If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is also permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession, as this prevents the gentile from gaining access to the wine.

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted, and the wine is in the gentile’s domain, if another Jew dwells in the same courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the tanna reciting the baraita: In this case you should teach that even if that Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted.

The baraita continues: If the second Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is prohibited, even when that Jew has the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine in his possession. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis deem the wine prohibited, unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

The Gemara asks: To which case in the baraita are the Rabbis referring? If we say that they are referring to the last clause, this is difficult, as in that case the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, also deems the wine prohibited. Rather, perhaps they are referring to the first clause of the last clause, with regard to a case where a Jew renders a gentile’s wine permitted and another Jew dwells in the same courtyard. But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say to the tanna reciting the baraita: You should teach that even if the Jew does not have in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine, the wine is permitted? It may be assumed that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rather, the Rabbis are referring to the last clause of the first clause, with regard to a Jew’s wine that was placed in a house in a gentile’s courtyard, as the first tanna says: If a Jew dwells only in another courtyard, the wine is permitted, but this is only when the Jew has in his possession the key to the house or a seal on the barrels of wine. And the Rabbis say: It is always prohibited unless a watchman is sitting and safeguarding the wine constantly, or unless an appointed person comes to safeguard the wine. This is referring to a watchman who comes at set times.

The Gemara questions this ruling: If an appointed person comes at set times, it is detrimental, as the gentile knows when to expect the watchman, and he may do as he pleases the rest of the time. Rather, emend the baraita and teach that the wine is prohibited unless an appointed person comes, and this is referring to a watchman who does not come at set times. Rather, he comes whenever he chooses to do so.

§ The mishna teaches that if a Jew renders the wine of a gentile permitted and leaves the wine in the gentile’s domain, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew guards the wine. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar come to be lenient or to be stringent? Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient. Rav Naḥman says that Ze’eiri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent.

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: Just as the wine is prohibited when it is left in the gentile owner’s domain, so too the wine is prohibited when it is left in the domain of another gentile, as the bailee might allow the owner to touch the wine. And we are concerned that they might be in collusion and the bailee will not reveal that the gentile owner touched the wine, as the owner reciprocates on other occasions.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that not all the domains of gentiles are considered as one. In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner’s domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, as his actions might become known. And we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion.

The Gemara explains the other opinion. Rav Naḥman says that Ze’eiri says: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent, and accordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: In what case is this statement that the wine is prohibited said? This applies only when the wine is left in the gentile owner’s domain. But when it is left in the domain of another gentile the wine is permitted, as the gentile refrains from touching the wine when it is in the domain of another gentile, and we are not concerned that the two gentiles might be in collusion. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, and the wine is prohibited, as it is possible that the gentile bailee is in collusion with the owner.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be stringent: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The domain of gentiles is all one, due to the swindlers. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is presenting a more stringent opinion.

The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier’s sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.

Rava said to the Rabbis: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion, that statement applies only where the other gentile is not afraid of the wine’s owner. But here, since the sharecropper is afraid of the vizier, he covers up for him and testifies on his behalf that he did not touch the wine.

There was a certain city in which a Jew’s wine was placed. A gentile was found standing among the barrels of wine. Rava said: If the gentile can be caught as a thief if he touches the wine, the wine is permitted. Since he is afraid of being caught he does not have the presence of mind to offer the wine as a libation. But if not, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from the wine, as it is assumed that the gentile certainly touched it and offered it as a libation.

May we return to you, Chapter “R. Yishmael”