Avodah Zarah 61

On today’s daf, a Jewish man processes the grapes of a non-Jew into wine, presumably in order to be able to drink it himself or so the non-Jew will be able to sell it to other Jews. Because the kosher wine belongs to the non-Jew, it is then stored on the non-Jew’s property, in a location that is open to the public thoroughfare. Should we be worried that the non-Jew is going to open the wine barrels and touch the wine, rendering it yayin nesech, and then try to sell it to Jews under false pretenses? 

The mishnah on today’s daf concludes:

In a city in which there are gentiles and Jews, it’s permitted. In a city in which all are gentiles, it is prohibited unless (a Jew) sits and safeguards it. 

Where the non-Jew could reasonably expect Jews to walk by and see him sticking his fingers in the wine barrels (as an aside, gross), he won’t do it. After all, they would then no longer be willing to buy it, which would negatively affect his bottom line. But if there is little likelihood of Jews finding out that he touched the wine, the non-Jew could possibly do so. So the rabbis of the mishnah require him to hire a Jewish watchman in order to ensure the wine remains untouched. 

In response to this ruling, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states: 

The domain of gentiles is one. 

The Talmud interrogates what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar meant. 

Does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar come to be lenient or to be stringent?

Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: To be lenient, and this is what the first tanna is saying: Just as it is prohibited when in (the gentile owner’s) domain, so too it prohibited in the domain of another gentile. And we are concerned about collusion. 

According to Rav Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon’s original statement was meant to be more lenient than the mishnah’s requirement that a Jew must safeguard the wine for it to be permitted. He reads the mishnah as applying not only to the property of the wine’s non-Jewish owner, but even to the domain of any other non-Jew. According to that read, if the wine is in a non-Jewish city and remains unguarded, it is forbidden for Jews to consume because it is possible that the two non-Jews colluded to secretly open the barrels of wine and dedicate them for libations. 

Rav Yehuda reads Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s original statement as a rhetorical question: “Is the domain of all gentiles one? Of course not!” Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishnah and permits the wine to be consumed by Jews if it was stored in another non-Jew’s domain. But this isn’t the only way to understand Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement:

Rav Nahman says that Ze’eiri says: To be stringent, and, this is what the first tanna is saying: In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? In (the owner’s) domain. But in the domain of another gentile it is permitted, and we are not concerned about collusion. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one.

Rav Nahman reads the original dispute in the mishnah differently. According to his read, the mishnah distinguishes between the non-Jewish owner’s domain and the domain of other non-Jews, which means that Jews would be allowed to drink the wine if stored, unguarded, on a different non-Jew’s property. But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees, stating (not asking rhetorically) that we treat all non-Jews’ property identically. Which reading of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is correct?

The Talmud concludes this part of the discussion thus: 

It is taught in accordance with of Rav Naḥman, who says that Ze’eiri says: To be stringent: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The domain of gentiles is all one, due to the swindlers.

The domains of non-Jews should be treated as one, because the swindlers among them are likely to disrespect Jewish laws around wine. As someone who has genuine friendships with both Jews and non-Jews, and whose friends and colleagues are kind and ethical, this conclusion is a troubling one. Tarring everyone with the same brush is a deeply uncomfortable move. And while we can point to the historical and cultural context in which the rabbis lived for greater understanding of why they came to this conclusion, I think it is also a valuable opportunity for us to sit with this discomfort, to compare our own experiences with those of the rabbis, and to understand both how close and how far their experience of the non-Jewish world is from our own. 

Read all of Avodah Zarah 61 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 18, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.