, so we say he's afraid to touch it, and therefore the wine is מותר. Then

תוספות asks a קשיא, it says in the next פרק on דף ע"א, there was this house that had wine of a ייד and they found a גוי there. So רבא said that if the גוי has an excuse why he is there, then the wine is אסור. But if he doesn't have an excuse why he is there, the wine is מותר, because if he doesn't have an excuse, that means that he is afraid to touch it, because he was afraid the whole time, what happens if they catch him, he won't have an excuse. So we assume he didn't touch it. But if he has an excuse, then we say he probably touched it, not being afraid, because he has an excuse to give why he is there. So לכאורה, who cares if he has an excuse, but still נתפס עליו כגנב! Since if he would be found touching it he would have been arrested, so even if he has an excuse, still it should be מותר! And תוספות says, because there the wine was in the house. In a house that you could get in, so he's not really afraid. And therefore we're afraid he is מנסך. Even if he is נתפס עליו כגנב, since he only would be arrested for touching it, and since it's inside, for going in, he would not be arrested, so we assume maybe he touched it. But if it would be a case where he wouldn't even be allowed to go in, and just for going in he could be arrested, there we would say that even if he has an excuse, still the wine would be מותר, because we are sure that he didn't touch it, because he was afraid that he would be arrested. Now that we

finished the פרק, so רא"ש comes out with a מסקנא, with the הלכה that's taken out after we learned the whole פרק. And this is obviously according to the way רא"ש learned all the different pieces of the גמרא that we learned in this פרק. And רא"ש says like this: the מסקנא of the גמרא is as follows. If a גוי touches wine, and he is משכשך, and he splashes around, even if he didn't pour it for עבודה זרה, that is אסור בהנאה, you can't have any use from it. If he does it without כוונה, for instance, he didn't know it's wine, so then you can't drink it, but it's still מותר בהנאה. If the גוי intended to take something else out from the wine, but didn't intend בכלל to touch the wine, then it's also מותר בהנאה. If a גוי touch the wine על ידי דבר אחר, through something else, for instance, with a rod or something like that, so we understand that he probably meant דבר אחר, he didn't mean to touch the wine, but he meant something else, for instance, if he measured it with the rod, or he tried to take the insect out of the wine with the rod, so then it's מותר בהנאה. If he did it with כוונה, but we don't know what his כוונה was, then it's אסור בהנאה. If it was just כחו של עכו"ם, if the גוי didn't touch it, but it was his power that directly caused the movement of the wine, so if it's בחיבורין, if it is connected to him, for instance, if he is emptying it out and he knows that it's wine, then it's אסור בהנאה. If he doesn't know it's wine, then it's מותר, you could even drink it. If it is שלא בחיבורין, which means it is his כח, he caused the movement of the wine, but when it caused the movement it was already not connected to him, for instance, if he threw something at the wine, then it's מותר even to drink, and even if he was מכוין. As the כלל that was said by רב אשי, that כל שבזב טהור בעובד כוכבים אינו עושה יין נסך. And at the end it says, כך הגיה הרב ופסק הלכה למעשה. This is the way רא"ש was מגיה, and this is the way he פסקנ'ד הלכה למעשה.

Concerning what the גמרא said before, that it doesn't have to be open exactly to the רשות הרבים, but if it is open to the אשפה, it's just as a רשות הרבים, or if it's open to a דקלא, it's like a רשות הרבים, because the גוי is always afraid, maybe a ייד will climb up the דקלא and will see what he was doing, then the גמרא said, what happens if the top of the דקלא was chopped off, and there is no fruit there anymore? Do we still say that the גוי is afraid, or not? And the גמרא says that there's a מחלוקת between רב אחא and רבינא. One of them says אסור, and one of them says מותר. And the גמרא gave the reason why it should be אסור, and the reason why we should say it's מותר. So the ר"ן says that we פסקן בכל התורה כולה that whenever there is a מחלוקת between רבינא and רב אחא, we know that always רב אחא is the one that's מחמיר, and רבינא is the one that's מקיל. And the כלל is that we always פסקן like רבינא לקולא. In other words, in the case where the top of the דקלא was chopped off, then the פסק דין would be that it is מותר, because we do say a גוי is afraid that a ייד might climb up and will look in. But then the ר"ן says that the ראב"ד writes that this whole דין that we say, that if there is an אשפה there, or there is a דקלא there, or as the גמרא said, there is a ח... חלון there, a window there, it is מותר, this is only during the day. But at night, the only way it's מותר if he sleeps there. And even during the day, it's only מותר if the wine was all of the wine was standing right in front of the door, or you could see the whole wine if you would stand on the אשפה or by the window, or by the דקלא. But even if you'd be standing there, you wouldn't see everything, so then the דין would be that whatever is in front of the door that could be seen is מותר. But the rest would be אסור. And the same דין would apply if it's open to the רשות הרבים, that if from the רשות הרבים you could see all the wine, then all the wine is מותר. If you only could see some of the wine, then whatever you could see from the רשות הרבים is מותר, and whatever you can't is not מותר. But then the ר״ן says, וזו חומרא יתירה, this is an extra חומרא. Concerning the last thing the גמרא says, that there was the city that had אידישע wine in it, and they found a גוי standing amongst the jars. So the גמרא said that רבא said that if he's נתפס עליו כגנב, then the wine is מותר, but if not, the wine is אסור. So we said before that means that if he's נתפס עליו כגנב for touching it, that even though he has a right to go in there, but if he would be arrested just for touching it, that itself is a good enough reason to assume that he didn't touch it, and therefore the wine is מותר. And as רש״י says, מותר means even מותר to drink. But if he's נתפס עליו not נתפס עליו כגנב, which means if he would not be arrested for touching it, then the wine is אסור, even אסור בהנאה. But the ר״ן

says that others say that when it says in the גמרא נתפס עליו כגנב, it doesn't mean on the touching, but it means on the entering, that if for entering he would be arrested, then the wine is מותר, because then he's definitely afraid to touch it. But if he doesn't mind to go in, which means for going in he would not be arrested, even if he would be arrested for the touching, then the wine is אסור. Why? Because he could touch it very fast before anyone gets a chance to go in. So if the problem is that he's afraid to go in, so then definitely he if he's there he wouldn't touch it. But if he's not afraid to go in, just to touch it he is not afraid because he thinks that he could do it very fast before he's caught. And therefore, even if he would be arrested for touching it, as long as he wouldn't be arrested for going in, the wine is אסור.