May these words of Torah serve as a merit le’iluy nishmat Menachem Mendel ben Harav Yoel David Balk, a”h.
This week we learned Avoda Zara 61 and 62. These are some highlights.
Avoda Zara 61: An elderly Jewish man lives with a gentile aide. Are his open bottles of uncooked wine prohibited?
An elderly Jewish man in Israel was suffering from dementia. The family hired a gentile Filipino man to care for him. The aide had the keys to the apartment. Many nights he would lock the door. The family of the elderly man did not have keys to the apartment. They realized that there were open bottles of uncooked wine in the apartment. They presented their question to Rav Zilberstein: were the bottles now unkosher? Perhaps we need to fear that the gentile aide touched the wine. Uncooked wine touched by a gentile becomes prohibited.
Rav Zilberstein thought to prove from our daf that the wine would be permitted. Our daf discusses Jewish-manufactured wine that is stored in the home of a gentile. It teaches that if the gentile’s home opens to a public street, and there are Jews often on the street, the wine is kosher. Since the home of the gentile opens to a street in which there are many Jews, there is a fear factor. The gentile will fear that a Jew might see him touching the wine. The Jew will report what he sees and other Jews will avoid the wine. Our Gemara discusses other scenarios that would intimidate the gentile from touching the wine. If a Jew owned a date tree that overlooked the gentile’s property, the wine would be kosher. The gentile would be on edge because he would know that the Jew might climb his date tree to pick dates and see the gentile touch the wine. The gentile will therefore not touch the wine. What about if the top of the date tree has been cut off and the date tree no longer produces fruit? The Gemara quotes an opinion that even in this case the wine is kosher. The gentile would think that the Jew might lose his animal and he might climb the tree to get a better view of the neighborhood in order to find the animal. The gentile will be on edge because of this possibility and he will not touch the wine. The probability that a Jew will climb a sawed-off tree to look for a missing animal is not high. But, apparently, even a remote possibility is enough to create enough fear in the gentile for him to not touch the wine. In our days, many children have hidden cameras in the homes of their elderly parents. Caretakers know that they are likely being watched. The gentile aide probably has fear of touching the uncooked wine. He knows that the children of the man would see it on their cameras and they would be upset. They might fire him for causing the wine to become unkosher. The wine should therefore be kosher. This deserves further study. (Chashukei Chemed)
Avoda Zara 62: Gravediggers opened a grave and found a treasure, who owns it?
Our Gemara discusses a story about stam yeinam. Stam yeinam is rabbinically prohibited. Even if you are not sure that the gentile poured from his wine to an idol, you may not benefit from regular wine of the gentiles. The Sages created this prohibition. They suspected that the gentile might have offered from his wine to an idol. Our Gemara wonders about stam yeinam. If a Jew was hired to work with stam yeinam, do those wages also become prohibited? The Gemara answers with a story. A man rented his boat out to be used for the transport of stam yeinam. The gentiles paid him with wheat. The man asked Rav Chisda if he could use the wheat. Rav Chisda ruled that the boat owner had to burn the wheat and bury the ashes in the graveyard. Apparently, even the wages for work with stam yeinam become forbidden.
The Gemara asks, why was he told to burn the wheat? Why not just to bury the wheat in the graveyard? The Gemara answers that if a man buries wheat in a graveyard, other people might take the wheat out and use it. They will not know that the wheat was buried because it was forbidden by rabbinic legislation due to idolatry concerns. They will think that it is stolen wheat that the thief buried. They might take the wheat for themselves. To prevent this, Rav Chisda ruled that the wheat had to be burned first.
A team of gravediggers in Israel opened up a grave for a recently deceased person. When they opened the hole, they found jewelry inside. Thieves had apparently stolen goods, hidden them in the grave and forgotten about them. The gravediggers brought their question to Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein: were they allowed to keep the jewelry? Could they assume that there had been despair by the original owners and they could keep their find? Perhaps the owner of the grave had already acquired the jewelry through the courtyard acquisition. A man’s courtyard can acquire for him. Maybe the family of the deceased was entitled to the find.
Rav Zilberstein rules that the gravediggers are entitled to the jewelry. The Ran (Bava Metzia 11a) explains the reason why my courtyard can acquire for me. A person puts whatever he wants in his courtyard. It is therefore considered an extension of his hand. A person does not have a right to put whatever he wants in his grave. Rambam rules (Hilchot Aveil 14:13) that you may not benefit from a grave or cemetery. You are not allowed to eat or drink there. You may not act in a light-hearted manner in a cemetery, even if you own it. A grave is therefore certainly not an extension of its owner’s hand. The owner cannot put whatever he wants there. Since the owner of the grave did not acquire the jewelry, the gravediggers are entitled to the goods. (Chashukei Chemed)
By Rabbi Zev Reichman
Rabbi Zev Reichman teaches Daf Yomi in his shul, East Hill Synagogue.
