Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 70a

In a certain house was stored wine belonging to an Israelite. A heathen entered and locked the door behind him. There was a crack in the door through which the heathen was discovered standing among the jars. Raba said: All those which were opposite the crack are permitted,³  but those on either side are prohibited.

Wine belonging to an Israelite was stored in a house where an Israelite resided above and a heathen below.⁴  Once they heard a sound of quarrelling [in the street] and went out. The heathen came back first and locked the door behind him. Raba said: The wine is permitted on the ground that [the heathen] must have thought,'Just as I came back first, so might the Israelite have come back first and be sitting upstairs watching me.'

There was some wine belonging to an Israelite stored in an inn, and a heathen was discovered among the jars. Raba said: If he could be convicted of theft the wine is permitted, otherwise it is prohibited.⁵

Wine [of an Israelite] was stored in a house and a heathen was discovered among the jars. Raba said: If he has an excuse⁶  the wine is prohibited, otherwise it is permitted.⁷  Against this is quoted: If the inn was locked⁸  or [the Israelite] said to him,⁹  'Keep watch,' it is prohibited.¹⁰  Is it not to be supposed that [the wine is prohibited] even when the heathen has no excuse?¹¹  — No, [the cited teaching applies] when he has an excuse.¹²

An Israelite and a heathen were sitting and drinking wine together. The Israelite heard the sound of prayer in a Synagogue; so he arose and went there. Raba said: The wine is permitted on the ground that [the heathen] must have thought, 'He will remember the wine at any moment and return.'

An Israelite and a heathen were sitting in a ship. The Israelite heard the sound of the ram's horn announcing the advent of the Sabbath;¹³  so he left [the ship] and went ashore. Raba said: The wine is permitted on the ground that [the heathen] must have thought, 'He will remember the wine at any moment and return.' But if [it is supposed that the heathen would not think so] on account of its being the Sabbath, behold Raba has said: Issur the proselyte¹⁴  once told me, 'When we were still Gentiles we declared that Jews do not observe the Sabbath, because if they did observe it how many purses would be found in the streets!¹⁵  I did not¹⁶  then know that we follow the view of R. Isaac who said: If a person finds a purse on the Sabbath he may carry it for distances less than four cubits.'¹⁷

Some thieves came up¹⁸  to Pumbeditha and opened many casks. Raba said: The wine is permitted. What was his reason? — Because the majority of thieves [in that part of the country] are Israelites. The same thing happened in Nehardea and Samuel said: The wine is permitted. According to whom [was this decision made]? Was it according to R. Eliezer who said: When there is uncertainty about his entrance¹⁹  he is undefiled; for we have learnt: If a person entered [the fields in] a valley during the rainy season²⁰  and there was a source of defilement in a certain field, and he said, 'I walked in that place but am not sure whether I did or did not enter that field,' R. Eliezer says: When there is uncertainty about his entrance²¹  he is undefiled but if the uncertainty is about his having touched [the unclean object] he is defiled!²²  — No, it is different there [in the case of the thieves] because there are some who open [the casks] to search for money;²³  thus there is a double uncertainty.²⁴

1. And they would prevent her touching it. [So, R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran.).]
2. She would raise no objection if they touched the wine.
3. It was assumed that the heathen would be afraid to tamper with these because he might be under observation.
4. The wine was stored below, but the Jew was able to see it.
5. V. supra 61b.
6. By pretending that he was looking for something, it is evidence that he went there with the intention of tampering with the wine.
7. Being confused and unable to give an explanation, it is assumed that he was too afraid to have come there with the intention of disqualifying the wine.
8. In which was a heathen together with the wine of a Jew.
9. To a heathen outside the door.
10. Because relying on the owner's absence, the heathen could interfere with the wine.
11. For being suspiciously close to the wine. This contradicts Raba's decision.
12. If he is found near the jars.
13. That was the signal for work to cease. A description is given in Suk. V, 5. V. also Josephus, War, IV, ix, 12.
14. V. B.B. (Sonc, ed.) p. 644, n. 15.
15. Which Jews would have to throw away if in their possession when Sabbath began, and no other Jew could pick up.
16. [Alfasi reads 'they (the Gentiles) do not know.']
17. I.e., he carries it a distance less than four cubits and stops a while, and so on until he reaches his house. This explains why purses are not found in the streets on the Sabbath.
18. [From some district in the South (v. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 253).]
19. Whether a ritually clean person had entered a ritually defiled place. Similarly here there is doubt whether the thieves were heathens.
20. The fields are then sown and are regarded as a private domain.
21. Into the field where the defiled object was.
22. Toh. VI, 5; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 225.
23. [So Rashi. The difficulty is obvious. V.l.: 'Since they opened many casks (it is clear that) the intention was for money.' V. D.S. a.l., n. 9. This implies that in Nehardea too 'many' casks were opened. The word is missing in cur. edd. but occurs in several texts; cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H].]
24. Besides the doubt whether they were heathens, there was the additional doubt whether they interfered with the wine since they were only searching for money. [In this case even the Rabbis who oppose R. Eliezer will agree that the wine is permitted.]

Some troops³  once came up to Nehardea and opened several casks. When R. Dimi arrived [from Palestine] he said: A similar occurrence came before R. Eleazar and he permitted [the wine], but I do not know whether he did so because he agreed with the view of R. Eliezer who said that when there is uncertainty about his entrance he is undefiled or whether he did so because he held the opinion that the majority of the men who were in the troops⁴  were Israelites. But if that is so⁵  this is not a case of uncertainty about entrance; but uncertainty about touching!⁶  — Since, however, they opened many,⁷  conclude that they opened them with the intention of [searching for money]⁸  and so it is like a case of uncertainty about entrance.⁹

An [Israelite] woman who dealt in wine left the key of her door in charge of a heathen woman. R. Isaac said in the name of R. Eleazar: A similar occurrence was once brought before our House of Study [and they permitted the wine because] they maintained that she only entrusted her with charge of the key.¹⁰  Abaye said: We have likewise learnt similarly: If a person entrusts his keys to an 'am ha-arez his things which are in a state of ritual purity remain undefiled because he only entrusted him with charge of the key.¹¹  Since his things which are in a state of ritual purity remain undefiled, this must be all the more true in the matter of yen nesek. Is this to say that the law of ritual purity is more stringent than that of yen nesek? — Yes, for it has been stated: If a courtyard is divided off by pegs,¹²  Rab said that the ritually clean things [of a haber] are defiled,¹³  but [if the resident on the other side is] a heathen he does not render the wine [of the haber] nesek; and R. Johanan said: Also his ritually clean things remain undefiled. Against this is quoted: [If there are two courtyards one within the other,] the inner belonging to a haber and the other to an 'am ha-arez, the haber may lay out his fruits there¹⁴  and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the 'am ha-arez can reach to it.¹⁵  This contradicts Rab's statement! — Rab can answer you: It is different in this case because he can be regarded as a thief.¹⁶

Come and hear: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If the roof of a haber is higher than the roof of an 'am ha-arez, the former may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, provided the hand of the 'am ha-arez cannot reach to it.¹⁷  This contradicts R. Johanan's statement! — R. Johanan can answer you: It is different in this case because he could offer the excuse that his intention was to take measurements.¹⁸

Come and hear: If the roof of a haber adjoined that of an 'am ha-arez, the former may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the 'am ha-arez can reach to it. This contradicts Rab's statement!¹⁹  — Rab can answer you: Is there not R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who shares my view?²⁰  I made my statement in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.

MISHNAH. IF A BAND OF MARAUDERS²¹  ENTERED A CITY IN PEACE-TIME, THE OPEN CASKS ARE PROHIBITED AND THE SEALED ARE PERMITTED; IN WAR-TIME BOTH ARE PERMITTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT THE LEISURE TO OFFER LIBATIONS.

1. She being only a child, the presumption was that she knew nothing about disqualifying the wine and her intentions were innocent.
2. [Ms.M. omits 'any more'.]
3. [Or, 'a commander' (Rashi).]
4. [Lit., 'who came with those troops,' or with that commander.]
5. Viz., his doubt was whether they were Jews. [Delete, however, with Ms.M. 'if that is so.']
6. In regard to which even R. Eliezer adopts the more rigorous view, since the doubt is whether it was Jews who opened the casks.
7. More casks than were required only for drinking.
8. And there was no thought of disqualifying the wine.
9. In respect of which a more lenient view is taken by R. Eliezer; and so the wine was permitted.
10. And not of the wine-store itself.
11. Toh. VII, 1.
12. And not by a high partition, and a haber lives on one side and an 'am ha-arez on the other.
13. Since it is presumed the 'am ha-arez has touched them.
14. Because the 'am ha-arez has not to walk through it to reach his own courtyard.
15. The 'am ha-arez if found in the courtyard of the haber.
16. But this cannot be assumed when the one courtyard is only divided off by pegs.
17. Tosef. Toh. IX.
18. From his roof to construct a building, and for that reason he stretched out his hand. [V.I. 'I merely stretched myself.']
19. [In Tosef. Toh. IX, the reading is 'provided the 'am ha-arez cannot reach,' which is in support of Rab.]
20. He added above the condition, 'provided the hand of the 'am ha-arez cannot reach to it.'
21. Some edd. add: of heathens.