# dafyomi

lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Wine and vinegar are the same species;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rebbi says, they are two species.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The Mishnah is even like Chachamim.
          Chachamim consider them to be one species only regarding
          Ma'aser and Terumah, like R. Ila'i;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Ila'i):</font></b> If one separates bad Peros to be
               Terumah on good Peros, it takes effect - 'v'Lo Sis'u
               Alav Chet ba'Harimechem Es Chelbo';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it did not take effect, he would not bear sin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding a sale, all agree that some people
               prefer wine, and others prefer vinegar.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>KINYAN THROUGH MESHICHAH AND MEASURING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sold Peros to Shimon (for a price
          per unit measure) and he (Shimon) did Meshichah but did
          not measure it, Shimon acquires;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he measured but did not do Meshichah, he does
               not acquire;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Shimon is clever, he will rent the premises
               (to acquire immediately).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If Shimon buys flax from Reuven, he does not acquire
          until he moves it from place to place;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it was attached to the ground and he detached
               any amount, he acquires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If he measured
          and put it in a Simta (an adjunct to a Reshus ha'Rabim
          where people are permitted to rest things), he acquires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion (R. Zeira):</font></b> Perhaps you heard that this
          applies when he measured into his box in the Simta?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Asi):</font></b> That is obvious. R. Yochanan would
          not need to teach that case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Did R. Zeira accept this answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We learn from the following:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (R. Yanai (R. Yochanan's Rebbi) citing Rebbi):
               Partners in a joint Chatzer can acquire one from the 
               other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They acquire by putting on the
               ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, they acquire by putting in the other's
          Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (R. Yakov citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If he measured
          and put it in a Simta, he did not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Yanai and R. Yochanan (according to
               Rav Asi) said that he acquires!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We must say that if he puts it in the
               other's Kli he acquires, if he puts it on the ground
               he does not acquire (Rav Asi misunderstood R.
               Yochanan's teaching).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav Asi - Mishnah):</font></b> If he measured
          but did not do Meshichah, he does not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is in a Simta.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, it is in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Reisha):</font></b> If he did Meshichah but did not
          measure it, Shimon acquires;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Meshichah does not acquire in a Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> Mesirah acquires in a Reshus
                    ha'Rabim, or in a Chatzer that does not belong
                    to both of them;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Meshichah acquires in a Simta or in their
                    joint Chatzer;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  Hagbahah acquires everywhere.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means, he acquires by doing
          Meshichah from the Reshus ha'Rabim to a Simta.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> If Shimon is clever, he will rent the
          premises.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> No one owns the Reshus ha'Rabim to rent it to
               Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means that if he is in a Reshus
          ha'Yachid, if Shimon is clever, he will rent the
          premises.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) ARE WINE AND VINEGAR CONSIDERED THE SAME?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between Rebbi and the Rabanan with regard to whether wine and vinegar are classified as 'Min Echad' -- 'one type.' Rebbi maintains that they are not 'Min Echad,' and the Rabanan maintain that they are.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Yayin) asks that the Gemara later (96a) seems to side with Rebbi. The Mishnah in Terumos (2:4) teaches that one may separate Terumah from one type of fruit on behalf of fruit of the same type (grapes for grapes), but not from one type of fruit on behalf of another type of fruit (grapes for olives). The Gemara later discusses the case of the Mishnah in Terumos (3:1) in which a person separated a barrel of wine as Terumah on behalf of other barrels of wine. Later, when he opened that barrel of wine, he found that the wine had turned to vinegar. May he assume that the wine was still good at the time he separate it as Terumah (and his act of separating Terumah was valid), or must he assume that the wine had already turned to vinegar by the time he separated it as Terumah (and his act of separating Terumah was not valid)? The Gemara states that he may assume that the barrel contained wine for three days after the time that he last checked it. Hence, if he separated it as Terumah <i>after</i> those three days, his act of Terumah is in doubt.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks that this ruling seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi, who says that wine and vinegar are two separate types. Does the Gemara later indeed support the opinion of Rebbi against that of the Rabanan?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (96a, DH ha'Bodek) writes that the Gemara later indeed follows the opinion of Rebbi. According to the Rabanan, the Terumah is valid b'Di'eved even if it was vinegar at the time that he separated it on behalf of wine. L'Chatchilah, however, one should not separate Terumah from vinegar on behalf of wine.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (84b, DH Yayin) explains that the Gemara later may even follow the opinion of the Rabanan. The Gemara there discusses a case of 'Terumah b'Ta'us' -- 'mistaken Terumah.' Even according to the Rabanan, if one did not intend to separate Terumah from vinegar in order to exempt wine, his act is invalid if he discovers that what he thought was wine was actually vinegar at the time he separated it as Terumah.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks, however, that this explanation seems difficult based on the Gemara in Yevamos (89a). The Gemara there clearly says that if a person intended to separate Terumah from high-quality produce but mistakenly separated Terumah from law-quality produce, the Terumah is valid. The same should apply when one mistakenly separated vinegar as Terumah for wine.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Yevamos (DH Kishus) answers that there is a basic distinction between the two cases. In the case of two items of the same type (such as wine and vinegar), the difference is much more pronounced. In the case of two grades of quality of <i>one</i> type of item, the difference is more subtle. In the case of the Gemara in Yevamos, the person separated one item as Terumah for the identical type of item; it merely turned out that the item he separated was of a lower quality than the rest. In such a case, the Terumah is valid. When, however, the item he separated is found to be an entirely different item (vinegar instead of wine), even though it is of the same species, the Terumah is not valid. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHERE CAN KELIM ACQUIRE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> The buyer's Kelim acquire for him
          everywhere, except for in a Reshus ha'Rabim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish):</font></b> They acquire even in a
          Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> They do not argue: Rav and Shmuel refer to
          a proper Reshus ha'Rabim, and R. Yochanan and Reish
          Lakish refer to a Simta.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If they meant a Simta, why did they call it a
          Reshus ha'Rabim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They call it a Reshus ha'Rabim because it is
          not a Reshus ha'Yachid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The buyer's
          Kelim acquire anywhere he is allowed to place them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> They do not acquire where he may not
               place them (, i.e. a Reshus ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> There are four laws regarding a
          sale. Before the measure is full, the merchandise belongs
          to the seller (this is relevant in case it will spill,
          the price will change, or one of them wants to retract);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After the measure is full, it belongs to the
               buyer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is when the measuring Kli belongs to a third
               party (who lent it to them);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it belongs to one of them, the buyer acquires
                    every amount once it enters the Kli.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This is in a Reshus ha'Rabim or a Chatzer that
               does not belong to either of them;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In the seller's premises, he does not acquire
                    until he does Hagbahah or takes it out of the
                    premises;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  In the buyer's premises, he acquires as
                    soon as the seller agrees to sell.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  In the premises of Levi (with whom the
                    merchandise was deposited), he does not acquire
                    until Levi agrees that the buyer may use the
                    premises to acquire, or rents the premises to
                    him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> It says that in a Reshus
               ha'Rabim or a Chatzer that does not belong to either
               of them (the buyer acquires if one of them owns the
               Kli)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SALE OF MERCHANDISE IN THE HANDS OF A THIRD PARTY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa discusses the mechanics of acquisition in various situations. In one of these situations, a buyer and seller agree upon the terms of the sale, but the merchandise is in the hands of a third party (with whom the seller stores his merchandise). The Beraisa says that in this case, the merchandise does not change ownership 'until he accepts upon himself or until he rents the place.'
</p><p>
The meaning of the words, 'until he rents the place,' is clear; the buyer must rent the area where the goods are stored in order for that area to acquire the goods for him through Kinyan Chatzer. What is the meaning of 'until he accepts upon himself'?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH Ad she'Yekabel) explains that these words mean that the third party accepts upon himself to designate the area underneath the goods as the area of the buyer.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Arba) has difficulty with this explanation. It is unlikely that the seller can simply ask the third party to designate his property for the buyer. The land underneath the goods must legally belong to the buyer in order for a Kinyan Chatzer to take effect. Such a transfer of property needs some form of Kinyan in order to take effect. Tosfos proves this from the Gemara in Eruvin (79b) which clearly states that in order for a person to transfer ownership of property to someone else, a valid Kinyan is necessary. (See also <b>RITVA</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> therefore explains that these words mean that the third party accepts upon himself to acquire the goods via his own Kinyan Chatzer on behalf of the third party. In short, he acquires the item on be half of the buyer.
</p><p>
The <b>AYELES HA'SHACHAR</b> makes an interesting inquiry into the opinion of the Rashbam. If, as the Rashbam writes, one's declaration that he is transferring an area to someone else's possession is valid such that the area now serves as the beneficiary's Chatzer, can a Get also be given in this manner?? A man who wants to divorce his wife should merely transfer part of his Chatzer to his wife's ownership, and then he should throw the Get into that part of the Chatzer. The transaction should be valid and, mid'Oraisa, the woman should be divorced.
</p><p>
The Ayeles ha'Shachar suggests that in this case the Rashbam may agree that the Get is not valid. The Gemara here implies that a person can transfer the ownership of a Chatzer to someone else in order that the recipient be able to use it to make a Kinyan Chatzer that he <i>wants</i> to make. One cannot transfer the ownership of a Chatzer to someone else (such as his wife) in order to force the recipient to accept something (such as a Get).
</p><p>
However, perhaps if the woman <i>wants</i> the divorce but is not in town to receive it, why should the husband not be able to transfer ownership of his Chatzer to her and place the Get in the Chatzer? The Ayeles ha'Shachar answers that it is possible that the transfer of the Chatzer works only to acquire an object that has intrinsic value, but not an object of extrinsic value (that is, the Get has value not because of the actual piece of paper on which it is written, but because of the words written on it which give the woman the status of a divorcee). The Ayeles ha'Shachar does not resolve the question. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUIRING THE PREMISES FOR A KINYAN</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 84b (Mishnah):</font></b> If a buyer measured but did not do
               Meshichah, he did not acquire. If he is clever, he
               will rent the premises (to acquire immediately).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 85a (Beraisa):</font></b> In the seller's premises, he does not
               acquire until he does Hagbahah or takes it out of
               the premises. In the buyer's premises, he acquires
               as soon as the seller agrees to sell. In the
               premises of Levi (with whom the merchandise was
               deposited), he does not acquire until Levi agrees
               that the buyer may use the premises to acquire, or
               rents the premises to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Eruvin 79b (Mishnah):</font></b> One can be Mezakeh (an Eruv)
               for others through his mature child, but not through
               his small child, for a small child's Yad (power of
               acquisition) is like his father's Yad (he acquires
               only for his father).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kidushin 27a (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Gamliel said 'a tithe
               (Ma'aser Oni) that I will measure off later is given
               to R. Akiva, to acquire it on behalf of the poor. I
               rent to him the area it rests on.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 116b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven owned a house
               and Shimon owned its upper story and it fell, they
               divide the wood, rocks and dirt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The one in whose Reshus the rocks are in,
               he is Muchzak. The other cannot take (whole rocks)
               from him without proof!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Partners freely lend their premises to each
               other.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> In the premises of a Shomer, he does not
               acquire until Levi accepts, or until he rents the
               place.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (CM 200 DH v'Da):</font></b> The Rif's text
                    does not say regarding a Shomer 'until he
                    accepts', rather, 'until he does Hagbahah or
                    removes it from his Reshus. (Note: our text of
                    the Rif is like our Gemara.) The Ramban says
                    that even according to this text, once he
                    accepts, he acquires, for he removed it from
                    the seller's Reshus. Even though the Ramban
                    says that the seller said 'be Zocheh for
                    Ploni', it seems that it suffices if he said
                    'give them to Ploni' and the Shomer consented.
                    In any case we learn that the Shomer's consent
                    helps when the seller tells him. It does not
                    help if the buyer tells him 'Ploni sold them to
                    me' and the Shomer consented.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Shach CM 6):</font></b> The Ramban says that if
                    the Peros were in his hand and he said ''be
                    Zocheh for Ploni', it works, for Zachin l'Adam.
                    Also his Chatzer can be Zocheh for him. I say
                    that he must say ''be Zocheh for Ploni.' If
                    not, saying 'give' is not like saying ''be
                    Zocheh for', since he does not hand over the
                    Peros to him now, rather, they were deposited
                    from before (CM 125:6).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 4:6):</font></b> If the seller
               measured the Peros into the buyer's Keli in the
               seller's Reshus or a Shomer's Reshus, the buyer does
               not acquire until he does Hagbahah or takes it out
               of the premises through renting the place or similar
               methods.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> Some texts say that in the
                    seller's Reshus, he does not acquire 'until he
                    accepts upon himself.' I.e. the Shomer's
                    accepts to give them to the buyer with the
                    seller's consent. Surely this suffices.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Kesef Mishneh):</font></b> I say that it
                    suffices only according to those who had this
                    text, but not according to the Rambam!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rosh (Bava Basra 5:15):</font></b> When the buyer puts his
                    Kli in another's Reshus, it suffices for the
                    owner of the Reshus to say that he lends the
                    place to him. A buyer's Kelim acquires wherever
                    he is allowed to put them. R. Gamliel needed to
                    rent the place of the Peros to the Chachamim
                    because they were not in the Kelim of the
                    recipients.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (16):</font></b> When one says 'my Kli or Chatzer should
               acquire for Ploni', this works. His Chatzer is like
               his Yad. He need not be Mezakeh through someone
               else. The Beraisa says 'in the Shomer's Reshus, he
               does not acquire until he accepts on himself or
               rents the Reshus.' This shows that acceptance works.
               If it worked in the seller's Reshus, the Beraisa
               would have taught them together (that acceptance
               works for either)! The seller can transfer his
               Chatzer to the buyer only through rental or a
               Kinyan, like we find with R. Gamliel and in Eruvin
               (one can be Mezakeh through his mature child, but
               not through his small child). This is because one
               cannot be Mezakeh his Reshus to another by himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashbam (85a DH ha'Mufkadim):</font></b> We discuss when the
               seller deposited with a Shomer (Levi). Presumably,
               Levi was Makneh his premises to the seller for his
               Peros, to sell and measure them, like every Nifkad
               does.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Maharit (1:65):</font></b> A case occurred in which a sick
                    woman gave all her property, which was in her
                    father's house, to her father. I say that it is
                    as if a Kinyan was done, since one's property
                    acquires for him. Someone derived from the
                    Rashbam that a Nifkad is Makneh his premises to
                    the seller, until he is Makneh it to the buyer
                    to acquire. Therefore, the buyer must make a
                    proper Kinyan on the premises in order to
                    acquire. (We do not say that a buyer is Makneh
                    his Reshus to the seller, who brought the Peros
                    there haphazardly.) I say that the Rashbam does
                    not discuss a proper Kinyan. It suffices to
                    permit the buyer to put his Kelim there in
                    order to acquire.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ketzos ha'Choshen (189:1):</font></b> The Tur says that if
                    Levi deposited an item with David and agreed to
                    sell it to him, he does not acquire. Why
                    doesn't his Reshus acquire for him&gt; The Taz
                    says in the name of the Rashbam that a Shomer's
                    Reshus is like the seller's Reshus, therefore,
                    it does not work. The Maharit says that Levi
                    acquires the Reshus only through Kesef or
                    Chazakah. I answer that leaving one's wares in
                    a Reshus is like eating Peros, and the Rambam
                    (Hilchos Mechirah 1:15) says that eating the
                    Peros acquires. Some disagree, but only about
                    permanent acquisition. All agree that usage
                    acquires the right to use it for the prupose he
                    borrowed it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>The Maharit asked that Levi acquires only when
                    the Shomer designates a place for the Peros. I
                    say that the Shomer lent his land for wherever
                    the Peros will be. Bava Metzia 116a proves
                    this. When a house fell, even if the rocks are
                    in the Reshus of one of them, he is not
                    Muchzak, for partners freely lend their
                    premises to each other. Rashi and the Nimukei
                    Yosef explain that he is Mafkir his Reshus for
                    his partner to put things, so it is as if they
                    are in their joint Reshus. This shows that no
                    Kinyan is required.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> Poskim
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 200:2):</font></b> If Metaltelim were in the
               Reshus of the seller or a Shomer, the buyer acquires
               only after Hagbahah or Meshichah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (8):</font></b> This is like the Rambam, who had the
                    Rif's text.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If the buyer rented the place where the Peros
               are, or it was given to him for a gift with a
               Kinyan, or even through mere speech, he acquires,
               for now the Peros are in his Reshus. Words help when
               they are in a Shomer's Reshus. If they are in the
               seller's Reshus and he said 'my Chatzer should
               acquire them for the buyer' he does not acquire
               until he rents the place to him or the buyer
               acquires the place through a Kinyan. When the Peros
               are with a Shomer, saying 'my Chatzer should acquire
               for the buyer' helps only if the seller consents.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Im):</font></b> The Rashbam says that the
                    buyer acquires only after the Shomer agrees, on
                    the seller's command, to designate his Reshus
                    to the buyer to acquire, or the buyer rents the
                    place. Acceptance (that he acquire) and rental
                    help also when the Peros are in the seller's
                    Reshus. The Beraisa discusses a typical case
                    (the seller wants to clear the Peros from his
                    property), so it teaches about Hagbahah and
                    Meshichah. A Shomer is willing to guard Peros
                    of the buyer just like he guarded for the
                    seller, so, it teaches about acceptance and
                    rental (the Peros remain there).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Beis Yosef citing Tosfos):</font></b> If both
                    methods work whether the Peros are in the
                    Reshus of the seller or Shomer, both should
                    have been taught together! Also, it is
                    unreasonable that acceptance help in the
                    seller's Reshus, for one cannot be Makneh his
                    Reshus to others by himself, like it says in
                    Eruvin. One can be Mezakeh for others through
                    his mature child, but not through his small
                    child, for the latter's Yad is like his Yad.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (ibid.):</font></b> The Rosh, R. Yerucham and
                    the Ramban hold like Tosfos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (5):</font></b> The seller himself cannot be 'be
                    Zocheh for the buyer by himself. A Shomer can
                    say 'my Chatzer is Zocheh for what Ploni buys
                    from Almoni', for his Chatzer is like his Yad,
                    so it can 'be Zocheh for another just like his
                    Yad could.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (10):</font></b> Kinyan does not help for rental.
                    Money is required (Tosfos Bava Metzia and
                    Kidushin (11a and 27a DH u'Mkomo), CM 195:9).<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Beraisa refers to a proper Reshus
               ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, it refers to a Simta.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Reshus ha'Rabim was taught together with a
          Chatzer that does not belong to either of them.
          Presumably, they are similar! (A Simta is different, for
          each has the right to use it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa refers to a Chatzer that does not
          belong <i>exclusively</i> to either of them. Rather, it is
          their joint Chatzer.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE BUYER'S KELIM IN THE SELLER'S PREMISES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Does a buyer acquire with his
          Kelim in the seller's premises?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Huna - Mishnah):</font></b> If a man threw a Get
          into his wife's garment or basket (in his premises), she
          is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Why did Rav Huna answer from
          that Mishnah? Many Chachamim rejected that proof!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The case is, the basket was
          hanging on her (it is not in his Reshus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Even if the basket was
          tied to her but dragging on the ground (she is divorced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #3 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> The case is, the
          basket was between her legs. (He allows her to use the
          place between her legs, so it is like her Reshus.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #4 (Rav Mesharshiya brei d'Rav. Ami):</font></b> The
          case is, he sells baskets (therefore, he allows her to
          use place of the basket).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #5 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A man allows his wife to
          use the place of her garment and basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> In the seller's
          premises, he does not acquire until he does Hagbahah or
          takes it out of the premises.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is even if the Kli belongs to
               the buyer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, it is only when the seller owns it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If that case refers to the seller's Kli, also
          the next case does!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa):</font></b> In the buyer's premises, he acquires as
               soon as the seller agrees to sell.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Why should he acquire in the seller's Kli?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That refers to the buyer's Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does the Beraisa assume in the Reisha
          that they use the seller's Kli, and in the Seifa, they
          use the buyer's Kli?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The seller's Kelim are more common in the
          seller's premises. The buyer's Kelim are more common in
          the buyer's premises.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) DOES 'PASAK U'MADAD' SUFFICE?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses the case of a person who sees a group of merchants and their workers carrying their merchandise, and he shows intentions of making a transaction. If the person brings the workers into his house, the transaction is not considered final if either a price was not set ('Pasak') on the merchandise, even though the buyer weighed out ('Madad') the merchandise, or the buyer did not weigh out the merchandise, even though the price was set. The Beraisa explains that this applies only when the merchandise was not unloaded from the donkeys. If the merchandise was unloaded <i>and</i> a price was set, then even if the merchandise was not weighed, the agreement must be honored. If the merchandise was only weighed but a price was not set, both parties may retract from the deal.
</p><p>
The first case of the Beraisa discusses a case in which only one of two things was done: a price was set, or the merchandise was weighed. Does the Beraisa imply that if both things would be done ('Pasak' and 'Madad'), the transaction would be valid?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Bein) writes that this is not the implication of the Beraisa. Tosfos maintains that an essential part of the acquisition is that the merchandise must be unloaded from the workers or the donkeys. If the merchandise is not unloaded, the buyer is not able to acquire it since it has not left the seller's domain. Tosfos understands that the fact that the buyer brings the workers or donkeys into his domain does not mean that his domain acquires the merchandise for him. Since the merchandise is more prominently in the hands of the workers, the buyer's Chatzer cannot acquire it for him. There is no form of acquisition performed by pulling, lifting, or doing any other act of Kinyan when one's intent is to acquire an object which is in the physical possession of a person or animal whom the buyer does not intend to acquire.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in Avodah Zarah (72a, DH Ad she'Lo) states that once there is both 'Pasak u'Madad,' the buyer's domain is able to acquire the item automatically on his behalf. How does this work? The <b>MAHARSHA</b> in Avodah Zarah there explains that Rashi understands the Beraisa differently from the way we understood it until now. According to our initial understanding of the Beraisa, the difference between the case of the beginning of the Beraisa and that of the end of the Beraisa is whether or not the goods have been unloaded from the workers or donkeys. The Maharsha explains that, according to Rashi, in both cases the goods have been unloaded from the workers or donkeys. In the first case, the definition of 'Madad' is that the buyer weighed the merchandise <i>and set it down</i> in his domain. Even though he actually placed the merchandise in his domain, the deal is not consummated unless a price has also been set ('Pasak'). In the case of 'Pasak u'Madad,' since the merchandise is now in the domain of the buyer, his domain can make the acquisition on his behalf.
</p><p>
Rashi understands that in the next case of the Beraisa, the merchandise is <i>unloaded first,</i> before any weighing or price-setting takes place. According to Rashi, this is why, in the second case of 'Pasak,' the Kinyan takes effect right away even without weighing. The merchandise is ready to be acquired by the buyer since it is in his possession.
</p><p>
This explanation also seems to be the intent of the <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH Bein Pasak). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE BUYER'S KELIM IN THE SELLER'S PREMISES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven's donkey-drivers
          or workers were carrying Peros, and Shimon (who wants to
          buy) took the workers into his house, if they were Posek
          (set the price) <i>or</i> measured the Peros (but not both),
          either party can retract. (Taking workers into one's
          house is not Meshichah (while they are laden with the
          Peros). Both Meshichah and Pesikah are needed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven or Shimon unloaded it and brought it
               into Shimon's house:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If they were Posek, even if they did not measure,
                    neither party can retract;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If they measured but were not Posek, either
                    party can retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he set the price after measuring, either party
               can retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Just like the seller's Kelim do not
               acquire in the buyer's premises (i.e. the Peros are
               still in the seller's Kelim, yet they do not prevent
               the buyer from acquiring through his premises), also
               the buyer's Kelim do not acquire in the seller's
               premises!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The
          merchandise was dumped onto the floor of the buyer's
          premises. It was not unloaded into Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rava):</font></b> You cannot say so. The Beraisa does
          not say 'dumped'. It says 'unloaded'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2 (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> The merchandise was
          bundles of garlic, which are not put into Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Huna brei d'Mar Zutra):</font></b> Once it is in the
          buyer's premises, once the seller wants the buyer to
          acquire, he should acquire, even without setting the
          price!
<br>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Until they set the price, neither
          decides absolutely.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (Ravina):</font></b> Rav and Shmuel taught that the
          buyer's Kelim acquire for him <i>everywhere</i>... (except for
          in a Reshus ha'Rabim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this come to include?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It includes the seller's premises.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The case is, the seller told him
          to acquire. (It is as if the seller lent his premises to
          the buyer in order to acquire.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MESHICHAH OF THINGS THAT CAN BE LIFTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Land is acquired through money, a document
          or Chazakah. Metaltelim are acquired only through
          Meshichah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda or Rav Kahana or Rava):</font></b> That applies only
          to things that are not normally lifted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Things that are normally lifted are acquired
               through Hagbahah, but not Meshichah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah - Beraisa):</font></b> If one steals
          a wallet on Shabbos, he must pay. He is liable for
          stealing (from the moment he picked it up) before he is
          liable for desecrating Shabbos (when he takes it to the
          Reshus ha'Rabim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he was dragging it out, he need not pay, for
               the liabilities come at the same time. (Since he is
               liable to die, he need not pay.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even though a wallet can be lifted, he acquires
               it through Meshichah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, the wallet has a rope on
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Ada):</font></b> I agree that he drags it by a rope,
          but still, it is normal to lift it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> I meant that the wallet is very heavy,
          so it is normally dragged by a rope.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> In the seller's premises, he does
          not acquire until he does Hagbahah or takes it out of the
          premises.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> The item can be lifted, and it can be
               acquired through Hagbahah or Meshichah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The Beraisa teaches
          together the laws of two different cases: something
          normally lifted is acquired through Hagbahah, and
          something not normally lifted is acquired through
          Meshichah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE CASE OF THE RULE OF RAV AND SHMUEL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav and Shmuel state a rule about business deals: If a buyer and seller agree on the sale of a Kor (thirty Se'ah) of grain 'for thirty Sela,' the buyer may retract the sale even while he handles the last Se'ah of produce. In contrast, if they agree on the sale of a Kor of grain but they stipulate that the price is 'one Sela per Se'ah,' each Se'ah of grain is considered an independent sale and is acquired separately. In exactly what case does this rule apply?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> explains that this rule applies in the case of a transaction conducted in a Simta (as opposed to Reshus ha'Rabim, the public domain), or in the domain of the buyer with the vessels of the seller. The Rif explains that if the transaction was conducted either in Reshus ha'Rabim or in the domain of the seller, the Halachah is that the vessels of the buyer cannot acquire on his behalf in Reshus ha'Rabim or in the domain of the seller. If the sale was conducted in the domain of the buyer and the transfer of goods was not done in the vessels of the seller, once the seller and buyer agree to an amount the domain of the buyer automatically acquires the goods on his behalf. It is clear that Rav and Shmuel refer to a transfer of goods that takes time. This is why the deal must be either in a Simta or in the domain of the buyer with the vessels of the seller. Rav and Shmuel are teaching that the grain is measured out gradually. If the deal involves the sale of a Kor, then the transaction is not complete until the last Se'ah is measured. However, if the payment is per Se'ah, then each Se'ah that is measured out is automatically transferred to the ownership of the buyer.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> argues that the transaction also could take place in the property of the buyer without the vessels of the seller. Although one might assume, as the Rif indeed writes, that the buyer's domain should acquire the grain immediately, his domain acquires immediately only in a case in which no specific amount is mentioned (but rather they agree on the sale of 'all of the grain in this barrel'). When a specific amount is mentioned, the transaction is not considered complete until the entire specified amount is weighed out.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF RAV AND SHMUEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Shmuel state a rule about business deals: If a buyer and seller agree on the sale of a Kor (thirty Se'ah) of grain 'for thirty Sela,' the buyer may retract the sale even while he handles the last Se'ah of produce. In contrast, if they agree on the sale of a Kor of grain but they stipulate that the price is 'one Sela per Se'ah,' each Se'ah of grain is considered an independent sale and is acquired separately. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
Does Rav and Shmuel's rule have any common exceptions?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> (YD 200:7) quotes the <b>KESONES PASIM</b> who was asked to judge a case which clearly was one to which Rav and Shmuel's rule applied. Two people agreed upon the sale of oxen. They agreed that twenty oxen would be sold to the buyer at a fixed price per ox. The buyer began to do Meshichah to each ox in order to make a Kinyan. In the middle of the buyer's ox-pulling, the seller decided that he did not want to go through with the sale. Who owns the oxen to which the buyer already did Meshichah? This apparently is a classic application of the rule of Rav and Shmuel, that when a Kor of grain is sold at the price of one Sela per Se'ah, the buyer acquires each Se'ah of grain that he lifts up, and the seller cannot retract the sale of those Se'ah. He may renege only on the sale of the grain on which the buyer has not yet made a Kinyan.
</p><p>
The Kesones Pasim, however, ruled that the seller may renege on the sale of <i>all</i> of the oxen. He explained that the Halachah of Rav and Shmuel applies only when there is a <i>real</i> price for every Se'ah of grain. This means that each Se'ah of grain indeed was worth a Sela. However, in the case of a large cattle deal, although the parties agreed on a set price per head of, each individual ox is actually worth a different amount of money. The price per head agreement was only a way to express the price for the group; it did not represent the actual value of each animal. Therefore, the Kesones Pasim ruled that despite the agreement of a set price per head, the price in this case is judged as one lump sum. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW CAN ONE ACQUIRE THROUGH THE SELLER'S KELIM?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 85b - Question (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Does a buyer acquire
               with his Kelim in the seller's premises?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> In the seller's
               premises, he does not acquire until he does Hagbahah
               or takes it out of the premises.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is even if the Keli belongs to
                    the buyer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, it is only when the seller owns it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Seifa):</font></b> In the buyer's premises, he
               acquires as soon as the seller agrees to sell.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Seifa discusses the buyer's Keli.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If Peros were unloaded
               and brought them into the buyer's house, if they set
               the price, even if they did not measure, neither
               party can retract.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Just like the seller's Kelim do not
                    acquire in the buyer's premises, also the
                    buyer's Kelim do not acquire in the seller's
                    premises!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> The merchandise was
               bundles of garlic, which are not put into Kelim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 9b - Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> If Reuven
               said 'Meshoch (take to your Reshus) this animal and
               acquire the Kelim on it', does Meshichah on the
               animal acquire the Kelim? (The Gemara never answers
               the question.)
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches that if Peros were unloaded
               and brought them into the buyer's house, if they set
               the price, even if they did not measure, neither
               party can retract. Mar bar Rav Ashi established this
               to discuss bundles of garlic, which are not put into
               Kelim. Hasd they been put in the seller's Kelim, the
               buyer would not acquire.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rashbam (86a DH Pirkan):</font></b> The Gemara inferred
                    that the seller's Kelim do not acquire in the
                    buyer's premises, for the Peros are still in
                    the seller's Kelim, yet they do not prevent the
                    buyer from acquiring through his premises).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (86a DH umid'Kelav):</font></b> The Gemara knew
                    that the buyer acquires through his Reshus, and
                    not through Meshichah, for it connotes that he
                    acquires even if the seller unloaded them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:15):</font></b> Saying 'go acquire' does not help for
               the seller's Kelim in the buyer's Reshus, for this
               does not connote that he lends the Keli to him in
               order that it would be considered the buyer's Keli.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Heilach):</font></b> Later, the Rif
                    brings Rav's law that what was measured out
                    acquires, i.e. in a Simta, or in the seller's
                    Kelim in the buyer's Reshus. This contradicts
                    what he said that the buyer's Kelim do not
                    acquire in the seller's Reshus unless the
                    seller said 'go acquire'! Perhaps measuring
                    helps like 'go acquire.' Or, saying 'I sell a
                    Se'ah for a Sela' is like saying 'go acquire',
                    and this helps also for the seller's Kelim in
                    the buyer's Reshus, unlike R. Yonah. The Rosh
                    says that the Rif holds that the seller's Kelim
                    acquire in the buyer's Reshus. Surely, his text
                    of the Rif omitted Mar bar Rav Ashi, who says
                    otherwise. The Rif did not learn from here that
                    the buyer's Kelim acquire in the seller's
                    Reshus (for it is not Batel to the Reshus).
                    Since Mar bar Rav Ashi rejected the proof from
                    unloading the Peros, it is possible to say that
                    neither acquires. Also the Rambam says so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 4:1):</font></b> One's Kelim do not
            said 'go acquire in this
               Keli.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> Just like the buyer's Kelim do not
               acquire in the seller's Reshus, the seller's Kelim
               do not acquire for the buyer, even in the buyer's
               Reshus.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Gemara explicitly said that
                    the seller's Kelim do not acquire in the
                    buyer's Reshus. However, this was according to
                    the opinion that the buyer's Kelim acquire in
                    the seller's Reshus! Perhaps since this is how
                    we establish the Beraisa, it is according to
                    all opinions. The Ri mi'Gash says that since
                    the buyer seeks to take from the seller, he
                    must bring a proof whether it depends on the
                    Keli or the Reshus (and since the Gemara never
                    resolved the question, he cannot), so he does
                    not acquire.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Hinei):</font></b> The Ri mi'Gash holds
                    like the Rosh, that it is a Safek whether it
                    depends on the Keli or the Reshus. It seems
                    that the Rambam disagrees! He said 'he does not
                    acquire.' When there is a Safek, the Rambam
                    writes 'it is a Safek'! Likewise, the Rif wrote
                    'he does not acquire.' He did not write 'the
                    question was not settled'! Rather, in the text
                    of the Rif and Rambam, both questions were
                    asked. Rav Huna answered that the buyer's Kelim
                    do not acquire in the seller's Reshus, and we
                    hold like Mar bar Rav Ashi, that the seller's
                    Kelim do not acquire in the buyer's Reshus.
                    Also Mar bar Rav Ashi holds like Rav Huna! He
                    did not come to reject the proof, rather, to
                    teach how we establish the Beraisa. The Rif
                    needed to explain like this, for he holds that
                    the Halachah follows Rav Huna, even though Mar
                    bar Rav Ashi is Basra. How did the Rif and
                    Rambam know that Mar bar Rav Ashi really holds
                    like this? Perhaps he merely dispels the proof!
                    He gave a difficult answer (we discuss bundles
                    of garlic, which are not put in Kelim). He
                    would not do so unless he was forced, i.e. for
                    he holds that this is true.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (ibid.):</font></b> We tried to answer the question from a
               Beraisa which says that one does not acquire until
               he does Hagbahah or takes it out of the premises. We
               rejected this, for perhaps this refers to the
               seller's Keli. We learn from here that Meshichah
               helps in the seller's Keli. Also, in Bava Metzia we
               asked whether Meshichah of an animal acquires the
               Kelim on it. This implies that we ask only about an
               animal, for it does not become a basis for the
               Kelim, but surely Meshichah of Kelim acquires the
               Kelim (it seems that the last word should be
               'Peros') inside them, even if he did not say 'be
               Moshech the Keli to acquire the Peros,' rather, the
               buyer did Meshichah in front of the seller. In the
               conclusion, it is possible that the buyer's Keli
               acquires even if the seller's Reshus. The Beraisa
               teaches them separately, for in the buyer's Reshus
               he acquires without measuring. Putting in his Kelim
               is like Meshichah. The seller's Reshus is no better
               than a Simta, and he must measure to acquire. Our
               question was not settled. We do not know whether the
               Keli is Batel to the Reshus, or vice-versa.
               Therefore, the buyer's Kelim in the seller's Reshus
               or vice-versa does not acquire.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 200:5):</font></b> Just like the buyer's
               Kelim do not acquire in the seller's Reshus, the
               seller's Kelim do not acquire for the buyer, even in
               the buyer's Reshus.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Ramah says that
                    since we do not know which of these two ways
                    acquires, if a buyer bought two things from a
                    seller, one in each way, the seller must give
                    one of them to him. He may choose which. We
                    learn from one who told his son 'one of my
                    documents (against borrowers) was already
                    paid.' If the father has two documents against
                    one borrower, the larger loan is paid. If two
                    buyers bought from one seller, each in a
                    different of these two ways, they may take one
                    from the seller if one writes a Harsha'ah
                    (power of attorney) to the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that even if the seller said 'go
               acquire', he does not acquire.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Piresh):</font></b> Why did the Tur cite
                    this in the name of R. Yonah, and not in the
                    name of the Rosh? It seems to me that the
                    Rambam disagrees.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (11 DH v'Im):</font></b> The Rambam rules that
                    the seller's Kelim do not acquire in the
                    buyer's Reshus, but regarding a sale of 'a Kor
                    for 30 Sela', he holds that measuring into the
                    seller's Keli helps! We must say that measuring
                    is like saying 'go acquire.' The Rambam holds
                    that 'go acquire' helps for the seller's Kelim
                    in the buyer's Reshus, unlike the Ri mi'Gash.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>WHERE DO THE BUYER'S KELIM ACQUIRE? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If Shimon bought Peros and he did
          Meshichah but did not measure it, he acquires;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Peros can be lifted, yet he acquires through
               Meshichah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses great loads that cannot
          be lifted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> If Shimon buys flax from Reuven, he
          does not acquire until he moves it from place to place
          (i.e. Hagbahah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also flax can be sold in great loads!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Flax is slippery. (Rashbam - therefore, people
          do not make big loads of it; R. Chananel - therefore,
          even a big load is not usually dragged, therefore
          Hagbahah acquires it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina - Mishnah - R. Meir and R. Shimon ben
          Elazar):</font></b> A large animal is acquired through Mesirah. A
          small animal is acquired through Hagbahah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, a small animal is acquired through
               Meshichah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even though it can be lifted, it is acquired
               through Meshichah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> A small animal digs its claws in the dirt
          (Rashbam; R. Chananel - scratches), therefore it is hard
          to lift.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEASURING OUT PART OF THE SALE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If Reuven sold to Shimon 'a Kor (of
          grain) for 30 (Sela'im)', either can retract until all is
          measured out;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he said 'a Kor for 30, each Se'ah for a Sela', after
          each Se'ah is measured out, neither can retract (the sale
          of that Se'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If the measure belongs to one of
          them, the buyer acquires every amount as it enters the
          Kli;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Each amount is acquired, even though the Kli is
               not full!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, he said 'a Hin for 12, each Log
          for a Sela';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Kahana taught that that the Hin measure in
               the Mikdash had notches to denote how many Lugim are
               inside. Likewise, this measure had notches!
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEASURING OUT PART OF THE SALE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav and Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> One may
          not hire a worker for a Dinar per day of work to be done
          later, if the normal wage is a Sela per day (the discount
          looks like Ribis);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he hires him to begin now, and pays
               immediately (e.g. 100 Dinarim for 100 days of work),
               it is permitted, even though the normal wages at the
               end of the job will be more;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> If when one sells 'a Kor
               for 30, each Se'ah for a Sela', after each Se'ah is
               measured out, it is acquired (but either can retract
               about the rest), here also, at any time he need not
               finish the job. He works the last days for a lower
               wage because he was paid in advance. It should be
               forbidden (like in the Reisha)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are never concerned for one who works
          for a small wage! (Often, if one has no food to eat, he
          accepts to work for less than the normal wages.
          Therefore, it does not look like Ribis.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden in the Reisha of the
          Beraisa, but not in the Seifa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	In the Reisha, he is paid before he starts working, so
          it looks like Ribis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the Seifa, he starts working immediately, so
               it does not look like Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If it was attached to the ground and he
          detached any amount, he acquires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does he acquire everything by detaching
          any amount?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The case is, the seller said 'go
          make any improvement in the field and acquire it all.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SELLING LIQUIDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sells wine or oil to Shimon, and
          the price went up or down: before the measure is filled,
          the wine still belongs to Reuven; after the measure is
          filled, the wine belongs to Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a middleman was selling and the barrel broke,
               he suffers the loss.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	He must hold the bottle (after the wine or oil stops
          flowing) until three drops come out;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After this, if he tilted the bottle and some
               drops accumulated, they belong to Reuven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	A grocer need not wait for three drops;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, just before Shabbos he need not wait.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> (In the Reisha,) who owns the
          measuring Kli?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon owns it, before the measure is filled,
               the wine should belong to Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Reuven owns it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> If so, after the measure is filled, the wine
          should still be Reuven's!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (R. Ila'i):</font></b> It belongs to a middleman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The next clause says that if a middleman was
          selling, if the barrel broke, he suffers the loss. This
          implies that the Reisha does not discuss a middleman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Reisha discusses the Kli of a middleman. In
          the next clause, the middleman himself was selling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> After this, if he tilted the bottle and some
          drops accumulated, they belong to Reuven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (R. Elazar - Mishnah):</font></b> (If one declared a
          bottle of wine to be Terumah,) if he tilted the bottle
          (after pouring it out) and some drops accumulated, they
          are Terumah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LEFTOVER LIQUID IN A BARREL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that when a person purchases a barrel of wine (or oil), the seller must let three drops of the liquid drip into the buyer's vessel after he empties its contents. Any leftover liquid that collects at the bottom of the seller's vessel when the seller tilts his vessel belongs to the seller.
</p><p>
Rebbi Elazar asks why should this case be different from the case involving Terumah? The Mishnah in Terumos (11:8) says that when a person empties a barrel of Terumah and then tilts the barrel so that liquid collects on the bottom, the liquid that collects is also Terumah. According to the logic of the Mishnah here, in the case in Terumos the liquid left in the barrel should be Chulin!
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Elazar compare the laws of purchases (Mekach u'Memkar) to the laws of Terumah? Even if a buyer forgoes (Mochel) the liquid that is left after the three drops are allowed to drip out, when a person fills a barrel with Terumah obviously the liquid that is left in the barrel is also Terumah! Although this distinction is expressed by the Gemara's answer, what was Rebbi Elazar's question in the first place? Why did Rebbi Elazar not make such a distinction? (<b>RAMBAN</b> and Rishonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> Rebbi Elazar initially assumed that liquid being purchased and liquid of Terumah are comparable, because the Mishnah in Terumos states that when a person pours Terumah into the Kohen's vessel and lets three drops drip out, he may then fill his empty vessel with a liquid of Chulin and he does not have to reckon with whatever small amount of Terumah is left in the vessel. This implies that the Halachah of Terumah is similar to the Halachah of purchasing. However, this point itself needs clarification; why does it suffice to let only three drops drip out after one empties the Terumah from the vessel? Why is he permitted to mix Chulin into the vessel afterwards?
</p><p>
The Rishonim answer that the Mishnah does not permit a person to <i>drink</i> what is left in the barrel (of Terumah) after three drops have dripped out; it only permits one to mix Chulin into the barrel and be Mevatel the Terumah. Although one normally is not allowed to knowingly be Mevatel an Isur ('Asur l'Vatel Isur l'Chatchilah'), that prohibition is only mid'Rabanan (according to most Rishonim). After a person lets three drops of Terumah drip out of the barrel, the Rabanan permit him to be Mevatel the rest l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, the Rishonim suggest two ways to explain the Gemara's comparison of a purchase with Terumah.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Rebbi Elazar initially assumed that the Mishnah in Terumos refers to a situation in which the owner originally declared the contents of the barrel as Terumah by specifying that 'this barrel shall be Terumah.' (He did not physically separate the Terumah and pour it into the barrel.) Rebbi Elazar thought that the reason why it is not necessary to let more than three drops of Terumah drip out is the same reason why the seller does not have to let more than three drops drip out into the buyer's vessel. When a buyer asks to buy a barrel of wine or oil, he does not have intention to acquire the liquid that collects on the bottom of the seller's vessel after three drops have been allowed to drip out. Similarly, when a person declares the contents of his barrel as Terumah, he intends only to make the contents of the barrel that come out right away, plus three drops, Terumah, but not the remaining contents of the barrel. (Rebbi Elazar assumed that the Mishnah maintains 'Yesh Bereirah,' and that it is possible to designate retroactively which wine comes out easily and which wine collects in the barrel after three drops have dripped out.)
</p><p>
Therefore, Rebbi Elazar asks why the wine that collects in the barrel afterward should be considered Terumah if, in the case of Mekach u'Memkar, the wine that collects afterward is not considered the buyer's. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is not discussing a case in which the person declares the barrel's contents Terumah. The reason why it is not necessary to let more than three drops drip out is <i>not</i> related to the intention of the owner in declaring the contents Terumah. Rather, all of the wine in the barrel is Terumah, but the Rabanan permitted the owner to be Mevatel the leftover Terumah after the first three drops have dripped out.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> rejects this explanation based on the implication of the Mishnayos in Terumos. However, the Ritva defends this explanation and accepts it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> explains that Rebbi Elazar thought that the seller is not required to let more than three drops drip out because of a Takanah d'Rabanan that was enacted for the benefit of the seller. The Rabanan did not require the seller to trouble himself to tilt the barrel until more than three drops come out. Rebbi Elazar thought that for the same reason, the Rabanan did not trouble the owner of Terumah to tilt his barrel and wait until more than three drops come out. That is why they permitted the owner of the Terumah to mix Chulin into the barrel after he let three drops drip out.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Elazar asks that just as the Takanah of the Mishnah applies even when the seller, on his own, tilts the barrel to let the wine collect (and the Takanah teaches that he does not have to give that wine to the buyer), when the owner of Terumah tilts his barrel to let the wine of Terumah collect at the bottom of the barrel, he still should be permitted to mix Chulin into the barrel and be Mevatel the Terumah that collected at the bottom. However, the Mishnah teaches that he may <i>not</i> do so. Why not? The Gemara answers that the reason why the seller does not need to let more than three drops drip out in the case of the Mishnah is not because of a Takanah for the benefit of the seller, but rather because the buyer was Mafkir everything in the barrel that is left after three drops drip out since he does not want to wait around for more to drip out. In the case of Terumah, however, the reason why it is not necessary to let more than three drops drip out is indeed because of a Takanah d'Rabanan which was enacted in order not to overburden the owner of the wine. Since the Takanah was made only to ease the burden of the owner of the Terumah, if the owner tilts the barrel and allows wine of Terumah to collect at the bottom such that it is easy to pour out that wine, the Rabanan did not apply their Takanah, but rather they applied their Isur not to be Mevatel Terumah l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES RIBIS APPLY TO SECHIRUS?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 86b (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If one sold 'a Kor for 30,
               each Se'ah for a Sela', after each Se'ah is measured
               out, neither can retract (the sale of that Se'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 87a - Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not hire a worker
               for a Dinar per day of work to be done later, if the
               normal wage is a Sela per day (the discount looks
               like Ribis). If he hires him to begin now, and pays
               immediately, it is permitted, even though the normal
               wages at the end of the job will be more;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If when one sells 'a Kor for 30, each Se'ah for
                    a Sela', (only) it is acquired (but either can
                    retract about the rest), here also, at any time
                    he need not finish the job. He works the last
                    days for a lower wage because he was paid in
                    advance. It should be forbidden (like in the
                    Reisha)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are never concerned for one who
               works for a small wage!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> In the Reisha, he is paid before he starts working,
               so it looks like Ribis. In the Seifa, he starts
               working immediately, so it does not look like Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 65a (Mishnah):</font></b> One may charge more
               rental if the renter pays later, but one may not
               charge more in a sale if the buyer pays later.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> One may set the rental for his yard to be 10 Sela'im
               for the year if paid up front, or one Sela per
               month. One may not set the price for his field to be
               1000 up front, or 1200 if paid after the harvest
               (when the buyer will have money).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the difference between rental and
               a sale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rental is owed only at
               the end of the term. The real rental is one per
               month, just Reuven gives a discount for paying
               early. In a purchase, the buyer owes the money
               immediately (the real price is 1000). Reuven charges
               extra for delaying payment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> We learn that rental is owed only at the end
               of the term from 'ki'Schir Shanah b'Shanah.' Rental
               for this year is paid in another (i.e. the beginning
               of the next) year.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 73a:</font></b> People who guard standing crops used to be paid
               after the grain was harvested and threshed. They
               received extra due to the delay.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> (This is Ribis.) You must help a bit at the
               granary, in order that your work continues until
               then, and there will be no delay in your wages.
               Wages are due to be paid only at the end of the job.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzia 36a and 5:21):</font></b> A Tosefta
               says that if one sold something on condition that
               the buyer pay after a year, he may offer it for a
               lower price if he will pay immediately.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> If rental would be due
                    immediately, if would be forbidden to charge
                    more for paying at the end, like in a sale.
                    Therefore, one may not say 'I will allow you to
                    pay at time Ploni (after rent was due) on
                    condition that you pay extra', it is forbidden.
                    Similarly, if a teacher was paid late, and he
                    demands the profit that he could have made with
                    the money in that time, the employer is exempt,
                    for this is like Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Teshuvos Maimoniyos (Sefer Mishpatim 15):</font></b> R. 
                    Eliezer of Tula (some texts - Tuch) said that
                    he may demand the profit that he could have
                    made. This is not Ribis. We learn from Makos
                    3a. If Edim Zomemim falsely obligated someone
                    to pay early, they pay the amount that a person
                    (Ploni) would pay to keep money longer. This
                    must refer to wages Ploni owes, and we infer
                    that Ribis does not apply to wages. If not,
                    Ploni may not pay anything, due to Ribis! R.
                    Eliezer's brother asked from Bava Metzia 73a,
                    which implies that Ribis applies to wages.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (YD Sof 160 DH ha'Me'akev):</font></b> Why was
                    R. Eliezer more lenient about wages? The
                    general rule is, all Agar Natar (wages for
                    delaying payment) is forbidden! There is no
                    proof from Makos. We evaluate what one would
                    pay, e.g. to a Nochri, or to a Yisrael who
                    transgresses, to have the money for this time.
                    The Tana did not explain this, for he was not
                    teaching about Ribis. Surely, R. Eliezer's
                    brother gave this rebuttal, but R. Eliezer did
                    not accept it. Hagahos Maimoniyos did not need
                    to bring it, for it is obvious. I do not know
                    why R. Yerucham cites such a Heter in the name
                    of Rabbeinu Meir without arguing. One may not
                    rely on it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (161:2):</font></b> Rabbeinu Meir supports R. Eliezer
                    from Makos. Had the witnesses physically seized
                    the money (for this time), they would be exempt
                    due to Ribis. All the more so they are exempt
                    for doing so through testimony! Rather, we must
                    say that Ribis does not apply to wages. There
                    is no proof from 73a. Presumably, the wages
                    owed were immediately converted to a loan, lest
                    the employer transgress not paying that day. We
                    can dispel Hagahos Ashri's proof. Once he said
                    'if you pay now, it is yours for 10', it is as
                    if he converted it to a loan. This answers all
                    the Beis Yosef's questions. In practice, we
                    leave the money where it is. If the worker
                    seized it, we do not force him to return it. In
                    this Siman the Tur says that Ribis does not
                    apply to Sechirus, i.e. mid'Oraisa it applies
                    only to loans.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 7:8):</font></b> One may charge more
               rental for land (for paying late). One may rent his
               Chatzer 'for 10 for the year if you pay me now, or
               one per month if you pay each month.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Maimoniyos (4):</font></b> R. Shimshon says that
                    this is when he entered immediately. If not, it
                    looks like Ribis, like we say at the end of
                    this Perek.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Machaneh Efrayim (Dinei Ribis 31):</font></b> The words of
                    the Gemara connote that one may charge more
                    rental (if he will pay every month) only if
                    that is the proper value. However, based on the
                    reasoning (the rental is due at the end), it
                    should be permitted even if it is worth less. A
                    support is that we forbid a similar case of a
                    sale. This is only when it is worth less
                    (Rambam 8:1, unlike Beis Yosef in the name of
                    Mahariko).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (10):</font></b> One may not charge more wages (for
               paying late).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (12):</font></b> One may not hire a worker in winter to
               work for him in Kor** (the end of winter, when it is
               coldest) for a Dinar per day and he paid him (now),
               and his work in winter** is worth a Sela per day. It
               looks like he lends to him today in order that he
               will work for less money. If he hires him to work
               from today until day Ploni for a Dinar per day, even
               though his labor is worth a Sela per day, it is
               permitted. Since he begins now, it does not look
               like he receives (a discount) for paying his wages
               early.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  <i></i>Note:</font></b> Some say that these are printing
                    errors; both should say 'summer', like YD 176:8
                    (Shinuyei Nuscha'os in Frankel Rambam).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Rashba says 'my Rebbi (R.
                    Yonah) says that we forbid only a worker. Since
                    he does not begin now, it looks like Ribis, for
                    he is not totally obligated; he may retract.
                    Rental of land is totally acquired immediately,
                    so one may rent it now for less even if later
                    it is worth more.' I.e., we permit even if he
                    does not begin to live in the Chatzer now.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Machaneh Efrayim (ibid.):</font></b> The Rashba learns
                    from Bava Basra that one may not work for less
                    than normal when he is paid in advance. I say
                    that this is only when he is hired by the day,
                    for each day is a separate contract. If he
                    hired him for a set time, it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashbam (87a DH v'Tisbera):</font></b> Often, if one has no
               food, he accepts to work for less than the normal
               wages. Therefore, it does not look like Ribis.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 176:6):</font></b> One may charge more
               rental for land. If one rented his Chatzer, and
               before the tenant made a Chazakah he said 'if you 
               pay now, it is yours for 10 for the year. If you pay
               each month, it is one per month', it is permitted.
               The same applies to wages.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If he already made a Chazakah to rent for 10
               for the year, he may not say 'pay one each month,
               and I will wait for the money.' All the more so, if
               he already owed the wages, he may not give extra for
               delaying payment.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source (Beis Yosef DH Mutar):</font></b> Talmidei
                    ha'Rashba say that this is absolute Ribis. This
                    is obvious. He does not mean Ribis Ketzuzah
                    (contracted), for anything not through a loan
                    is not Ribis Ketzuzah (Rambam Hilchos Malveh
                    8:1). Rather, it is proper Ribis, and not
                    merely a ruse for Ribis. Or, since he already
                    made a Chazakah in the Chatzer and acquired it
                    for 10, and now he pays more because the
                    payments are delayed, it is as if he gave to
                    him the 10 and took it back, it is truly Ribis
                    Ketzuzah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (8):</font></b> When he already owed the wages, the
                    Beis Yosef would agree that this is absolute
                    Ribis. He was unsure when Chazakah was made,
                    but the money was not yet due.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (8):</font></b> This shows that there is no
                    difference between money owed for rental and a
                    loan, like the Beis Yosef, and unlike the Bach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (8):</font></b> If one hires a worker in winter
               to work for him in summer for a Dinar per day and he
               paid him (now), and his work in summer is worth a
               Sela per day, it is forbidden, for it looks like he
               lends to him today in order that he will work for
               less money. If he hires him to work from today until
               day Ploni for a Dinar per day, even though his labor
               is worth a Sela per day, it is permitted. Since he
               begins now, it does not look like he receives (a
               discount) for paying his wages early.
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHLICHUS YAD AND SHO'EL SHE'LO MI'DA'AS </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> Here, they belong to Reuven because
          Shimon despairs (of getting any more) after the three
          drops.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A grocer need not wait for three drops. (R.
          Yehudah says, just before Shabbos he need not wait).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does R. Yehudah argue with the Reisha (that
          always obligates a regular person), and he is lenient
          just before Shabbos?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Or, does R. Yehudah argue with this clause (that
               always exempts a grocer), and he is stringent
               (except for just before Shabbos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Just before Shabbos, a
          grocer need not wait, because he is very busy.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENTRUSTING OBJECTS OF VALUE TO A MINOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sent his son (a minor, with a coin
          worth two Isarim) to a grocer (Shimon), who gave to him
          an Isar worth of oil and an Isar change, and the child
          broke the flask and lost the Isar, Shimon is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah exempts him, for he did like Reuven wanted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Chachamim agree that if the child held the flask and
          Shimon measured into it, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> We understand the argument about the
          Isar and the oil. Chachamim say that the child was sent
          to inform Shimon to send (the oil and Isar) with an
          adult, and R. Yehudah says that he wanted Shimon to send
          them with the child;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, why do Chachamim obligate him for the
               flask? Reuven knowingly gave it to his son (who is
               prone to break it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Hoshaya):</font></b> The case is, Reuven sells
          flasks. Shimon picked it up to see if he wants to buy it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If one takes a Kli from a craftsman to
               see if he wants to buy it, and Ones occurred, he is
               liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> If so, Shmuel's law is like Chachamim, but
          not like R. Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> The case is, Shimon
          sells flasks (it was his flask). They argue about the
          flask like they argue about the Isar and oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Seifa):</font></b> Chachamim agree that if the child
          held the flask and Shimon measured into it, he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon was supposed to send the oil with an
               adult, why is he exempt? (Tosfos - Rabah and Rav
               Yosef explain that in the Seifa, Reuven sent his son
               with a flask. The Gemara does not accept this.)
<br><br>
<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE PARAMETERS OF 'AVEIDAH MI'DA'AS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person sends a flask with his young child to a storekeeper in order to buy oil. The storekeeper takes the flask from the child, fills it with oil, and sends it back with the child to the buyer. The Tana Kama rules that if the flask breaks while the child is carrying it back to his father, the storekeeper is obligated to pay the father for the flask (and the oil).
</p><p>
The Gemara questions why the storekeeper should be obligated to pay for the flask. Since the buyer sent it with his young child, it should be considered an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as,' something that a person willingly lost or destroyed. The father knowingly gave the flask to a young child and he was aware of the significant risk that the child might break the flask. The storekeeper, therefore, should be exempt.
</p><p>
The words 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' imply that the father made the flask Hefker by giving it to the child. By putting the flask in a situation where it could be easily lost or broken, it is as if the father renounced his ownership of it. This can be inferred from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (21b) which says that if a person -- after collecting the grain from his granary -- leaves over a small amount of grain that is spread over a large area (Kav b'Arba Amos), that grain is considered an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' and one may assume that the owner was Mafkir it for all to take. (See Gemara there, 21a, and Rashi there, 21b, DH d'Aveidah mi'Da'as.)
</p><p>
If 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' means that the owner made the object Hefker, then what is the meaning of the answers which the Gemara suggests to explain why the flask is not considered an Aveidah mi'Da'as? The Gemara suggests that the storekeeper is obligated to pay the father because he accepted responsibility for the flask either by intending to purchase it or by using it without permission. If the flask is Hefker because it is an Aveidah mi'Da'as, then the storekeeper has permission to take it for himself without obligating himself in any payment to the father! Why should he be obligated to pay the father (when the flask breaks in the hands of the child) just because he used it without permission? No permission is necessary to use it! (See <b>SHACH</b> CM 261:3.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> It is clear that the Gemara here uses the words 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' with a different meaning than usual. Although the Gemara in Bava Metzia (21b) says that the term 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' means that the owner made the object Hefker by knowingly and willingly leaving it behind, the Gemara here uses that term to mean merely that the owner placed the object in a precarious position, and, as a result of his action, there is no obligation for anyone else to save it or return it to him. The owner's action of relative irresponsibility with his object exempts others from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. It does <i>not</i>, however, make the object Hefker and permit others to use it without permission. (They are exempt from Hashavas Aveidah because the owner knows where it is and he put it into that place or into that situation, and thus it is not considered an 'Aveidah' which needs to be returned.)
</p><p>
How does one determine which type of Aveidah mi'Da'as the owner makes Hefker, and which type of Aveidah mi'Da'as is not Hefker (but rather merely does not have to be returned to the owner with the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah)? The Gemara in Bava Metzia (23b) applies the words 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' to an object which a person leaves in a place that is not safe; the Gemara calls a barrel of wine that was left open in a place where crawling creatures can enter it an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as.' The Gemara there (25b) calls an object left in a garbage heap which is emptied often an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as.' In addition, the Gemara there (31a) says that if a person's animal wanders into the field of a Nochri who warns the owner that he is going to kill the animal if it is not removed immediately, and the owner still does not remove the animal, it is called an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as.' In such situations, does the object become Hefker? There seem to be two opinions in the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gezeilah 11:11) writes that if a person knowingly places his money in a position where, in all likelihood, it will become lost (for example, he throws his wallet into the area of Reshus ha'Rabim), there is no Mitzvah for others to return it to him, but it is still not permitted for others to take it because it is not Hefker. The Rambam seems to understand that most cases of Aveidah mi'Da'as are not cases of Hefker, like the case in the Gemara here. Why, then, is the grain considered Hefker in the case in Bava Metzia of the grain left in the granary?
</p><p>
The Rambam understands that the case there is different. In that case, there is strong reason to assume that the owner does not have any intention to return to gather the leftover produce for himself. It is inconvenient for him to collect it because of the combination of its low value and the trouble involved in gathering it. In contrast, when a person acts in a seemingly illogical manner by not taking care of his possessions, since there is no rational explanation for his behavior it is assumed that he was temporarily mentally disoriented but that he eventually he will regain his faculties and will return to collect his money. It is assumed that in the back of his mind he wants to come and collect it at a later time, and therefore he is not making it Hefker now. (<b>TAZ</b> and <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> CM 261)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TUR</b> disagrees with the Rambam. He writes that an Aveidah mi'Da'as is generally Hefker, as the words themselves imply. (According to the Rambam, the Gemara here should say simply that 'it is not an Aveidah' (and that is why the storeowner should be exempt) and not that it is an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as.') The Gemara is borrowing the term 'Aveidah mi'Da'as' and using it with a different meaning. Why, then, is the father's act of sending the flask with a child not considered an act of Hefker, if an Aveidah mi'Da'as normally is Hefker?
</p><p>
The reason might be that in the case of the Gemara there is a clear purpose for which the father is entrusting the flask to the child: he wants the flask to reach the storekeeper in the most convenient way for him to get it there. It is assumed that the father considered the advantages and disadvantages of sending the flask with the child, and decided that it is worthwhile to send it with the child despite the risks involved. There is no reason to assume that he is making his flask Hefker. In contrast, if a person places his money in a position where it easily can become lost and he will gain nothing from it, it is assumed that he does not care if it becomes lost and that he has made it Hefker.
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS ONE WHO TAKES AND RETURNS SOMETHING RESPONSIBLE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Abaye bar Avin and R. Chanina bar Avin):</font></b> The
          case is, Shimon took the flask to measure (the oil for
          Reuven) with it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> If an animal was lost, and a Chacham
               (who is exempt from returning it, for it is beneath
               his dignity) hit it (to make it return by itself),
               he is responsible to return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> Rabah said so about an animal. Once it
          strays, it is less likely to return home;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We have no source that using a flask (for the
               sake of Reuven) obligates him to return it to
               Reuven!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (Rava and R. Zeira):</font></b> The case is, Shimon took
          the flask to measure with it for others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that one who borrows without
               permission is like a borrower, it suffices to return
               it to where he took it from (the child);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that one who borrows without
               permission is like a robber, so he must return it to
               the owner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> If one takes a Kli from a craftsman to see if
          he wants to buy it, and Ones occurred, he is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if the price is known.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Levi entered a meat store, and picked up thigh to
          inspect it. A horseman came and took it; Rav Yemar
          obligated Levi to pay;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only because the price was known.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Reuven brought gourds to Fum Nahara to sell. Everyone
          took one each (intending to buy it. Reuven thought that
          they were stealing.) He said 'they are Hekdesh!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Kahana:</font></b> One cannot make Hekdesh something
               that is not his. (The buyers acquired them. They
               merely owed money.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is only if the price is known. If not, they
               still belonged to Reuven, and they are now Hekdesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If a Chaver (one who is trustworthy about
          Ma'aseros) was looking at vegetables to buy them (from
          Reuven, who is not a Chaver), even for a whole day, he
          does not acquire (until he decides absolutely), so he
          need not tithe them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he decided to buy them, he acquires, and he
               must tithe them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He may not return them (intact), for they must be
                    tithed (a Chaver may not give or sell Tevel
                    before tithing it);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  He may not tithe them and return (the
                    rest), for this reduces their value!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  He tithes them and pays to Reuven the value
                    of the Ma'aser (and returns the remaining
                    vegetables).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does he acquire and need to tithe them just
          because he decided to buy them?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Hoshaya):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a Heaven-
          fearing person like Rav Safra, who fulfilled 'v'Dover
          Emes bi'Lvavo' (he fulfilled his intention, even though
          he did not say a word).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CLEANING ONE'S MEASURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A wholesaler cleans his measures once every
          30 days (because they are used often, much sticks to
          them);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	A regular person (who sells less frequently) cleans his
          measures once every 12 months;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, just the contrary! (A
          wholesaler's Kelim are used often, so the remaining drops
          rarely dry up and stick to the Kelim, so once a year
          suffices. Others must clean them once every 30 days.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	A grocer cleans his measures twice a week, his weights
          once a week, and his scale after every weighing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this applies to (Kelim that
          hold) liquids. For dry things, there is no need to clean
          the Kelim.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) EXAMINING AN OBJECT BEFORE PURCHASING IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that when a potential buyer picks up an object to examine it before he buys it, and the price of that object is known, he becomes responsible for it. If the object is stolen or destroyed (even through an Ones) while it is in the buyer's hands, he is obligated to pay for it as if he had purchased it.
</p><p>
The Gemara teaches further that when a potential buyer inspects vegetables (being sold by an Am ha'Aretz) in the market and decides to purchase a particular one, he may not change his mind and return the vegetable to its place without first separating Ma'aser from it. (Produce sold by an Am ha'Aretz is 'Demai' from which the Rabanan required that Ma'aser be separated.) The Gemara explains that this applies only to a person who is particularly G-d-fearing and always acts in accordance with his inner intentions even when no others are aware of those intentions. (The Gemara refers to Rav Safra as an example of such a person; see Background to the Daf.) A person who is not on such a level may return the vegetable without separating Ma'aser, since he has not actually purchased the vegetable (he simply <i>wanted</i> to purchase it). The <b>RITVA</b> adds that this Halachah applies only when the price of the vegetable is already known.
</p><p>
If the price of the vegetable is already known, and the potential buyer picked it up in order to purchase it, why is he permitted to return it without separating Ma'aser (if he is not like Rav Safra)? According to the teaching of the Gemara earlier, it seems that from the moment a person lifts an object with intention to purchase it, the object becomes his. If he returns it to the seller, then he is 'reselling' it and he must first separate Ma'aser of Demai!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> It is clear from the Gemara that this principle, that the act of examining merchandise is tantamount to purchasing it, does <i>not</i> apply when the buyer examines an object and decides that it does <i>not</i> meet his standards and he chooses to return it. Only when he does <i>not</i> return the object does the buyer becomes responsible for the object immediately. Therefore, when the buyer explicitly states that he does <i>not</i> want to purchase the object, the object does not become his and he is not responsible for it.
</p><p>
There are two ways to understand this distinction:
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH v'Hani) gives two explanations for why the buyer's act of examining an object makes him responsible for any mishap that befalls it. According to one approach, the buyer is considered simply to have <i>borrowed</i> the object when he picked it up in order to examine it. It is not yet <i>his</i>, but rather he is a <i>Shomer</i>. He bears responsibility for the object and must pay for it if it becomes destroyed in accordance with the laws of Shomrim, and not because he purchased the object.
</p><p>
According to this approach, it is clear that the buyer is only <i>responsible</i> for the object, and not that it actually belongs to him (until he pays for it). If the buyer retracts and does not pay for it, he may return the object.
</p><p>
However, many Rishonim disagree with this approach and prove (from the incident that the Gemara relates about the gourds that were sold in Pum-Nehara) that the buyer indeed acquires the object by examining it and he is not just a Shomer. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 87b, DH ha'Loke'ach, and Rishonim.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> and the <b>RE'EM</b> (cited by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>) explain that a person acquires an object through examining it only because it is assumed that the object will <i>probably</i> find favor in his eyes (since most merchandise is not defective). If the object becomes destroyed while in the hands of the buyer, the buyer must pay for it since he did not retract from the purchase due to a deficiency in the object and he probably would have purchased it. However, if the buyer explicitly states that this is <i>not</i> what he wants to purchase (even if he thought at first that it <i>was</i> what he wanted), he is not considered to have purchased the object, and therefore he may return it without separating Ma'aser.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) CAUSING THE SELLER A LOSS BY SEPARATING 'MA'ASEROS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that when a G-d-fearing person inspects vegetables being sold by an Am ha'Aretz in the market and decides to purchase a particular one, he may not change his mind and return the vegetable to its place without first separating Ma'aser of Demai (see previous Insight). However, by separating Ma'aser before he returns the produce, he reduces the value of the produce and causes harm to the seller. Therefore, he must separate Ma'aser and compensate the seller for the loss incurred by the separation of Ma'aser from his produce.
</p><p>
What loss does the seller suffer when the buyer separates Ma'aser from the produce? Since one is obligated to separate Ma'aser from produce bought from an Am ha'Aretz (because it is assumed that he did not yet separate Ma'aseros), the true value of the produce is its value after Ma'aser Demai has been separated from it. The Am ha'Aretz cannot charge for the portion of the produce that must be separated as Ma'aser; the buyer knows that he will have to separate it from the produce after he buys it, and thus the buyer agrees to pay only what the Demai is worth after Ma'aser is separated.
</p><p>
The loss that the seller incurs because he could have sold the produce to a Nochri or to another Am ha'Aretz (who is not careful to separate Ma'aser and views the produce as already fit to eat) certainly cannot be considered a loss caused by the potential buyer. The extra amount that the Am ha'Aretz charges for the Ma'aseros in such a case is analogous to theft, since the Ma'aseros are not the seller's to sell. One certainly is not required to compensate the Am ha'Aretz for that type of loss.
</p><p>
Perhaps the loss suffered by the Am ha'Aretz is the 'Tovas Hana'ah' (the right to distribute the Ma'aseros to any Kohen or Levi of his choice), since the buyer, and not the Am ha'Aretz, is distributing the Ma'aseros. However, if this indeed is the loss, then it should suffice for the buyer to return to the Am ha'Aretz the Ma'aseros and let the Am ha'Aretz distribute them as he wishes, in which case the Am ha'Aretz would be suffering no loss. What, then, is the loss incurred due to the separation of Ma'aseros from the produce?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that even after the Ma'aser is separated, potential buyers of the produce will not believe the Am ha'Aretz's claim that Ma'aser was already separated from the produce. Therefore, they will pay only the price of Demai for the produce, and they will not pay the normal price of Chulin for it. This is the loss that the Am ha'Aretz incurs.
</p><p>
One may ask that if this is the loss, then the Am ha'Aretz simply can take back the Ma'aseros from the person who separated it when he takes back the rest of the produce. He then will display the Ma'aser along with the produce to prove that Ma'aser indeed was separated from this produce. Once he declares some of the produce that he is selling to be Ma'aser he certainly should be trusted to say that Ma'aser was separated from his produce, since he gains nothing by falsely declaring his produce Ma'aser if it was not actually separated as Ma'aser.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Ritva means that even if the Am ha'Aretz does declare part of the produce to be Ma'aser, he is not trusted. That produce might be Ma'aser that was separated for other produce, but not for the produce that he is selling now.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> also points out that there are some types of people who pay the full price for produce that is Tevel, even though they are required to separate Ma'aser from it. A Kohen, Levi, and a poor person pay the full price for Tevel, because each one knows that he may eat the Terumah, Ma'aser, or Ma'aser Ani, respectively, once he has separated it from the produce. The produce has more value to those types of people than just the 'Tovas Hana'ah.' However, if the Terumah or Ma'aser is separated already, the Am ha'Aretz may no longer sell the produce to a Kohen, Levi, or poor person for a higher price, because he is obligated to deliver the Terumah or Ma'aser to them free of charge! This difference in price constitutes the loss that the buyer has caused to the Am ha'Aretz by separating Ma'aser from the produce.
</p><p>
(c) The words of the <b>RASHBAM</b> may present an original answer to this question.
</p><p>
The Halachah of Demai is that one must separate from the produce of an Am ha'Aretz its Terumas Ma'aser and Ma'aser Sheni, and these must be given to the Kohen and eaten in Yerushalayim, respectively. (Terumah Gedolah, because of its severity, is presumed to have been separated already by the Am ha'Aretz.) Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani are also separated from the produce of an Am ha'Aretz. However, since it is possible that the Am ha'Aretz already separated all of the Ma'aser from his produce (most Amei ha'Aretz <i>do</i> separate Terumos and Ma'aseros from their produce before selling it; see Sotah 47b), the doubtful Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani may be eaten by the owner of the produce himself (who separated them) and need not be given to a Levi and poor person, in accordance with the principle of 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.' (This principle does not apply to Terumas Ma'aser, which is prohibited to a non-Kohen, or to Ma'aser Sheni, which is prohibited to be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because a Torah prohibition and not just a monetary issue is involved.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, in the Gemara's case, when the buyer separates Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani, he should be allowed to <i>keep it for himself</i>. The Rashbam, however, writes otherwise. The Rashbam (DH Me'asran), as well as <b>RABEINU GERSHOM</b>, write that the potential buyer not only must separate the Ma'aseros of Demai, but he must also give those Ma'aseros to a Levi and to a poor person! Why must he give them away if they are only Ma'aseros out of doubt? (See <b>RASHASH</b>.)
</p><p>
The answer might be that the person who separates Ma'aser does so in order to exempt the vegetable of an <i>Am ha'Aretz</i> (i.e. the part of the vegetable that he is <i>not</i> buying) from Demai, and not to exempt his own vegetable. Normally, one does not have to deliver Ma'aser Rishon of Demai to a Levi since it is possible that Ma'aser Rishon was already separated and given to a Levi by the Am ha'Aretz. However, this argument does not apply to the Am ha'Aretz himself; he knows for certain whether or not Ma'aseros have already been separated from his produce. If, in truth, he has not yet separated Ma'aser, then he is not exempt from his obligation to separate Ma'aser until he actually <i>gives</i> the Ma'aser to the Levi.
</p><p>
The same applies to the person who separates Ma'aser on behalf of the Am ha'Aretz. He does not exempt the Am ha'Aretz from his obligations unless he actually gives the Ma'aser to the Levi, due to the possibility that the Am ha'Aretz has not yet given it. In this case, the principle of 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah' does not apply, since it is the buyer's interest not only to permit the food to be eaten, but to exempt the Am ha'Aretz from <i>his</i> obligations of Ma'aseros. Therefore, he must give the Ma'aser to the Levi or poor person.
</p><p>
(The Gemara in Nedarim 36b discusses who has the 'Tovas Hana'ah,' the right of distribution, when a person separates Ma'aser from <i>his own</i> produce in order to exempt the produce of <i>another person</i> from Ma'aseros. Our explanation here might apply even if the one who separates the Ma'aser has the right of 'Tovas Hana'ah.')
</p><p>
According to this explanation, if the buyer must give the Ma'aser to a Levi or poor person, unlike normal Demai, it is clear why the buyer is causing a loss to the Am ha'Aretz. Had the buyer not separated Ma'aser Rishon or Ma'aser Ani, the Am ha'Aretz could have sold the produce for a much higher price, since the eventual buyer would have been required only to give away the Terumas Ma'aser and Ma'aser Sheni; he would have kept the Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani for himself. Now that the potential buyer has given away the Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani, the Am ha'Aretz is losing money. That is why the buyer must reimburse the Am ha'Aretz for the loss he incurs through the separation of Ma'aseros. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHO'EL SHE'LO MI'DA'AS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 87b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sent his son (with a flask)
               to a grocer (Shimon), who gave to him oil, and the
               child broke the flask, Shimon is liable;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah exempts him, for he did like Reuven
               wanted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim agree that if the child held the flask and
               Shimon measured into it, he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do Chachamim obligate him? Reuven
               knowingly gave it to his son (who is prone to break
               it)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava and R. Zeira):</font></b> The case is, Shimon took
               it to measure for others. R. Yehudah holds that
               Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is like a borrower. It
               suffices to return it to where he took it from (the
               child). Chachamim hold that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as
               is like a thief, and he must return it to the owner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 40b (Seifa of Mishnah):</font></b> If one deposited
               a barrel with Shimon, and designated where it should
               be kept, whether it broke while Shimon was holding
               it or after he put it down, if he picked it up for
               his needs, he is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 41a (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Shimon moved it (to use it like a
               ladder) in order to bring chicks (from a high nest,
               and put the barrel down elsewhere)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes says that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as (one
               who borrows without permission) is considered a
               thief. The Seifa is like R. Yishmael, who holds that
               a thief can return the theft to where he stole it
               from.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan says that (even though the Reisha is R.
               Yishmael,) we must say that the Seifa is like R.
               Akiva, who holds that a thief must inform the owner
               when returning theft, for 'put it down' connotes in
               its place.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Basra 44b and 5:20):</font></b> Chachamim
               hold that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is a thief,
               therefore, it is in Shimon's Reshus. Even if he
               returned it to the child, he is not exempt until he
               returns it to the owner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzia 23b and 3:20):</font></b> The
               Halachah is that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is a thief.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (23a DH Masnisin (2)):</font></b> If one
                    lifted it with intent to use it, he is Sho'el
                    she'Lo mi'Da'as, i.e. a thief, even before
                    using it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 3:15):</font></b> If Levi's child or
               slave was holding a flask, and Ploni took it and
               used it, he is a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, who is like
               a thief. It is in his Reshus to be liable for Ones
               until he returns it to Levi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Lechem Mishneh:</font></b> Why did the Rambam need to say
                    that he used it? He is liable even if he <i>took</i>
                    it to use (Bava Basra 88a)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (Bava Kama 198):</font></b> If a Shomer borrowed one
               item deposited with him and later returned it to its
               initial place, he is not a borrower. He is a regular
               Shomer, and [Beis Yosef's text - because] a Shomer's
               Da'as (intent) is like the owner's Da'as. Even R.
               Akiva says only that a thief's Shemirah ended, for
               from now and onwards the owner does not trust him,
               but he trusts a borrower.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shiltei ha'Giborim (Bava Metzia 23b:1):</font></b> This is
                    even according to R. Akiva. Why isn't he
                    considered Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, who is like
                    a thief? We must say that since a Shomer's
                    Da'as is like the owner's Da'as, it is as if he
                    borrowed with permission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Shitah Mekubetzes (41a DH Tirgema, citing the
               Ritva):.If something is normally rented, a Sho'el
               she'Lo mi'Da'as intends to pay the rental, but the
               owner could lose from his usage. If no loss can
               occur, no one would consider Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as
               to be a thief. This is like Rashi, the Ramban,
               Tosfos and the Rashba, unlike the Ba'al ha'Ma'or.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 292:1):</font></b> If a Shomer lifted the
               deposit for a use that causes no loss, he is not
               liable until he uses it. He is Sho'el she'Lo
               mi'Da'as, who is like a thief.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva Eiger:</font></b> The Nimukei Yosef obligates
                    even before using it! Machaneh Efrayim says
                    that this is only when he removes it from the
                    owner's Reshus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If he returned it to the place from where he
               took it, he resumes his law of a Shomer, since he
               was a mere borrower.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (4):</font></b> If he took it for a use that
                    diminishes it, he is Shole'ach Yad, which is
                    like a thief. A thief is not trusted, so it is
                    not considered returned without the owner's
                    knowledge. However, the Mordechai says that we
                    discuss something that the owner is not
                    particular if people use it without permission.
                    In such a case he is not called a thief. Here
                    we do not discuss this, for he is called a
                    thief!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (1):</font></b> The Rema's law is difficult. The
                    Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tur and Mechaber (Sa'if 6)
                    rule like R. Yochanan, who establishes the
                    Seifa like R. Akiva. The Rema learns from the
                    Mordechai, but this is wrong. He understood
                    that the Mordechai discusses one who borrowed
                    without the owner's Da'as. If so, surely he is
                    a thief! Also, if so the Mordechai should have
                    said he <i>took</i> an item, not <i>borrowed</i>. Rather,
                    the Mordechai teaches that he is not like a
                    borrower who must return to the owner himself.
                    Since the owner gave permission, his Shemirah
                    did not end. The <b>SMA</b> (4) and Bach say that the
                    Mordechai discusses something that the owner
                    does not mind if people use it without
                    permission. Even according to this, the Rema is
                    difficult, for he connotes that we do not
                    discuss this, for he calls him a thief, like
                    the <b>SMA</b> says. The <b>SMA</b> and Bach say that if the
                    owner does not mind if people use it without
                    permission, he is not called a thief. One need
                    not say so. He is a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, and
                    can benefit from it when he wants. This is like
                    money (for which he is liable for Ones)!
                    Shiltei ha'Giborim is astounding. Rav Sheshes
                    explicitly considers a Shomer who borrows
                    without permission to be a thief. He is liable
                    for Ones even after returning it. The Mordechai
                    cannot say that R. Yochanan disagrees. R.
                    Yochanan explained the Mishnah unlike Rav
                    Sheshes only because he holds that 'put it
                    down' connotes in its place. Also, in Sa'if 6
                    the Rema agreed with the Shulchan Aruch and
                    Poskim. To resolve this, Ir Shushan explained
                    that Sa'if 6 discusses use with intent to
                    diminish it. This is wrong. Also Sa'if 6
                    discusses use without intent to diminish it.
                    Until we find a proper resolution, we cannot
                    rule like the Rema here.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz:</font></b> We could say that the Mordechai holds that
                    people do not consider Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as
                    like a thief, therefore his Shemirah does not
                    end (the owner consents that he remain a
                    Shomer). However, this would not explain the
                    Rema in Sa'if 6! Rather, we must say that he
                    discusses borrowing with the owner's
                    permission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (ibid.):</font></b> Regarding coins, he is liable for Ones
               in such a case.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (5):</font></b> This is because coins are always ready
                    to buy merchandise.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (6):</font></b> If one deposited a barrel with
               Shimon, whether or not he designated a place for it,
               and Shimon moved it for his own use and it broke, he
               is liable, whether it broke before or after he
               returned it to its place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (308:7):</font></b> If Ploni took David's donkey without
               permission and used it with intent to pay rental, he
               is Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, who is like a thief. If
               the donkey is normally rented, he is not a thief,
               unless David's household protested that David needs
               it. If Levi did so to avoid a loss, and will
               compensate David for his loss, he is not a thief,
               for Beis Din stipulated about this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Terumas ha'Deshen (316):</font></b> Reuven used to rent
                    out his horse. Shimon needed to borrow it to
                    save a big loss. Reuven's wife said 'Reuven
                    needs it today to avoid a (smaller) loss.'
                    Shimon said that he will pay the rent and
                    compensate Reuven if Reuven loses. The horse
                    died b'Ones while Shimon was using it. It seems
                    that he is liable. Since Reuven's wife said
                    that Reuven does not want to rent it today,
                    Shimon is a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, who is a
                    thief. Even though Reuven did not want to rent
                    it only lest he lose, and Shimon agreed to pay
                    for any loss, Bava Kama 60b forbids to take
                    barley with intent to pay back lentils. The
                    Rosh explains that lentils are better; still,
                    he is called a thief. However, many hold that
                    he is not a thief, for Beis Din stipulated that
                    Yosef may force Moshe to help save Yosef from a
                    loss (Bava Kama 81b). If so, all the more so
                    Yosef may take what he needs to avoid a loss!
                    The Rif rules that there is no such enactment.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (14):</font></b> The Rema (264:5) wrote that some
                    argue about this enactment. Here he just says
                    that Levi is not a thief, for perhaps if David
                    were here he would agree to help save David's
                    loss.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ketzos ha'Choshen (3):</font></b> Levi is liable if it
                    died from work. Normally, a renter is exempt
                    for this, but here he rented she'Lo mi'Da'as.
                    In such a case the owner may demand the rental
                    or the depreciation (Bava Kama 97a). The Rema
                    teaches that he is not a thief to be liable for
                    <i>Ones</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (366:3):</font></b> Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is a
               thief. If Levi's child or slave was holding a flask,
               and Ploni took it and used it, he is a Sho'el she'Lo
               mi'Da'as, and it is in his Reshus to be liable for
               Ones until he returns it to Levi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (7):</font></b> The Tur said <i>snatched</i> it. The
                    Shulchan Aruch said 'took', and did not say
                    that the child was a minor. This connotes that
                    even if Levi's adult child willingly gave it to
                    Ploni, he is a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as and is
                    liable for Ones, since it is not the son's,
                    rather, Levi's.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHLICHUS YAD AND SHO'EL SHE'LO MI'DA'AS </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>GIVING EXTRA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	The grocer must give enough Peros to be Machri'a (lift
          the pan holding the weights) a Tefach (above the Peros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he (is in a place where one) measures evenly, he
          compensates by adding extra Peros, one part for 10 for
          liquids, and one for 20 for dry measures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	In a place where people measure with small Kelim, he
          should not measure with big Kelim (for there will be
          fewer weighings);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In a place where people measure with big Kelim,
               he should not measure with small Kelim (the seller
               cannot make them so even).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	In a place where people sell even measures, he should
          not give a heaping measure, or vice-versa (we will
          explain why).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source (that one must
          make the weights go a Tefach higher)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> '<i>Even</i> Sheleimah va'Tzedek' -
          give more than the full measure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> In a place where people measure
          evenly, he compensates by adding extra.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Torah requires Hachra'ah, how can he weigh
               evenly?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, the Torah does not require Hachra'ah
          (but where people do so, one must be Machri'a a Tefach);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We asked for the source that in a place where
               people measure evenly, he compensates by adding
               extra. Reish Lakish answered that we learn from
               'Even Sheleimah va'Tzedek.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How much extra must one give? (What does it
          mean 'one part for 10'?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal):</font></b> It is a tenth of a liter for
          a sale of 10 liters (i.e. one part in 100) for liquids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He adds one part for 10 for liquids, and one
          for 20 for dry measures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does it mean a tenth of a liter for a sale of 10
               liters for liquids, and one part in 20 of a liter
               for a sale of 20 liters for dry measures?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does it mean, a tenth of a liter for a sale
               of 10 liters for liquids, or for a sale of 20 liters
               for dry measures?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS MORE SEVERE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Levi):</font></b> The punishment for false measures is more
          severe than for incest. Regarding false measures it says
          'El', regarding incest it says 'Eleh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the source that 'El' connotes
          strength?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'V'Es Elei ha'Aretz Lokach.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Regarding incest it says 'Eleh', which also
          connotes severity!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, 'Eleh' teaches that Kares (applies to
          Arayos, but it) does not apply to false measures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Since Kares applies to Arayos but not to
          false measures, why are false measures considered more
          stringent?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One can repent after sinning with Arayos, but
          not after sinning with false measures (he does not
          remember to whom he owes money).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Levi):</font></b> The punishment for stealing from a person is
          worse than for stealing from Hekdesh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding stealing from a person, the Torah says
               'Chet', before (he benefited, i.e.) 'Me'ilah'.
               Regarding stealing from Hekdesh, it does not say
               'Chet' until after 'Me'ilah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Levi):</font></b> Hash-m acts unlike people: Hash-m blessed
          Yisrael with 22 letters (from Aleph to Tav - '<i>I</i>m
          Bechukosai Telechu... Komemiyu<i>s</i>') and cursed them with
          eight (from Vov to Mem, '<i>v</i>'Im Bechukosai Tim'asu...
          Go'alah Nafsha<i>m</i>')
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Moshe blessed Yisrael with eight letters,
               '<i>v</i>'Hayah Im Shamo'a... l'Avda<i>m</i>', and cursed them
               with 22, '<i>v</i>'Hayah Im Lo Sishma... v'Ein Kone<i>h</i>.'
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) A PUNISHMENT OF 'ELEH' IS WORSE</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara teaches that the punishment for one who uses dishonest measures is worse than the punishment for one who transgresses the prohibitions of Arayos. The Gemara proves this from the fact that the Torah refers to the prohibitions of Arayos as 'El,' implying a high degree of severity, while it refers to the prohibitions of using dishonest measures as 'Eleh' (with a 'Heh' at the end of the word), implying an even higher degree of severity.
</p><p>
How does the extra 'Heh' allude to a higher degree of severity? (See commentary of <b>RAV SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH</b> to Devarim 25:16.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains the Gemara here based on the Gemara in Menachos (29b). The Gemara in Menachos teaches that Olam ha'Zeh was created with the letter Heh. This signifies that just as the bottom of the Heh is open, so, too, it is easy to 'drop out from the bottom' of this world (by corrupting oneself through sinning and through abandoning the Mitzvos). The Heh has an opening on top as well, in order to 'allow in' the penitent person who 'raises himself' back up to this world through Teshuvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara there explains that a 'return entrance' into the world cannot be made through the opening on the bottom of the Heh, because once a person has sinned it is difficult for him to return by using the same path with which he strayed. He must find a new 'entry point' if he wishes to return to his former position.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the letter Heh alludes to the difficulty of repentance after one has sinned. That is why the letter Heh is used to indicate the severity of using dishonest measures. Indeed, the Gemara states that the reason for the profound severity of the sin of using dishonest weights is the same reason mentioned in Menachos for why an extra entrance is required for the person who does Teshuvah: once a person has sinned with dishonest measures, it is very difficult to do Teshuvah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> explains that the Gemara here alludes to the Midrash (cited by Rashi to Vayikra 19:35) which teaches that one who sells merchandise by weight or measure is compared to a judge, and if he uses inaccurate measuring devices he is like a judge who passes an unjust ruling. For doing so, <i>five</i> epithets are used to describe his corruption ('Avel, San'uy, Meshukatz, Cherem, To'evah') and the <i>five</i> consequences indicated for the corruption of justice will come into effect (Eretz Yisrael will become defiled, the Holy Name will become desecrated, the Shechinah will depart, the people of Yisrael will fall by the sword, and ultimately they will go into exile).
</p><p>
The Gematriya of the letter Heh is five, and thus the Heh of 'Eleh' alludes to the five epithets and consequences which make the corruption of measures such a severe sin.
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> adds that the Gemara here gives new insight into a verse in Tehilim (107:43): 'Whoever is wise enough to observe these (Eleh), they will perceive the kindness of Hash-m.' The Gemara later (89a) teaches that if one maintains honest measures in his home, then Hash-m will reward him with wealth. Accordingly, the verse in Tehilim may be read as follows: one who carefully observes the Torah's directives regarding 'Eleh' (honest measures) will be rewarded by having the kindness of Hash-m manifest itself in his house!
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW WE CONDUCT WITH MEASURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> In a place where they normally measure in
          big Kelim...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> In a place where people sell even measures,
          he should not give a heaping measure, or vice-versa -
          'Eifah Shelemah' (the measure should be full);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If one says (in a place where people give a heaping
          measure) 'I will give an even measure and deduct from the
          price', or (in a place where they sell evenly) 'I will
          take a heaping measure and pay more, we do not allow this
          - 'Eifah Shelemah va'Tzedek Yihyeh Lach.' (This could
          lead to swindling, if onlookers do not know that there
          was compensation for the deviation from the custom.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> In a place where they are Machri'a, one may
          not weigh evenly, and vice-versa - 'Eifah Shelemah';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one says 'I will deviate from the custom and
               compensate for this', we do not allow this - 'Eifah
               Shelemah va'Tzedek Yihyeh Lach'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha' teaches that we appoint
          people to inspect and punish for false measures, but
          (reasoning says,) not for prices. (If one charges too
          much, people will buy from others.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	The Nasi's house appointed people to supervise measures
          and prices.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	Shmuel told Karna to teach them that we appoint for
          measures, but not for prices. Karna taught that we
          appoint for measures and prices.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel cursed Karna, that a Keren (horn) should
               grow between his eyes. This was fulfilled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Like whom does Karna hold?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He holds like R. Yitzchak.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> We appoint for measures and
               prices, due to swindlers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one wanted to buy a liter, half or
          quarter liter, we measure that amount for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We make measures of these sizes (but not of
          other sizes. If there were measures of sizes close to
          each other, a seller could use the slightly smaller
          measure, and the buyer would not know that he got too
          little.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>LAWS OF SCALES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one wanted to buy three quarters of a
          liter, we do not weigh for him a quarter liter three
          times (for we are careful not to give less, and he
          profits from the inaccuracies). Rather, we put a quarter
          liter weight with the meat and weigh it against a liter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one wanted to buy 10 liters, we do not
          weigh for him a liter 10 times (with a Hachra'ah each
          time, like above). Rather, we weigh it all at once, there
          is only one Hachra'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> A (hanging) scale should be at least three
          Tefachim below the ceiling and at least three above the
          ground (so one can make a Hachra'ah of three Tefachim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The crossbar and two ropes (from which the pans
               hang) should be 12 Tefachim (four Tefachim each).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A scale of people who sell wool or glass should
               be at least two Tefachim from the ceiling and ground
               (less Hachra'ah is needed for lighter things). The
               crossbar and two ropes should be nine Tefachim
               (three each).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A scale of a grocer or regular person should be
               at least one Tefach from the ceiling and ground. The
               crossbar and ropes should be six Tefachim (two
               each).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A scale of one who sells gold and silver should
               be at least three fingers from the ceiling and
               ground. I do not know the length of the crossbar and
               ropes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the use of the first scale mentioned?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: WOE, THE CURSES OF FLESH AND BLOOD!</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Levi (88b-89a) contrasts the ways of man to the ways of Hash-m: When Hash-m blessed the Jewish people (Vayikra 26:3-13), He blessed them with twenty-two letters, from Alef to Tav (i.e. the blessings began with the letter Alef and ended with the letter Tav), and He cursed them with only eight (Vayikra 26:8-43), from Vav to Mem. Moshe Rabeinu, on the other hand, blessed them with eight letters (Devarim 28:1-14) and cursed them with twenty-two (Devarim 28:15-68).
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with this Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) Why would Moshe Rabeinu want to curse the Jewish people? Is it not clear that he loved them, and he was prepared to give up his life for them on many occasions?
</p><p>
Moreover, the curses he delivered were not his own. Moshe Rabeinu was only a Shali'ach for the Shechinah; his words came only from Hash-m!
</p><p>
(b) What is the significance of Hashem's curses with 'eight letters,' and why, specifically, were the eight letters from Vav to Nun chosen to be used?
</p><p>
When Moshe Rabeinu 'cursed them with twenty-two letters,' why did he not start from Alef and proceed to Tav, like the blessings of Parshas Bechukosai? Why did he start from Vav and return to Heh?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Moshe Rabeinu's intention was to clarify the purpose of the rebuke of Parshas Bechukosai. He 'blessed with eight letters' in order to point out that these blessings were the <i>result</i> of the curses that incorporated those letters in Bechukosai. That is, the purpose of the Tochechah was not to punish the Jewish people, but rather to turn them in the proper direction. (See Berachos 5a: 'Just as salt sweetens the meat, so, too, the afflictions described in the Tochechah cleanse a person's sins,' and Chagigah 9b: 'Poverty is as fitting for Yisrael as red reins for a white horse.')
</p><p>
It is for the same reason that Moshe Rabeinu said the Tochechah 'from Vav to Heh,' and not from Alef to Tav. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> cites a Midrash (Vayikra Rabah 35:1) which explains that the curses in Parshas Ki Savo work backwards, from Vav to Heh, in order to show that they will be 'reversed' and made into blessings when the Jewish people [repent and] follow the Torah. Moshe Rabeinu was pointing out that the curses were not an end in their own right, but a means to bringing about blessing by causing the Jewish people to repent (see Maharsha).
</p><p>
What, then, does the Gemara mean when it says that we see from the Tochechah that 'the ways of man cannot compare to the ways of Hash-m'?
</p><p>
A set of verses that span from Alef to Tav alludes to the fact that these verses describe a natural process, a process that progresses in an anticipated fashion and is built into the structure of the world. As the <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> writes (beginning of Bechukosai), this is the reason why the verses of 'Ashrei' (Tehilim 155) progress according to the Alef Beis; the Psalm illustrates that Hash-m built into the nature of the world that the needs of each and every creature are provided for in a natural way ('Pose'ach Es Yadecha...,' see Berachos 4b).
</p><p>
Likewise, the blessings of Bechukosai progress from Alef to Tav in order to show that Hash-m built into the world the mechanism that those who perform the will of Hash-m will be blessed with plenty. This is the way the world should naturally operate.
</p><p>
Moshe Rabeinu, however, realized that mankind has a tendency not to live up to Hashem's expectations. Adam ha'Rishon ate from the Etz ha'Da'as; the Jewish people sinned with the Egel ha'Zahav after they received the Torah. Moshe Rabeinu saw that the Jewish people would attain their ultimate goal only after they would suffer the afflictions of 'Vav to Mem.' That is why his blessings were given in the format of Vav to Mem and his curses from Vav to Heh, as explained above. In this sense, the expectations of man do not live up to those of his Creator. This is the lesson learned from the Gemara's comparison of the blessings of Moshe to those of Hash-m.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out that the letters between Vav and Mem are those that separate between Heh and Nun, the only two letters that 'have no pair.' (Alef, the value of which is 1, can be paired with Tes, which equals 9, to make a full 10; Beis, 2, can be paired with Ches, 8, to make a full 10, etc.; Yud, 10, can be paired with Tzadi, 90, to make a full 100, etc. However, there is no different letter that can be combined with Heh, 5, to make 10, or with Nun, 50, to make 100.)
</p><p>
This theme may be developed further by suggesting that these two unique letters, Heh and Nun, represent Hash-m and Yisrael, the two 'unique ones' (Berachos 6a). Heh represents Hash-m, as the Gemara says in Shabbos (104a), while Nun stands for 'Ne'eman,' or 'the man of faith' (ibid.). (Nun might also allude to the 50 'gates of wisdom' that Hash-m opens to the faithful (as in Rosh Hashanah 21b), and to the value, or 'Erech,' that the Torah ascribes to an adult Jewish male, in Vayikra 27:3.) As the Midrash says, a Jew has no other 'partner'; Hash-m is his partner (Yalkut Shir ha'Shirim #985; see also Bereishis Rabah 11:18: 'Yisrael has no partner; Shabbos is the partner of Yisrael').
</p><p>
When the Jew cleaves to his Creator, the Heh and Nun come together, forming the word 'Hen,' as in the verse, '<i>Hen</i> Yir'as Hash-m Hi Chochmah' -- 'Behold, fear of G-d is the only true wisdom' (Iyov 28:28). It is when the other eight letters, from the Vav to the Mem (which may correspond to the eight Sheratzim that spread Tum'ah by distancing a person from Hash-m; see Insights to Eruvin 13:3), come between Heh and Nun and separate them from each other that the Tochechah comes into effect. That is why the Tochechah was given 'from Vav to Mem,' measure for measure.
</p><p>
When Moshe Rabeinu reversed the usage of the letters for the Tochechah, he again started from Vav. However he did not stop at Mem and separate the Heh from the Nun. He went on until he returned to Heh, symbolizing that the purpose of the Tochechah is to bring the Jewish people back to Hash-m. The Vav then joins with the letter Heh to make it a letter of Hashem's name (as in Shabbos 104a).
</p><p>
According to the Yerushalmi (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> to Rosh Hashanah 18a), although the verses state that during the period of the first Beis ha'Mikdash, Yerushalayim was conquered on the <i>ninth</i> of Tamuz (Yirmeyahu 39:2), in truth it was only conquered on the seventeenth of the month (as in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash). Hash-m caused the prophet to 'confuse the calculations' and had him write that it occurred on the wrong date.
</p><p>
Perhaps the eight-day miscalculation was meant to show that the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash was brought about by the 'eight letters' that the Jewish people allowed to separate between the Heh and the Nun through their sins, bringing about the Tochechah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) TIPPING THE SCALES BY A 'TEFACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to the Beraisa, the goldsmith's scale needs to be held only three Etzba'os off of the ground when weighing merchandise.
</p><p>
However, the Mishnah (88b) teaches that when one weighs merchandise to sell, he must allow the scales to tilt a <i>Tefach</i> in favor of the buyer. If the scale is held only three Etzba'os off the ground, how can it be tipped a Tefach, which is <i>four</i> Etzba'os? (<b>RASHBAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH Shalosh) explains that it is not necessary to tip the scale an entire Tefach unless one is selling food products. When one is selling gold or silver, it suffices to tilt the scale even a small amount. (The Rashbam does not specify exactly how much the scale must be tipped.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI SHLOMO</b> suggests that even when the scale is held three Etzba'os above the ground, the scales still can be tipped a Tefach, or four Etzba'os. When one side of the scale is raised two Etzba'os, the other sinks two Etzba'os, making a total separation of four Etzba'os, or a Tefach, between the two pans hanging from the two ends of the rod.
</p><p>
Apparently, the Rashbam, who does not accept this explanation, understands that 'tipping a Tefach' means that <i>each side</i> of the scale must be tipped an entire Tefach from its level state.
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>REGULATION OF MEASURES AND PRICES</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 88b (Mishnah):</font></b> The grocer must give enough Peros to
               be Machri'a (lift the pan holding the weights) a
               Tefach (above the Peros). In a place where people
               measure evenly, he compensates by adding extra
               Peros, one part for 10 for liquids, and one for 20
               for dry measures.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The source for Hachra'ah is 'Even
               Shelemah va'Tzedek' - give more than the full
               measure.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Seifa):</font></b> In a place where people measure
               evenly, he compensates by adding extra.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the Torah requires Hachra'ah, how can he
                    weigh evenly?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Really, the Torah does not require Hachra'ah
               (but where people do so, one must be Machri'a a
               Tefach). Reish Lakish gave the source that where
               people measure evenly, he compensates by adding
               extra.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba bar Mamal):</font></b> The Mishnah obligates a tenth of
               a litra (a weight, about a pound) for a sale of 10
               litra (i.e. one part in 100) for liquids.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah also obligates one part <i>for</i>
               20 for dry measures. Does it mean a 10th of a litra
               for a sale of 10 litra for liquids, and a 20th of a
               litra for a sale of 20 litra for dry goods? Or, does
               it mean a 10th of a litra for a sale of 10 litra for
               liquids, or for a sale of 20 litra for dry goods?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 89a (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha' teaches that we
               appoint people to inspect and punish for false
               measures, but (reasoning says,) not for prices. (If
               one charges too much, people will buy from others.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> The Nasi's house appointed people to supervise
               measures and prices. Shmuel told Karna to teach them
               that we appoint only for measures. Karna taught that
               we appoint for both. Shmuel cursed Karna.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> Karna holds like R. Yitzchak¸ who says that we
               appoint for both, due to swindlers.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wanted to buy a litra, half or
               quarter litra, we measure that amount for him.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b> The Chidush is that we make measures of these sizes.
               (We do not make measures close to each other, lest a
               seller use the smaller measure, and the buyer would
               not know that he got too little.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not make weights out of tin, lead
               or other metals. One may make them from rock or
               glass.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 90a (Beraisa):</font></b> One may keep the following (dry)
               measures: a Se'ah, a half Se'ah, a quarter Se'ah
               (one and a half Kavim), a Kav, a half Kav, a quarter
               Kav (a Lug), a Tuman (half a Lug), a half Tuman, and
               a fifth of a Lug.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> He may keep the following liquid measures:</font></b> a Hin, a
               half Hin, a third of a Hin, a quarter Hin, a Lug, a
               half Lug, a Revi'is (of a Lug), an eighth of a Lug,
               and an eighth of an eighth of a Lug (a Kortov).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> We allow a Kav, even though it is two thirds of a
               quarter Se'ah, but not a two Kavim measure, lest it
               be used in place of one and a half Kavim (which is
               three quarters of two Kavim.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do we allow a quarter Log and a fifth
               of a Lug?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> People can gauge small measures
               better.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 52a (Mishnah):</font></b> If a coin was
               disqualified and fixed to be used for weighing, it
               receives Tum'ah (for it has been transformed into a
               Kli).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>20. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yuma 9a (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim did not obligate bakers
               (who buy grain from Amei ha'Aretz) to separate
               Ma'aser Sheni and take it to Yerushalayim, because
               the kings' officials beat people and force them to
               sell cheaply.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (5:22):</font></b> Where people measure evenly, he
               compensates by adding extra: a 10th of a litra for a
               sale of 10 litra for liquids, and one 20th of a
               litra for a sale of 20 litra for dry goods. R.
               Yochanan (our text - R. Yitzchak) taught that we
               appoint people to supervise measures and prices, due
               to swindlers.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> For less than a litra, one need
                    not be Machri'a a Tefach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nimukei Yosef (DH Aval, citing the Ro'oh):</font></b> The
                    Rif says that we enact weights twice as much as
                    the previous, for people could err a third. A
                    volume may be a third bigger than the previous,
                    for people err only a quarter about volume.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Geneivah 8:4):</font></b> We do not make
               weights out of tin, lead or other metals, for they
               rust and decrease in weight. One may make them from
               rock, glass, Shoham rock (onyx) and similar things.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (12):</font></b> The seller must be Machri'a for the
               buyer when he weighs - 'Eifah Shelemah va'Tzedek.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (13):</font></b> He gives an extra one part in 100 for
               liquids, i.e. a 10th of a litra for a sale of 10
               litra, and one part in 400 for dry measures, i.e. a
               20th of a litra for a sale of 20 litra. This is
               whether he sells much or little.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The addition for liquids is
                    greater because some sticks to the measure, but
                    this does not happen with dry measures.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (14):</font></b> This is where people measure evenly.
               Where they are Machri'a, one must be Machri'a a
               Tefach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (20):</font></b> Beis Din must appoint officials in
               every province and district to go to stores and
               verify the scales and measures, and fix the prices.
               If anyone has a deficient weight or errant scale,
               Beis Din may hit him according to his strength and
               fine him as they see fit to strengthen the matter.
               If one jacks up prices and sells expensively, Beis
               Din hits him and forces him, and he sells at the
               market price.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 14:1):</font></b> Beis Din must set
               prices and appoint officials for this, lest everyone
               profit as much as he wants.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam rules like the
                    opinion that Beis Din appoint officials for
                    prices because the Sugya in Bava Basra is like
                    this, and also Yuma 9a. Also the Ri mi'Gash
                    rules like this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (25):</font></b> R. Tam says that the Isur to make weights
               out of metal applies to weights for meat and oil,
               for the fat sticks to them, dries up and makes them
               heavier. One may make weights out of metal for
               silver, gold and all dry things, like the Mishnah
               brought in Bava Metzia.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 231:10):</font></b> We do not make weights
               out of metal, rather, from smooth rocks. Some permit
               to make weights for silver, gold and all dry things
               from metal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (15):</font></b> The Rambam says that metal weights
                    rust. If so, one may not use them even for dry
                    goods.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> This is the custom. One should cover small
               weights for silver and gold with leather, for if
               they are slightly rubbed out this causes great loss.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source:</font></b> Tosfos 89b DH v'Lo
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (14):</font></b> Where people are Machri'a, one
               must be Machri'a a Tefach. Where people are not
               Machri'a, one measures evenly, and he gives an extra
               one part in 100 for liquids, and one part in 400 for
               dry measures.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH b'Makom):</font></b> Since the addition for
                    dry measures is a Safek (the question was not
                    settled), we are lenient for the seller, and he
                    need not give more than one in 400. The Rashbam
                    says that a Tefach is too big a Hachra'ah for a
                    light matter.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (21):</font></b> A Tefach is only for a grocer who
                    sells food and similar matters.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (20):</font></b> Beis Din must appoint people to
               supervise prices, lest everyone profit like he
               wants. One may profit only a sixth for life
               essentials such as wine, oil and flour. This refers
               to one who sells his merchandise in bulk without
               toil. For a grocer who sells a little at a time, we
               evaluate his toil and expenses. He may profit a
               sixth above this. This is when the price did not
               rise. If the price rose, he may sell like the high
               price. This is when there is a Beis Din to tell
               everyone the price to sell at. If everyone sells for
               what he can, he need not be the only one selling
               cheaply.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Chayavim):</font></b> All Poskim rule like
                    R. Yitzchak, unlike Shmuel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (21):</font></b> If one jacks up prices, i.e.
               sells for more than is proper, they may hit and
               punish him according to what is proper for him.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>HOW MUCH MAY ONE PROFIT THROUGH SELLING FOOD? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is for smiths of iron and copper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Mani bar Patish):</font></b> One may not use a scale that is
          too small. Likewise, it does not receive Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We already learn this from a Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> The string from which the scale of a
               grocer or regular person hangs must be at least a
               Tefach (for it to receive Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches only how low it must hang.
          Rav Mani teaches that also the crossbar and ropes must
          have the above Shi'ur (two Tefachim each) for it to
          receive Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We do not make weights out of tin, lead or
          other metals (because they decrease in weight). One may
          make them from rock or glass.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>PROPER MEASURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> A Machak (a rod used to scrape off the
          excess from a measure) should not be made of gourd wood
          (it is too light, so its middle does not bend down enough
          to scrape off the proper amount), nor of metal (it is too
          heavy, it bends down and scrapes off too much);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, it should be made of olive, sycamore or
               box wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> The thickness of a Machak should be the same
          on both sides (like the local custom. A thin Machak
          scrapes off more than a thick one. We are concerned lest
          he use the thin side when selling, and the thick side
          when buying);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	One may not scrape quickly all at once, for this does
          not scrape off enough, nor very slowly, for this scrapes
          off too much. (Rather, he sweeps gently, in one or two
          sweeps).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yochanan Ben Zakai:</font></b> Woe to me if I teach these laws,
          and woe if I do not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Woe if I teach them, lest swindlers learn how to
               cheat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Woe if I do not teach them, lest swindlers think
               that Chachamim do not understand their ruses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Did he teach them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> Yes - 'Yesharim
          Darchei Hash-m v'Tzadikim Yelchu Vam u'Foshe'im Yikashlu
          Vam.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lo Sa'asu Avel ba'Mishpat ba'Midah
          ba'Mishkal uva'Meshurah':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ba'Midah' refers to measuring land. If two
               should divide evenly, one may not measure for one in
               winter and for the other in summer. (Rashbam - the
               rope (is moister and) stretches more in winter; R.
               Chananel - the land is more constricted in winter.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Ba'Mishkal' - one may not store his weights in
               salt. (Rashbam - this makes them heavier; Tosfos -
               this makes them lighter.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'Uva'Meshurah' - one may not make a liquid foam
               when pouring it into the measure. (It will appear
               full even though it is not full; some explain, one
               may not heat the liquid before pouring it.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We learn a Kal va'Chomer. Meshurah is a tiny
                    measure, one part in 36 of a Lug, yet the Torah
                    demands that the full measure be given, and all
                    the more so it is insistent about bigger
                    measures!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may not keep a measure that is too
          big or too small in his house, even to use for a urinal
          (lest he wash it and use it to measure).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> This is only in a place where the
          government does not give a seal of authentication on
          measures. Where it does, he may keep an incorrect
          measure. People will demand an authenticated measure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	Even where the government does not give seals, in a
          place where people are appointed to inspect measures (and
          punish for false measures), we are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This is wrong. We are concerned lest the
          measure be used just before Shabbos, when the inspectors
          are not around (R. Chananel; Rashbam - even where the
          government authenticates measures, it is forbidden, for
          buyers will not be careful just before Shabbos).
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PROPER MEASURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not keep a
          measure that is too big or too small in his house, even
          to use for a urinal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> He may keep the following (dry) measures (these
               are standard, and we are not concerned lest he claim
               that it is a different measure, for each is very far
               from the next standard measure):</font></b> a Se'ah, a half
               Se'ah, a quarter Se'ah (which is one and a half
               Kavim), a Kav, a half Kav, a quarter Kav (a Lug), a
               Tuman (half a Lug), a half Tuman, and an Uchla.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is an Uchla?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a fifth of a Lug.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	He may keep the following liquid measures:</font></b> a Hin, a
          half Hin, a third of a Hin, a quarter Hin, a Lug, a half
          Lug, a Revi'is (of a Lug), an eighth of a Lug, and an
          eighth of an eighth of a Lug (a Kortov).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should allow a two Kavim measure!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> It might be used (to cheat) in place of
          three Kavim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> If so, we should not allow a Kav, lest it be
          used in place of one and a half Kavim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> It might be used in place of one and a half
          Kavim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> People might not notice if the measure is a
          quarter less than it should be.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should not allow a half Tuman and an Uchla
          (the later is only a fifth less than the former)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> People have better estimation of
          small measures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should not allow a third of a Hin and a
          quarter Hin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Since these two measures were used in the
          Mikdash (for measuring wine and oil), Chachamim did not
          decree against them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Chachamim should have decreed in the Mikdash
          not to use them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Kohanim are zealous, they would not come to
          err.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>INCREASING THE MEASURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> People of the city may not increase the
          measures more than a sixth, nor may they increase the
          (weight of the) coins by more than a sixth;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One may not profit (through buying and reselling
               food) more than a sixth (unless the market price
               increased).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden to increase the measures
          more than a sixth?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> When merchants see that the measures
               increased, they will raise prices more than they
               should.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden to
               increase them even a sixth!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> We do not want the sales should be
          invalidated. (Perhaps merchants from outside the city did
          not know that the measures increased. Buyers will take
          the new measure, and underpay more than a sixth.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Rava taught that if the wrong measure,
          weight or number was given, even less than a sixth, the
          sale is invalid (Rashbam; Rambam - the sale stands, but
          the additional amount must be given or returned).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> We do not want merchants to lose money (they
          normally profit a sixth. They will lose only their
          profit.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> A merchant's income is from his profit. We
          should be concerned for his livelihood!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Chachamim expounded 'the Maneh
          will be 20 Shekalim 25 Shekalim 15 Shekalim';
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: THE SALE OF AN INEXACT COUNT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes Rava who rules that when one sells merchandise based on measurement, weight, or an item-count, he must give the buyer the exact measure, weight, or count agreed upon; if he gives any less, the Halachah of Ona'ah applies and the buyer can retract the entire sale. Cheating the buyer with measures differs from cheating the buyer in the <i>price</i> of the merchandise, in which case the buyer may <i>not</i> retract the sale unless he was overcharged more than a sixth of the market value of the item. If he was overcharged less than a sixth, he may not even claim the money which he was cheated. (The <b>ROSH</b> is in doubt about whether there is even a prohibition against overcharging such an amount.) This is not the law in the case of measures, weights, and item-counts.
</p><p>
Does this mean that if a seller agrees to sell, for example, 100 nails, and the bag that he gives to the buyer contains only 99 nails, that the buyer may retract the entire sale and the seller does not have the opportunity to give the buyer one more nail?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Mechirah 15:2), according to the <b>RAN's</b> understanding, maintains that Rava's ruling is not absolute. Rava agrees that there are situations in which the sale is not invalidated, such as a sale which can be adjusted easily. In such a case, the sale is not considered to have been completed until the count of goods is corrected. Rava's ruling applies in a case in which the measure or count delivered is not rectifiable, such as when a person agrees to sell a house of 100 square meters, but the house actually measures only 70 square meters. Since one cannot simply add more space to a house, the sale is invalidated. This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b> and most Rishonim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Kidushin (42b) maintains that Rava's ruling is absolute; it applies whether the person was overcharged less than a sixth, exactly a sixth, or more than a sixth. However, he points out that Rava does not say that the sale is 'Batel' -- 'invalid,' but rather that it is 'Chozer' -- 'returns.' The Rashba explains that Rava means sales of an inaccurate measure, weight, or item-count are never <i>invalidated</i>, but rather the difference between the amount delivered and the specified amount must be compensated, whether in units or in price. According to the Rashba, there is no actual difference between the case of the house and the nails. In both cases, the sale is valid, and the amount must be compensated either by supplying the difference in quantity (as in the case of the nails) or by supplying the difference in money (as in the case of the house).
</p><p>
The <b>PISCHEI CHOSHEN</b> (Ona'ah 11:24, see footnotes there) quotes the <b>S'MA</b> who rules like the Rambam, Ramban, and other Rishonim. However, if a person is able to add more space to a house and thereby abide by his agreement with the buyer to give the buyer a 100-meter house, the S'ma presumably would agree this is permitted and the buyer cannot back out of the sale. This is implied by his statement that if a person sells a field which contains less area than he originally stated, the sale is upheld if he can add area from land located at the side of the field he sold. He may not add the additional area from land in another location. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOARDING AND DOING BUSINESS WITH PRODUCE OF ERETZ YISRAEL</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 90b (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Nishba Hash-m...Im Eshkach
               la'Netzach... Na'avor ha'Chodesh v'Nashbirah Shever'
               refers to people who hoard Peros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Veha'Shabas v'Niftecha Bar', 'Lehaktin Eifah' and
               'u'Lehagdil Shekel' refer, respectively, to people
               who buy Peros to sell them in Shemitah, when they
               will be expensive, who give a smaller quantity of
               Peros, and lend on Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b>  An example of one who hoards Peros
               is Shabtai the hoarder. (He bought in order to sell
               to poor people at the high market price later in the
               year. One may hoard in order to sell to Aniyim at
               the low price when the market price will be higher.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Shmuel's father would sell at the early (low) price
               (when grain is finished in the granaries).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Shmuel would not sell his own Peros until later when
               the market price was higher, but he sold at the
               early (low) price.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael:</font></b> Your father was better
               than you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> This is because he deflated the early price, and
               ensured that prices will be low the entire year.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> One may delay selling his own Peros until the
               price rises.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not hoard life-essential
               Peros (to sell later at a higher price), such as
               wine, oil and flour. One may do so with spices, such
               as peppers.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> It is forbidden only to buy and hoard, but one may
               hoard what he grows himself.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> One may buy and hoard in Eretz Yisrael (starting in
               the year before Shemitah) in order to sell in
               Shemitah and the following year (so there will be
               enough food in those years). In famine years, one
               may not hoard even one Kav of carobs, lest this
               increase prices.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina (to his servant):</font></b> Buy and
               hoard for me starting in the year before Shemitah,
               in order to sell in Shemitah and the following year.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We may not export life-essential Peros of
               Eretz Yisrael such as wine, oil and flour;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ben Beseira permits exporting wine. This
               reduces (drunkenness and) immorality.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b></b> Just like we may not export to Chutz la'Aretz, we
               may not export to Surya;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> Rebbi permits exporting from a town of Eretz Yisrael
               to a nearby town of Surya.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We may not deal (buy in order to resell
               at a profit) in life-essential Peros of Eretz
               Yisrael such as wine, oil and flour;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to deal in wine and oil.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b></b> Regarding wine, he holds like R. Yehudah ben
               Beseira. Oil was plentiful in his area (so it was
               permitted to deal in it).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 14:4):</font></b> One may not do
               business in Eretz Yisrael with life-essential Peros.
               Rather, everyone brings from his granary and sells,
               in order that they will sell cheaply. Where oil is
               plentiful, one may profit on it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (5):</font></b> One may not store up life-essential
               Peros in Eretz Yisrael, or in any place that is
               mostly Yisre'elim, for this causes pain to
               Yisre'elim. This refers to one who buys in the
               market. One may store what he himself grows.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> Obviously, it is forbidden in a
                    place that is mostly Yisre'elim. We may learn
                    from the Heter to hoard (<i>only</i> what he grows
                    himself), which is even in Chutz la'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (6):</font></b> One may hoard Peros for three years:
               Erev Shemitah, Shemitah and the year after Shemitah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Rashbam says that we permit
                    in order to sell them, lest people die when
                    there is no food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (ibid):</font></b> In famine years, one may not hoard
               even one Kav of carobs, for this increases prices.
               One who jacks up prices or hoards Peros in Eretz
               Yisrael or a place that is mostly Yisre'elim is like
               one who lends on Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (7):</font></b> This refers to life-essential Peros. One
               may hoard spices such as saffron and peppers in
               Eretz Yisrael or export them from place to place,
               like other extracts.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> We permit saffron and peppers,
                    even though they are more commonly used than
                    other spices.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8):</font></b>  One may not export life-essential Peros
               such as wine, oil and flour from Eretz Yisrael to
               Chutz la'Aretz or Surya, nor from the jurisdiction
               of one king to that of another king in Eretz
               Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:29):</font></b> The Rashbam says that the Isur to hoard
               Peros is only in a city that is mostly Yisre'elim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (Sof 45b):</font></b> Even when one may
                    hoard Peros, e.g. in the three years starting
                    Erev Shemitah, one may not do so if it is a
                    famine year, for it greatly iNefelates prices.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nimukei Yosef (46a DH Surya):</font></b> Chachamim forbid
                    exporting to Surya, for they hold that what an
                    individual (David ha'Melech) conquered does not
                    get Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 231:23):</font></b> One may not do business
               in Eretz Yisrael with life-essential Peros. Rather,
               everyone brings from his granary and sells, in order
               that they will sell cheaply. Where oil is plentiful,
               one may profit on it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (24):</font></b> One may not hoard life-
               essential Peros in Eretz Yisrael, or in any place
               that is mostly Yisre'elim. This refers to one who
               buys in the market. One may hoard what he himself
               grows. In famine years, one may not hoard more than
               what he needs to feed his family (Rema - for one
               year).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (42):</font></b> They (the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch)
                    did not forbid business with life essentials in
                    places in Chutz la'Aretz where most are
                    Yisre'elim. This implies that it is permitted
                    everywhere in Chutz la'Aretz, since there is a
                    limit of how much one may profit (a sixth).
                    Also, they bring the Isur of a double profit
                    with eggs, which implies that it is permitted
                    with other matters.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (25):</font></b> One who jacks up prices or
               hoards Peros in Eretz Yisrael or a place that is
               mostly Yisre'elim is like one who lends on Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (43):</font></b> This means that he transgresses 'you
                    brother will live with you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (26):</font></b>  One may not export life-
               essential Peros such as wine, oil and flour from
               Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz or Surya, nor from
               the jurisdiction of one king to that of another king
               in Eretz Yisrael.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav uvi'Shnas):</font></b> A
                    Beraisa teaches that in famine years, one may
                    not hoard even one Kav of carobs, lest this
                    increase prices. The Rashbam explains that one
                    may not hoard his own Peros, but he may leave
                    himself enough for a year.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (44):</font></b> The Rosh and Tur did not bring this
                    law. They hold that it is forbidden only in
                    Eretz Yisrael, to promote settlement of Eretz
                    Yisrael. It does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz,
                    even if a place that is mostly Yisre'elim.
                    Alternatively, since nowadays it is not common
                    to have a place that is mostly Yisre'elim, this
                    is like a law that does not apply, so they did
                    not bring it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Gra (11 and Be'er ha'Golah 70):</font></b> The last law is
                    like Chachamim who argue with Rebbi. They
                    discuss within Eretz Yisrael.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Afarkasta d'Anya (2 OC 103):</font></b> Some say that we
                    may export Esrogim because they are planted
                    with this intent. I say that they are not life-
                    essentials. The Rashbam says that even eggs are
                    not life-essentials!
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>HOW MUCH MAY ONE PROFIT THROUGH SELLING FOOD? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A Maneh is (100 Dinarim,) not 240 (60
               Shekalim, i.e. 20 and 25 and 15)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> We learn from this three
               things:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Maneh of Hekdesh is double a normal Maneh;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  We may increase measures, but no more than
                    a sixth (a double Maneh should be 200 Dinarim,
                    and the verse considers it 240);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  We permit an outer sixth (the increase (40)
                    is a sixth of the total new measure (240),
                    which equals a fifth of the old measure (200)).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Rav Papa bar Shmuel enacted that people use a measure
          of nine Lugin [some say, three Lugin].
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan:</font></b> Shmuel taught that we may not increase
               the measures more than a sixth (but this is a third
               more than the previous measure of six [or two]
               Lugin)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Papa bar Shmuel:</font></b> That does not apply to
               making a new measure. (Rashbam - he was not
               concerned for cheating, since his city did not use
               measures of six or 12 [two or four] Lugim, this was
               not close to any measure in use).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim of Pumbadisa did not agree to this.
               Chachamim of Papunya agreed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAUSING PRICES TO RISE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Nishba Hash-m...Im Eshkach la'Netzach...
          Na'avor ha'Chodesh v'Nashbirah Shever' refers to people
          who hoard Peros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Veha'Shabas v'Niftecha Bar', 'Lehaktin Eifah'
               and 'u'Lehagdil Shekel' refer, respectively, to
               people who buy Peros to sell them in Shemitah, when
               they will be expensive, who give a smaller quantity
               of Peros, and lend on Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is an example of one who hoards Peros?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is Shabtai the hoarder. (He
          bought in order to sell to poor people at the high market
          price later in the year. One may hoard in order to sell
          to Aniyim at the low price when the market price will be
          higher.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Shmuel's father would sell at the early (low) price
          (when grain is finished in the granaries).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel would not sell his own Peros until later
               when the market price was higher, but he sold at the
               early (low) price.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael:</font></b> Your father was
               better than you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He deflated the early price, and ensured
               that prices will be low the entire year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> One may delay selling his own Peros until the
          price rises.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not hoard life-essential
          Peros (to sell later at a higher price), such as wine,
          oil and flour;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One may do so with spices, such as peppers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden only to buy and hoard, but one
               may hoard what he grows himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One may buy and hoard in Eretz Yisrael (starting
               in the year before Shemitah) in order to sell in
               Shemitah and the following year (so there will be
               enough food in those years);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In famine years, one may not hoard even one Kav
                    of carobs, lest this increase prices.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina (to his servant):</font></b> Buy and hoard
          for me starting in the year before Shemitah, in order to
          sell in Shemitah and the following year.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'SHABSAI OTZAR PEIROS'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara teaches that the verse, 'So has Hash-m sworn, by the glory of Yakov, 'I will never forget, for eternity, all of their deeds'' (Amos 8:7), refers to four types of people: 'Otzrei Peiros' -- those who hoard produce (refraining from selling it until the demand is so great that they can raise the prices significantly), 'Melavei b'Ribis' -- those who lend with interest, 'Maktinei Eifah' -- those who decrease the size of their Eifah measure (in order to cheat the buyers), and 'Mafki'ei She'arim' -- those who add to the market price (by withholding the produce until the end of the month; see <b>RASHBAM</b> DH Masai Ya'avor, and see <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> who disagrees with the explanation of the Rashbam).
</p><p>
The Gemara gives an example of a notorious 'Otzar Peiros.' He was so entrenched in such conduct that he received the appellation, 'Shabsai Otzar Peiros.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Yoma (82b-83a; see Insights to Yoma 82:1) relates that there were two pregnant women who smelled food on Yom Kippur and had a strong urge to eat. Rebbi Chanina advised that the people whisper in their ears that it is Yom Kippur in order to calm down the urge of each fetus. One woman's urge diminished and she did not eat. She eventually gave birth to a child who became the great Rebbi Yochanan. They applied to him the verse, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you' (Yirmeyahu 1:5).
</p><p>
The fetus of the other woman, however, did not accept the censure, and its urge persisted. They applied to the baby the verse, 'The wicked are estranged from the womb' (Tehilim 58:4). The baby grew up to be Shabsai, the one who hoarded produce to raise the prices.
</p><p>
Many commentaries, including the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b>, explain that the beginnings of these two lives, that of the Tzadik, Rebbi Yochanan, and that of the Rasha, Shabsai, are hinted to in the verse at the end of Parshas Shemini: 'To distinguish between the impure (Tamei) and the pure (Tahor), and between the creature (Chayah) that may be eaten and the creature (Chayah) that may not be eaten' (Vayikra 11:47).
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on explains that the verse may also refer to what separates a person who is inclined to be a Rasha and a person who is inclined to be a Tzadik, as the Gemara in Yoma indicates. The word 'Chayah' ('animal') is also the word used for a woman who is in the process of giving birth. The verse alludes to the difference between the Rasha and the Tzadik by distinguishing between the 'woman who ate' and 'the woman who did not eat.' The Vilna Ga'on explains this verse homiletically to mean, 'In order to distinguish between the Tamei (the wicked person) and the Tahor (the righteous person), one can observe which Chayah (pregnant woman) eats [on Yom Kippur when the fetus craves food] and which Chayah does not eat.' This Derashah is supported by the fact that the very next Parshah (Tazria) discusses the laws of a woman who gives birth to a son. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPORTING PEROS OF ERETZ YISRAEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We may not export life-essential Peros of
          Eretz Yisrael such as wine, oil and flour;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah ben Beseira permits exporting wine. This
          reduces (drunkenness and) immorality.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Just like we may not export to Chutz la'Aretz, we may
          not export to Surya;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Rebbi permits exporting from a town of Eretz Yisrael to
          a nearby town of Surya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We may not deal (buy in order to resell at a
          profit) in life-essential Peros of Eretz Yisrael such as
          wine, oil and flour;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to deal in wine and
               oil.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding wine, he holds like R. Yehudah ben
               Beseira;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Oil was plentiful in his area (so it was
               permitted to deal in it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> One may not make a double profit on eggs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mari bar Mari):</font></b> Rav and Shmuel argue about this:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One explains that one may not buy and resell them
               (Tosfos - one may not sell even his own eggs) for
               double the price;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The other explains that one may not buy and
               resell them to a second dealer. (Rather, he must
               sell them for consumption.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We are Masri'a (Rashbam - cry out in prayer;
          Tur - blow the Shofar) due to a drop in prices of
          merchandise, even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> Examples of this are a drop in prices of
          linen garments in Bavel, or wine and oil in Eretz
          Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is if what normally sells for 10 now
          sells for six.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> One may not leave Eretz Yisrael (due to
          inflated prices) until wheat sells for Sa'atayim for a
          Sela;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon says, this is when he cannot afford to buy.
          If he can afford, even if it sells for a Se'ah for a
          Sela, he may not leave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon:</font></b> Elimelech, Machlon and Chilyon were
               the leaders of their generation and the
               philanthropists of their generation. They were
               punished for leaving Eretz Yisrael - 'va'Tehom Kol 
               ha'Ir... ha'Zos No'omi.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ELIMELECH AND RELATED AGADATA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Ha'Zos No'omi'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> This hints to 'CHaZiSem No'omi',
          (have you seen what happened to her for leaving Eretz
          Yisrael?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yitzchak):</font></b> The day Rus came to Eretz Yisrael, Boaz'
          wife died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Before someone dies, his replacement is prepared.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> (The Shofet) Ivtzan is Bo'az.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This and Rabah bar Rav Huna's other teaching
          are needed to learn (5) below.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> Bo'az made 120 feasts for
               his children - '...U'Shloshim Banos Shilach
               ha'Chutzah u'Shloshim Banos Hevi l'Vanav';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> For each child he made one feast in the Chasan's
               house, and one in the house of the Kalah's father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He did not invite Mano'ach to even one of them.
               He reasoned 'since he is sterile, he will never have
               occasion to invite me to such a feast!' (Maharsha -
               the custom was to bring gifts to the feast, and the
               host returns such gifts when the guest makes a
               wedding feast. Bo'az did not want to receive a gift
               that he would be unable to return.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> All 60 children died in Bo'az' lifetime.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, 'what gain is there in
               60 children who will die?! I t is better to remarry
               and have one child who will be zealous!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> Elimelech, Salmon, Ploni
               Almoni and No'omi's father all descended from
               Nachshon ben Aminadav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Even great merits of one's fathers do not help
          him if he goes to Chutz la'Aretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> Avraham's mother was called
          Amaslai bas Karnevo; Haman's mother was called Amaslai
          bas Orvasai;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	A way to remember this is that Tamei comes from Tamei
          (Orvasai is like Orev (raven)), and Tahor comes from
          Tahor (Karnevo is an expression of Karim (pillows, which
          come from wool of sheep)).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	David's mother was Nitzvas bas Ad'el; Shimshon's mother
          was Hatzlelfoni; his sister was Nashyin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must we know this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This helps us answer heretics, who ask these
          questions.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> Avraham was imprisoned for 10
          years, three in Kusa, and seven in Kardo (Ararat. Rav
          Dimi taught vice-versa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda):</font></b> Ivra Ze'ira of Kusa is Or Kasdim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> The day that Avraham died, all
          the important Nochrim bewailed 'the world lost its
          leader, and the ship lost its captain!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE CONNECTION BETWEEN 'HA'ZOS NAOMI' AND THE DEATHS OF MACHLON AND KILYON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were Gedolei ha'Dor and leaders of their generation. Why, then, were they punished with an early death? The Gemara answers that they were punished because they left Eretz Yisrael to go to Chutz la'Aretz, as it says, 'And the whole city wondered about them, and they said, 'Is this Naomi?'' (Rus 1:19).
</p><p>
What does the verse mean when it says, 'Is this Naomi' ('ha'Zos Naomi')? Rav Yitzchak explains that they said, 'Have you seen Naomi who left Eretz Yisrael [and went] to Chutz la'Aretz? What has befallen her?'
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's proof about the early demise of Elimelech and his sons from the fact that the people remarked that evil befell Naomi when she left Eretz Yisrael and went to Chutz la'Aretz?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> quotes a Girsa which omits from the Gemara the phrase, 'she'Ne'emar' -- 'as it says,' and splits the Gemara into two separate statements: Elimelech and his sons died because they went from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz. Rav Yitzchak says that the people were aghast at the state of Naomi who went from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> explains that the correct text of the Gemara should read like the Tosefta in Avodah Zarah (ch. 5). The Tosefta states, 'And because he (Elimelech) left to Chutz la'Aretz, he and his two sons died of hunger, and the rest of Bnei Yisrael were alive on their land, as it says, 'And all of the city wondered about them'...' (Rus ibid.).
</p><p>
(c) The Maharsha prefers to maintain the Girsa of our text of the Gemara. He prefaces his explanation by citing the Yalkut and other sources which state that the family of Elimelech was stingy when it came to sharing their wealth with the poor of Eretz Yisrael. The Maharsha explains that Rav Yitzchak understands that the verse of 'ha'Zos Naomi' may be read as '<i>Chazas</i> Naomi' -- 'Have you seen Naomi,' interchanging the letter Heh for the letter Ches. (The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> expounds Rav Yitzchak's Derashah in a similar manner.) Their question in essence was, 'Have you seen what has befallen Naomi who together with her family left Eretz Yisrael because they did not want to help the poor people? Have you seen what has become the fate of such a family?' Accordingly, the verse indeed is proof for what befalls people who leave Eretz Yisrael, and it is not discussing only Naomi. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH MAY ONE PROFIT THROUGH SELLING FOOD?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 90a (Shmuel):</font></b> One may not profit (through buyng and
               reselling food) more than a sixth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 91a (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not make a double profit on
               eggs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mari bar Mari):</font></b> Rav and Shmuel argue about this.
               One explains that one may not sell them for double
               (what he paid). The other explains that one may not
               buy and resell them to a second dealer. (He must
               sell to consumers).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 40a:</font></b> In Rav Yehudah's area, there were
               48 Kuz in a barrel; the price was six Zuz for a
               barrel. Rav Yehudah would sell six Kuz for a Zuz. He
               would get back the six Zuz he paid after selling 36
               Kuz of the barrel. Eight Kuz (a sixth) were absorbed
               in the barrel, his whole profit was four Kuz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Shmuel taught that one may not profit more
               than a sixth! (Rav Yehudah was entitled to take a
               bigger profit. Why didn't he?!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He would also keep the barrel itself and the
               dregs (he received 48 Kuz of clear wine and dregs
               for six Zuz).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, he profited more than a sixth!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He was entitled to more for his toil. Also,
               he needed to pay the merchant who sold his wine (or
               the one who would open the barrel).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 14:1):</font></b> Beis Din must set
               prices and appoint officials for this, lest everyone
               profit as much as he wants. Rather, one may profit
               only a sixth for his wages, and a seller may not
               profit more than a sixth.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> If the price rose, the Rashbam
                    permits to sell for the going price, even if he
                    profits double.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> This refers to life essentials such as
               wine, oil and flour. We do not set a price for
               Ikarin such as costus and frankincense. One may
               profit as much as he wants with these.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Gemara did not explicitly
                    distinguish life essentials regarding profit.
                    It seems that the Rambam equates this to the
                    Isur to hoard life essentials such as wine, oil
                    and flour, but we permit spices, saffron and
                    peppers. Also, the law itself is reasonable. I
                    bring a proof from Bava Basra 91a. We did not
                    resolve whether or not Rav or Shmuel permits
                    profiting up to double with eggs, even though
                    Shmuel permits only up to a sixth! This shows
                    that Shmuel's law of a sixth applies only to
                    life essentials.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Kesef Mishneh):</font></b> The Magid Mishneh
                    holds that eggs are not life essentials. This
                    is wrong. Clearly they are more essential than
                    oil! It seems that all foods that people eat
                    are life essentials. The Beraisa mentions wine,
                    oil and flour for mere examples. The same
                    applies to all foods that people eat. This is
                    why the Rambam excludes only Ikarin such as
                    costus and frankincense, which people do not
                    eat. A Beraisa forbids hoarding life
                    essentials, but permits spices, saffron and
                    peppers. Also this connotes that all foods that
                    people eat are forbidden. Perhaps the Rambam
                    specified Ikarin such as costus and
                    frankincense which are not eaten at all, but
                    one may not profit (more than a sixth) with
                    spices, saffron and peppers, which are used to
                    improve food for people. Perhaps the Gemara did
                    not need to say that Shmuel forbids two
                    merchants to profit from eggs, because this was
                    obvious! Also, we can answer like Tosfos says
                    (all agree that one may profit more than a
                    sixth if he toiled, or on eggs that he did not
                    buy, rather, they are from his own hen - see
                    Beis Yosef below).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Rebuttal (of both of them - Lechem Mishneh):
                    Rav and Shmuel argue specifically about eggs to
                    teach that they are not life-essentials!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (3):</font></b> One may not profit twice with eggs. Only
               the first merchant may sell them for a profit. One
               who buys from him may sell them only for what he
               paid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:28):</font></b> One may not profit more than a sixth,
               unless the market price increased.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Metzia 3:16):</font></b> Surely, Rav Yehudah could
               have found buyers who would pay a price that would
               enable him to profit a sixth. If not, the Gemara
               would not discuss his business! We learn that
               Shmuel's law that one may profit only a sixth refers
               to one who sells his merchandise in bulk without
               toil. For a grocer who sells a little at a time, we
               evaluate his toil and expenses. He may profit a
               sixth above this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (Bava Basra 46a DH Ein):</font></b> One who
                    buys from a farmer may not resell and profit
                    more than a sixth, but if he toiled to make
                    something new, e.g. he bought wheat and made
                    bread, it is permitted.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 231:20):</font></b> One may profit only a
               sixth for life essentials such as wine, oil and
               flour. This refers to one who sells his merchandise
               in bulk without toil. For a grocer who sells a
               little at a time, we evaluate his toil and expenses.
               He may profit a sixth above this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (37):</font></b> The expenses are included in
                    principal. He may profit a sixth above the sum.
                    We add compensation for toil only for a grocer,
                    but not for other merchants.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Omar ba'Meh):</font></b> The
                    Rashba says that Shmuel's law that one may
                    profit only a sixth refers to a grocer who buys
                    wine and Peros from a wholesaler in bulk, in
                    order to sell a little at a time. The Gemara in
                    Bava Metzia refutes him regarding wine. Why did
                    the Rambam omit the Gemara in Bava Metzia?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> This is when the price did
               not rise. If the price rose, he may sell like the
               high price. This is when there is a Beis Din to tell
               everyone the price to sell at. If everyone sells for
               what he can, he need not be the only one selling
               cheaply.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Ramah says that
                    this is when there is a Beis Din to tell
                    everyone the price to sell at. This is
                    reasonable. One may derive that the Rambam
                    (Hilchos Mechirah 14:1) agrees.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (38 and Prishah 26 DH d'Chi):</font></b> When there is
                    no Beis Din and everyone else transgresses
                    Chachamim's words not to profit more than a
                    sixth, one who fears Hash-m need not be careful
                    about this. If not, when he finished selling
                    cheaply, all others will sell for a high price!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (22):</font></b> One may not profit twice with
               eggs. Only the first merchant may sell them for a
               profit. One who buys from him may sell them only for
               what he paid. Some say that one may profit with eggs
               only up to double, but not more.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Ein):</font></b> The Tur rules like the
                    opinion that permits to profit up to double,
                    because eggs are not such vital life
                    essentials. This is like the Rashbam. I say
                    that they are more essential than oil. Tosfos
                    agrees. He asked that one may not profit more
                    than a sixth on any life essentials! The Rivam
                    answered that one who toils may profit more
                    than a sixth, but for eggs, he may not profit
                    more than double. The Rashba says that we
                    discuss eggs from his own hen. The limit of a
                    sixth applies only to what one bought. The
                    Rashbam says that there is much toil and little
                    profit for Aniyim who seek to buy (and resell
                    eggs), therefore, Chachamim permitted more than
                    a sixth. This is like the Rivam.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (SMA 36):</font></b> The Rambam and Tur hold that
                    there are three levels. One may profit up to a
                    sixth on primary life essentials such as wine,
                    oil and flour. Things that are not food at all,
                    such as costus and frankincense, one may profit
                    as much as he wants. One may profit up to
                    double on things that improve food, such as
                    cumin and spices.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Drishah (28 DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Tur allows to
                    profit like one wants with things other than
                    wine, oil and flour. However, he allows only
                    double for eggs. The same applies anything used
                    for food. This shows that there is no limit
                    only for things like costus that are not used
                    for food at all.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (28 DH Ein):</font></b> Chayei Nefesh refers to
                    things one cannot live without, i.e. wine, oil
                    and flour. 'Borei Nefashos Rabos <i>v'Chesronan</i>'
                    alludes to this. All foods give for sustenance
                    to some extent, like we say '... Lehachayos
                    Nefesh Kol Chai!'
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (39):</font></b> This law applies only to eggs, for it
                    is common that one buys from many owners and
                    sells them. For other things, two may profit,
                    for if the latter charges too much, one can buy
                    from others who sell cheaply.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>REGULATION OF MEASURES AND PRICES </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> 'Veha'Misnasei l'Chol l'Rosh' -
          even the overseer of who draws water from the pit is
          appointed from Heaven.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FAMINE, AND NOSTALGIA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> Elimelech and his family would not
          have left Eretz Yisrael had they found food, even bran!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They were punished because they did not pray for
               their generation - 'b'Za'akech Yatziluch
               Kibutzayich.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Permission to leave Eretz
          Yisrael depends on the price of grain only when money is
          cheap and Peros are expensive, but if money is scarce,
          even if four Se'im sell for a Sela, one may leave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> I remember when four Se'im sold
               for a Sela, and many people had swelled stomachs
               from hunger in Teveryah, because money was scarce.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> I remember when workers would refuse to work in
               the east part of the city, because they would die
               from the smell of bread.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> I remember when a child would cut a carob and
               honey would spurt on his arms.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Elazar):</font></b> I remember when a raven would take meat,
          and a stream of fat would extend from the wall (of the
          city) to the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> I remember when boys 16 or 17 years old
          would play together with girls and not sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> I remember that they would say in the
          Beis Midrash 'one who admits to (flatters) idolaters will
          fall to them.' (Rather, one must refute everything they
          say.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one trusts that they will not harm him and
               lets them see what he has, they will take all he
               owns.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPOUNDING NAMES AND VERSES ABOUT RUTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> In Megilas Rus, Elimelech's children are
          called Machlon and Chilyon. In Divrei ha'Yamim, they are
          called Yo'ash and Saraf!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav or Shmuel):</font></b> Their real names were
          Machlon and Chilyon. They are called Yo'ash and Saraf
          because they Nisya'ashu (despaired) of Yeshu'ah
          (salvation) and were worthy to be Nisrafim (burned).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (The other of Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> Their real
          names were Yo'ash and Saraf. They are called Machlon and
          Chilyon because they made themselves Chulin and were
          worthy of Kelayah (to be wiped out).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for the first opinion - Beraisa):</font></b> (A verse
          lists people of Yehudah.) 'V'Yokim' is Yehoshua (perhaps
          his mother was from Yehudah), who was Mekim (fulfilled)
          the oath to the Givonim. 'V'Anshei Chozeva' are the
          Givonim, who lied (Kazvu) to Yehoshua. 'V'Yo'ash v'Saraf'
          are Machlon and Chilyon;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They are called Yo'ash and Saraf because they
               despaired of salvation and were worthy to be burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	'Asher Bo'alu l'Mo'av' - they married Moabite women.
          'V'Yashuvi Lechem' refers to Rus, who returned and clung
          to Beis Lechem. 'Veha'Devarim Atikim' - these matters
          were said by the Ancient One of the World;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Motzasi David Avdi', and 'Shtei
               Venosecha ha'Nimtza'os.' David and (Shlomo's son
               Rechavam) descended from Lot's daughters, who were
               saved (and permitted to marry into Yisrael, unlike
               men of Amon and Mo'av).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	'Hemah ha'Yotzerim' are the children of Yonadav
          (descendants of Yisro), who guarded their father's oath
          (not to drink wine - Yirmeyahu 35:14). 'V'Yoshevei
          Neta'im' refers to Shlomo, who was like a sapling
          regarding kingship (he grew greatly). 'U'Gderah' refers
          to the Sanhedrin, who fenced the breaches in Yisrael. 'Im
          ha'Melech bi'Mlachto Yoshvu Sham' refers to Rus, who saw
          the kingship of Shlomo, her grandson's grandson.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Yasem Kisei l'Em ha'Melech' was
               for Rus, the mother of the kingly line.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Va'Achaltem Min ha'Tevu'ah Yashan (you will
          eat old grain)' - without Salamanton.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Worms will not make it rot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Hot winds will not prevent you
          from aging it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	Support (for Rav Nachman - Beraisa) Suggestion:
          'Va'Achaltem... Yashan' - perhaps Yisrael will hope for
          new grain because old grain ceased (through worms)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ad Bo Tevu'asah' - you (will not be
               rushed to harvest. You) will wait until it is
               properly ripened.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Support (for Rav Sheshes - Beraisa) Suggestion:
          'Va'Achaltem... Yashan' - perhaps Yisrael will hope for
          new grain because the old grain is bad (due to hot
          winds)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ad Bo Tevu'asah' - you will wait
               until it is properly ripened.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Va'Achaltem Yashan Noshan' teaches that
          older grain is better.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps that applies only to things
               that are normally aged.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Yashan Noshan' teaches about even
               things that are not normally aged.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'V'Yashan Mipenei Chadash Totzi'u' teaches that
               all the storehouses will be full of old Peros, and
               the granaries will be full of new Peros, and Yisrael
               say 'how can we clear out the old, to make room for
               the (inferior) new?!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> Everything is better when it is old, except
          for dates, beer and small fish.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE EULOGY FOR AVRAHAM AVINU</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Avraham Avinu died, all of the great leaders of the world stood in a row and said, 'Woe to a world that has lost its leader, woe to a boat that has lost its captain.'
</p><p>
On the surface, it seems that they were lamenting the loss of the greatest person of their times. However, the two statements seem to be the same; they both lament a loss of leadership. Is there any more significance behind their specific choice of words?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the leaders of the world were referring to the two great qualities of Avraham Avinu: the fact that he introduced the world to the service of Hash-m, and that he was the role model of the world for how to conduct oneself, the epitome of good Midos. (See the <b>NETZIV</b> in his introduction to <b>HA'EMEK DAVAR</b>, where he explains that this is why Sefer Bereishis is called 'Sefer ha'Yashar'; the Avos always acted 'Yashar' with the people of the world.) When the leaders were lamenting the loss of Avraham, they first lamented the loss of the their leader who taught them to recognize the One Who created the world. This is what they meant by, 'Woe to a world that has lost its leader.' They then lamented the fact that they lost the world's role model in how to be 'Yashar,' upright. They compared Avraham Avinu to the captain of a boat, who always leads the boat and its passengers on the correct path.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explains this lamentation based on the words of the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah and Yalkut) which says that Avraham Avinu used to pray for the women who could not have children, and they would have children. He also used to pray for sick people, who would then recover. The Yalkut quotes Rebbi Chanina who said that 'ships which would embark on journeys throughout the Great Ocean were saved in the merit of Avraham Avinu.'
</p><p>
The Iyun Yakov therefore explains that the first lamentation referred to the loss of the leader who prayed for the childless and the sick. The second lamentation, which compared Avraham to the captain of a ship, referred to the loss of the leader in whose merit ships arrived safely during difficult ocean journeys. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOLLOWING THE ROV IN MONETARY MATTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought Shimon's Peros and planted
          them, and they did not grow, even if he bought flax
          seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he bought seeds that are
          not (normally) eaten, Shimon is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav):</font></b> If Reuven sold an ox to Shimon, and it
          was found to be a gorer, it is a Mekach Ta'os (a mistaken
          sale; it is void).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> Reuven can say 'I sold it to you for
          slaughter' (the sale is valid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Let us see whether Shimon buys oxen for
          plowing or for slaughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, he buys for both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Let us see whether he paid the price of a
          plowing ox or an ox for slaughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, the price is the same for both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, what difference does it make whether
          or not the sale is valid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> If it is valid, Shimon must toil to sell it. If
          it is invalid, he can demand that Reuven refund the
          money.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DETERMINING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE OX WAS SOLD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Shmuel disagree about the law in the case of a person who sold an ox which turned out to be a goring ox. Rav says that the sale is invalid; the buyer may claim that he intended to buy an ox to work his field, but this ox cannot be left alive and is good only for its meat. Shmuel says that the sale is valid, because the seller may claim that the buyer bought the ox for its meat, and thus the fact that it has a habit of goring is inconsequential to the sale.
</p><p>
The Gemara first suggests that research be done into the facts of the case. If the seller usually sells oxen for meat, then the seller's claim is justified and the sale should be valid. If the seller usually sells oxen for work, then the buyer's claim is justified and the sale should not be valid. The Gemara answers that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel applies to a case in which the seller conducts both types of sales.
</p><p>
The Gemara then asks that the price that was paid for the ox should reveal the purpose for which the ox was purchased. An ox sold for plowing fields is more expensive than an ox sold for meat. The Gemara answers that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel applies to a case in which the price of meat-oxen had risen to a level comparable with the price of work-oxen.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Lichzi) asks that the Gemara's question (that the price paid for the ox should reveal the purpose for which the ox was purchased) is contrary to the position of the Rabanan quoted earlier (77b). The Rabanan state, 'Ein ha'Damim Ra'ayah,' one cannot determine the nature of a sale based on the price. The Rabanan there argue with Rebbi Yehudah who states that the price <i>may</i> be used to determine the nature of a sale ('Damim Modi'im'; see Insights to Bava Basra 61:2). Why does the Gemara here seem to follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah, whose opinion is not the Halachah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Rabanan maintain 'Ein ha'Damim Ra'ayah' only in a case like the one mentioned in the Gemara earlier (77b). In that case, the buyer explicitly said that he is purchasing the Tzemed (yoke), even though the price for the yoke was high. The sale took place in an area where most people call a Tzemed a Tzemed and do not include the oxen in the sale of a Tzemed. Since there is a Rov (that most people call a Tzemed a Tzemed) and a Chazakah (that the money is in the hands of the seller), the Rabanan rule that the price cannot reveal anything about the nature of the sale. In contrast, in the case of the Gemara here, most people in the place of the sale sell oxen for plowing, which means that there is a Rov that supports the claim of the buyer, but the <i>seller</i> has a Chazakah because <i>he</i> is in possession of the money. The Rabanan agree in such a case that the price <i>may</i> be used as a determining factor to decide the case. This is also the explanation given by the <b>YAD RAMAH</b>.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> who explains that when the Rabanan earlier say 'Ein ha'Damim Ra'ayah,' they mean only that the money is not proof of <i>what</i> was sold, such as whether or not the oxen were included in the sale of the Tzemed. However, the Rabanan agree that when an item was sold, and both parties agree that the actual item delivered was the item described, but they disagree about whether the item fits the specifications that the buyer claims to have wanted, the price that was paid may be used as proof for whether the seller intended to meet the buyer's claimed specifications. (See a similar answer quoted by the Rashba in the name of the <b>RA'AVAD</b>.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains that from the fact that the Gemara does not answer this question by saying simply that the price is not a proof, one may infer that the Gemara in fact maintains that even the Rabanan agree that the price sometimes may serve as proof to invalidate a sale. Rabeinu Chananel concludes that the Gemara here must be referring to any case in which the price clearly indicates what was sold. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN CAN ONE SAY THAT HE SOLD AN OX FOR SHECHITAH?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 77b (Mishnah):</font></b> If one sold a yoke, he did not sell
               the oxen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, the price indicates what he sold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The case is, people call a yoke a yoke, and call
               oxen oxen, and some use 'yoke' to refer to the oxen
               as well. R. Yehudah holds that the price indicates
               what he sold. Chachamim hold that the price is not a
               proof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 92a (Mishnah):</font></b> If David bought Moshe's Peros and
               planted them, and they did not grow, even if he
               bought flax seeds, Moshe is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he bought seeds that
               are not (normally) eaten, Moshe is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Rav):</font></b> If Reuven sold an ox to Shimon, and it was
               found to be a gorer, it is a Mekach Ta'os (a
               mistaken sale; it is void).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Reuven can say 'I sold it to you for
               slaughter.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Let us see whether Shimon buys oxen for
               plowing or for slaughter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, he buys for both.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The price should show for what he bought!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the price is the same for both.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, in either case he gets back what he
               paid!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If it is valid, Shimon must toil to sell it.
               If it is invalid, he can demand that Reuven refund
               the money.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If Reuven has no money to repay Shimon
               what he owes, he may give to him the ox!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, Reuven has other money. Rav
               says that the sale is invalid. We follow the
               majority, and most people buy oxen for plowing.
               Shmuel says, he can say 'I sold it to you for
               slaughter.' We follow the majority for Isurim, but
               not in monetary matters.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (6:2):</font></b> The Halachah follows Shmuel.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (DH Iy):</font></b> If Reuven has money, he
                    must return what Shimon paid, like a borrower.
                    If he has no money but has Metaltelim, he must
                    give the Metaltelim, for they are in place of
                    money. If he claims that he has no money or
                    Metaltelim and seeks to pay with land, the
                    Ge'onim enacted a Cherem (to take effect if he
                    is lying).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 16:5):</font></b> If Reuven sold an ox
               to Shimon, and it was found to be a gorer, he can
               say 'I sold it to you for Shechitah.' This is when
               Shimon buys for plowing and for Shechitah. If Reuven
               knew that Shimon buys only for plowing, it is a
               Mekach Ta'os. The same applies to all similar cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (6:2):</font></b> If the buyer buys for plowing, and the
               seller knew this, he sold for plowing. Chachamim
               agree that the price is a proof when it does not
               contradict the primary way people speak.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Kama 5:1):</font></b> If the buyer normally buys
               only for one of them, we assume that he bought like
               he usually does.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Piplulei Charifta (2):</font></b> Here the Rosh connotes
                    that even if the seller did not know for what
                    the buyer normally buys, we follow his normal
                    practice and it is a Mekach Ta'os. In Bava
                    Basra the Rosh says that it is a Mekach Ta'os
                    only if the seller knew the buyer's normal
                    practice. I say that when he does not know the
                    buyer's practice, the buyer needs to inform
                    him. If he did not inform him, it is as if he
                    abandoned his practice and buys for both.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (92a DH v'LIchzi):</font></b> Chachamim hold that the
               price is not a proof only when the majority (of how
               people speak) and Chazakah (he has the money) favor
               the seller. Even according to texts that say (on
               77b) '<i>some</i> call a yoke a yoke... and some...'
               (there is no majority), the price is not a proof
               because the Chazakah favors the seller. If there is
               a majority (e.g. most buy cows for plowing) against
               a Chazakah, the price determines what was sold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashbam (92a DH v'LIchzi):</font></b> Chachamim hold that the
               price is not a proof only when not everyone calls
               oxen 'yoke'. The seller can say that the buyer calls
               oxen oxen, and he sold only a yoke. Ha'Motzi
               mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah; since the buyer cannot
               prove how he speaks, he gets only a yoke. Here, we
               know that the buyer ofen buys for plowing and
               Shechitah, therefore, the price is a proof. Also
               above, if everyone calls also oxen 'yoke', even if
               they sometimes call them oxen, the price is a proof,
               for we know that the buyer often calls them yoke.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (92b DH Iy):</font></b> The Rashbam rejects the text
               that says 'if Reuven does not have those coins (that
               he received from Shimon)...', for if he has <i>any</i>
               money, he must pay back with money, like a borrower.
               The Ri defends the text. A borrower is different. He
               lent money with intent to get back money. When a
               seller owes due to a Mekach Ta'os, if he spent the
               money he is like a damager (and he need not pay with
               money, even if he has other money). R. Chayim Kohen
               says that even a borrower need not pay with money.
               He has no more obligation than a damager, who (when
               he pays with land) gives Idis (highest quality
               land). All Metaltelim are like Idis (highest quality
               land), for they can be sold anywhere. R. Tam says
               that a borrower with money must pay money. If he has
               no money, we tell him to sell his property and pay
               money. A damager may pay with anything, even if he
               has money.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 232:23):</font></b> If Reuven sold an ox to
               Shimon, and it was found to be a gorer, if we cannot
               prove whether or not he bought it for plowing or for
               slaughter, e.g. Shimon buys for both of them, and we
               cannot bring a proof from the price, e.g. the prices
               are the same, the sale stands. Reuven can say 'I
               sold it to you for slaughter.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (57,59):</font></b> One may not keep a gorer alive.
                    Shimon slaughters it, sells the meat and uses
                    the money to buy an ox for plowing.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 5:3):</font></b> The price is a
                    proof when the prices for plowing and for
                    Shechitah differ greatly.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:1):</font></b> The Gemara
                    said that Kad and Chavis (big and small
                    barrels) are interchangeable. I.e., whoever is
                    Muchzak in the money keeps it, even if the
                    majority uses the words oppositely to the way
                    he does. This is when the price is not a proof,
                    e.g. the prices are about the same. If there is
                    a sizable difference, the price is a proof and
                    favors the Muchzak even if the majority opposes
                    him, or the price favors the one who holds like
                    the majority even if he is not Muchzak. 
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> Even if most buy for plowing,
               we do not follow the majority to make Reuven pay. If
               Shimon still has the money, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav
               ha'Re'ayah. This is not only if most buy for
               plowing, rather, even if half buy for Shechitah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (31):</font></b> We do not follow the majority only
                    when the Chazakah favors the seller, for then
                    ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Prishah (18):</font></b> We require a majority with the
                    Chazakah only regarding seeds, for the buyer
                    does not return them. One returns a goring ox,
                    therefore, the Ramah does not require
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Bach (18):</font></b> Even if only half buy for seeding,
                    we follow the Chazakah of the money, and the
                    buyer need not pay.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (21):</font></b> Tosfos (Sanhedrin 3b DH Dinei) says
                    that we follow the majority even for capital
                    cases, all the more so we should follow it for
                    monetary cases! We must say that the majority
                    without buy for plowing is weaker than other
                    majorities, therefore, it does not help for
                    money. We also do not follow the majority who
                    buy seeds for planting! It seems that the
                    majority of oxen or seeds are bought (by a few
                    buyers) for plowing and planting, but the
                    majority of buyers buy (small amounts for)
                    eating.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Dagul me'Revavah:</font></b> The Shulchan Aruch connotes
                    that if most buy for Shechitah, even if the
                    buyer is Muchzak, he must pay. However, we do
                    not follow the majority in monetary laws! Like
                    the Bach, we can say that a majority who buy
                    for Shechitah is a proper majority, and we
                    follow it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If Reuven knows that Shimon
               normally buys only for plowing, it is a Mekach 
               Ta'os.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> It
                    seems that the Tur holds that if Reuven did not
                    know this, the sale stands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If he normally buys only for
               Shechitah, presumably he bought for Shechitah. If he
               normally buys for both, and it is clear from the
               price that he paid for a plolwing ox, it is a Mekach
               Ta'os. If he paid the price of an ox for Shechitah,
               he bought it for Shechitah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Prishah (Sof ha'Siman):</font></b> According to the
                    Rashbam, if the prices differ, this proves for
                    what he bought it, if everyone calls a plowing
                    ox or an ox for Shechitah (just) 'ox'.
                    According to the Ramah, it suffices if most
                    people call a plowing ox (just) 'ox' (even if
                    some always specify).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Whenever it is a Mekach Ta'os and Reuven must
               return the money, if he has money, he must return
               money, for he is like a borrower. This is unlike the
               opinion that he may pay with land.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>DOES THE PRICE PROVE WHAT WAS SOLD? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If Reuven has no money to repay Shimon what
          he owes, he may give to him the ox!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, Reuven has other money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav says the sale is invalid. We follow the Rov
               (majority), and most people buy oxen for plowing;
          2..   Shmuel says, he can say 'I sold it to you for
               slaughter.' We follow the Rov for Isurim, but not in
               monetary matters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav - Mishnah):</font></b> If Leah was widowed
          or divorced, and she claims that she was a virgin when
          she married Reuven (so her Kesuvah is 200 Zuz), and he
          (or his heirs) claim that she was not (so her Kesuvah is
          100):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If witnesses testify that (at the wedding) she
               had a Hinuma (a canopy of myrtle, or a veil over her
               eyes), or her hair was uncovered (the custom of
               virgin brides) she collects 200.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If she does not have witnesses, she
               only gets 100.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> We should follow the Rov!
               Most women are virgins when they marry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Most women are virgins when married,
          but a minority are not. Every virgin who marries has a
          Kol (people remember it);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since Leah has no Kol, this weakens the Rov (so
               we do not follow it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> If every virgin has a Kol, and Leah has no
          Kol, we should not believe witnesses. Surely they are
          lying!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Correction:</font></b> Rather, most virgins who marry have a Kol.
          Since Leah has no Kol, this weakens the Rov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If Levi sold a slave to Yehudah,
          and the slave was found to be a thief or Kuvyustus
          (Tosfos - diceplayer; Rashi - kidnapper), the sale
          stands;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he was found to be an armed robber or
               sentenced (by the kingdom) to die, the sale is
               invalid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> In the Reisha, the sale stands
               because most slaves are thieves or Kuvyustus. (This
               shows that we follow the Rov with regard to monetary
               matters).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, <i>all</i> slaves are.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHAT TYPE OF BLEMISH INVALIDATES THE SALE OF AN 'EVED'?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that if a person sold a slave to his friend and the slave turned out to be a thief or a Kuvyustus (a kidnapper or gambler; see Background to the Daf), the sale is valid. If the slave was found to be an armed robber or wanted by the government, the sale is invalid and the buyer may return the slave for a full refund.
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (CM 237:10) explains the reasoning of the Gemara's ruling, based on the Gemara in Kesuvos (58a). In the first two cases, the fact that the slave is involved in unsavory activities does not render the sale to have been made under false pretenses. <i>All</i> slaves are suspected of stealing, and therefore the fact that the purchased slave steals is nothing out of the ordinary Moreover, the slave's involvement in thievery does not necessarily interfere with his work (he may steal at night, when he is not expected to be working). As long as the slave does his job, he is a fitting slave and the sale is valid. However, if he is an armed robber or wanted by the government, the buyer will soon have no slave, since the slave is slated for execution. This certainly interferes with the purpose for which he purchased the slave, and thus the sale is invalid.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAVOS YA'IR</b> (#211) was asked about a case of a woman who was sold by her brother as a slave, and it was later revealed that she was a Zonah. Is this type of blemish considered grounds to invalidate the sale?
</p><p>
(a) The brother of the woman claimed that since she can do her work in the normal manner, her involvement in promiscuity should not invalidate the sale. She also is not pregnant, and thus she is fit to work as normal.
</p><p>
(b) The Chavos Ya'ir writes that the sale is invalid. The fact that she was a Zonah provides reason to assume that she will have a tendency to return to her illicit behavior, and she thus will spend time away from work in this pursuit. Moreover, her former profession will draw unwanted people to her master's house. However, the Chavos Ya'ir differentiates between a girl who was a Zonah and a girl who was known to be a modest girl who was enticed to behave sinfully. In the latter case, the master should keep her and be watchful that she does not leave the house without permission or supervision.
</p><p>
The Chavos Ya'ir's position is difficult to understand. The Gemara says that being a thief is not considered a blemish for an Eved. Similarly, being a Zonah should not be considered a blemish. The Chavos Ya'ir's arguments that the woman will end up spending time away from work and that she attracts a bad crowd would seem to apply equally to an Eved who is a thief.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHEVUS YAKOV</b> (1:174) questions the entire discussion of the Chavos Ya'ir. The case of the Chavos Ya'ir involved a Jewish girl who was hired out by her brother as a 'slave.' The Gemara's discussion about the sale of a slave refers to an <i>Eved Kena'ani</i> and a <i>Shifchah Kena'anis,</i> not to Jewish slaves. A Jewish slave is certainly not suspected of stealing any more than any other Jew. It is clear that if a Jewish worker was hired out by someone and found to be a thief, the deal is null and void, since Jews are not suspected of being thieves. He proves this from the Gemara in Bava Kama (28a) which states that a master is allowed to force an Eved Nirtza to leave his house when the Yovel year arrives (since he is no longer allowed to be his Eved), and the master is exempt from any liability for his use of force. The Gemara there says that this Halachah refers to an Eved who steals from his master. (The Gemara there explains that the servant wants to continue living in his master's home after the Yovel year, without being a real Eved. The master is concerned that the former Eved will start stealing from him.) The Shevus Yakov adds that it is clear from many sources that a Shifchah Kena'anis is presumed to be a Zonah (see, for example, Avos 2:8: 'Marbeh Shifchos Marbeh Zimah'), and thus a Shifchah's occupation with promiscuity is not a reason to invalidate her sale (since the buyer presumably knows that she is a Zonah). The Shevus Yakov therefore disagrees with the conclusions of the Chavos Ya'ir. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOLLOWING THE ROV (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> An ox gored a cow, and a dead calf
          is found by the cow. We do not know whether the calf was
          born before the goring (and it died by itself), or after
          the goring (and it died due to the goring). The ox pays
          half-damage for the cow, and quarter-damage for the calf.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why don't we follow the Rov of animals?
               Most give birth to live calves. Since this one did
               not, we should assume that this was due to the
               goring!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> There, we do not follow the Rov because we do
          not know what happened. Perhaps the cow saw the ox coming
          and miscarried out of fear, or perhaps the ox gored it
          from the back (it never saw the ox coming), and the
          miscarriage was due to the goring;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are in doubt. In all doubtful monetary cases,
               we divide the disputed money (according to Sumchus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue as Rav and Shmuel argue.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> An ox was grazing, and a dead ox was
               found next to it. Even if it was gored or bitten,
               and the live ox is Mu'ad (established) to gore or
               bite, we do not assume that it killed it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Acha says, if a dead camel was found near a
               mating camel, surely the mating camel killed it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We are assuming that Rov and Chazakah are similar
               (whoever follows one, he follows also the other).
               The assumption that the mating camel killed the dead
               camel is based on Chazakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav holds like R. Acha, and Shmuel
               holds like Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1:</font></b> Even Chachamim can hold like Rav;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say only that we do not follow
               Chazakah. They could say that we follow a Rov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2:</font></b> Even R. Acha can hold like Shmuel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Acha says that we follow Chazakah only
               regarding a mating camel, for it itself is Muchzak
               to gore. He would not say that we follow a Rov
               (which applies to others, i.e. most others buy for
               plowing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought
          Shimon's fruit and planted it, and it did not grow, even
          flax seeds, Shimon is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'even flax seeds'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that that even though most
               people plant flax seeds, we do not follow the Rov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven bought Shimon's fruit and
               planted it, and it did not grow, if he bought seeds
               that are not eaten, Shimon is liable. If he bought
               flax seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, Shimon must return the value of
               flax seeds for planting.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN ANIMAL SUSPECTED OF KILLING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between Rebbi Acha and the Tana Kama in the case of an animal suspected of killing another animal. The Tana Kama discusses a case in which two oxen were grazing together, and then one is found dead. The Tana Kama states that even if the surviving ox is known to be a Mu'ad to bite other oxen, and the victim was bitten, it cannot be assumed unequivocally that the Mu'ad ox was the perpetrator.
</p><p>
Rebbi Acha discusses a case in which a camel was 'Ocher Bein ha'Gemalim' (see <b>RASHBAM</b>, DH Gamal ha'Ocher, <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, and <b>RASHBA</b>), and a dead camel was found next to it. Rebbi Acha says that it is clear that this camel is considered the one who killed the victim.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rebbi Acha) asks that the Gemara in Bava Kama (24b) seems to follow the view of Rebbi Acha. The Gemara there discusses a case in which a person was informed that among his herd of oxen was an ox with a tendency to gore, and that he therefore should watch his entire flock. When the fourth case of goring occurs, it is assumed that it was the ox who had the tendency to gore. The Gemara there seems to describe a case in which the ox is never actually caught goring, but nevertheless is blamed for all of the goring which was done. This seems to follow the view of Rebbi Acha, because the Rabanan would rule that an ox is not deemed to be the killer simply because of its proximity to the victim. Does the Gemara in Bava Kama indeed follow the opinion of Rebbi Acha?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara there indeed follows the view of Rebbi Acha.
</p><p>
The <b>AYELES HA'SHACHAR</b> questions why Tosfos assumes that the Gemara there follows the view of Rebbi Acha. Rebbi Acha said his Halachah only in the case of a camel which was acting up ('Ocher Bein ha'Gemalim') and was then found next to a dead camel. He never said that if an animal gored once (and is not a Mu'ad) that Beis Din may assume that the animal is responsible for all gorings.
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, Tosfos suggests that the Gemara in Bava Kama follows even the view of the Rabanan. It is possible that the Gemara there refers to a case of an animal that gored in front of witnesses, and then other witnesses came forward and testified that they saw the same animal gore on the three previous occasions as well. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MISTAKEN SALE IN WHICH THE ITEM CANNOT BE RETURNED</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 83b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sold (what was understood
               to be) good wheat, and it was found to be bad, the
               buyer (Shimon) can retract. If he sold bad wheat,
               and it was found to be good, Reuven can retract. If
               he sold red wheat, and it was found to be white,
               either can retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 92a (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought Shimon's Peros and
               planted them, and they did not grow, even if he
               bought flax seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he bought seeds that
               are not (normally) eaten, Shimon is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 93b:</font></b> They argue only about how much Shimon pays.
               Chachamim obligate only the value of the seeds R.
               Shimon obligates also the expenditures.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 93a (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven bought Shimon's fruit and
               planted it, and it did not grow, if he bought seeds
               that are not eaten, Shimon is liable. If he bought
               flax seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, Shimon must return the value of flax
               seeds for planting.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Many people buy flax seeds for other
               things!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Yosi and Chachamim who responded to
               him argue about whether or not we follow the Rov
               (majority).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Both follow the Rov. R. Yosi follows the
               Rov of seed bought, and Chachamim follow the Rov of
               people who buy.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The first Tana (does not follow the Rov). R.
               Yosi or the latter Chachamim do.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 105b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven rented
               Shimon's field and the crop was stricken by locusts
               or withered (by the sun or wind), he deducts from
               the rental only if the entire province was stricken.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 106b (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He deducts only if it sprouted
               and was afflicted. If it never sprouted, he should
               have planted again. Perhaps he planted too early!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beitzah 7a:</font></b> David requested Pachya eggs (laid
                    from a live hen). Yosef gave to him eggs found
                    in a slaughtered hen. R. Ami ruled that it is a
                    Mekach Ta'os.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> One might have thought that David wants to eat
                    them, and he requested Pachya eggs because they
                    are fully developed, and Yosef must return only
                    the difference in value. R. Ami teaches that
                    this is not so.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (6:1):</font></b> He is liable only if the seeds
               did not grow due to themselves. If something else
               caused them not to grow, e.g. hail, he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rosh):</font></b> The Rif connotes that if we do not
               know the reason why did not grow, e.g. hail, we
               assume that it is due to the seeds. This is
               difficult, for Reish Lakish taught that a rented
               cannot deduct If it never sprouted, for he should
               have planted again; perhaps he planted too early. We
               do not say that it did not sprout due to his seeds!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rosh):</font></b> Really, we attribute the problem to
               the seeds. However, if the entire valley was
               stricken, surely, not everyone had bad seeds! For
               one person, we assume that he had bad seeds; one
               opinion relies on this to obligate paying the
               expenditures!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 16:1):</font></b> If Shimon sold seeds
               that are not eaten, and they did not grow, he is
               liable. He returns the money paid for them, for the
               Chazakah is that they were bought for planting. This
               is if they did not grow due to themselves. If the
               land was afflicted, e.g. through hail, he is exempt,
               for perhaps the hail caused that they did not grow.
               The same applies to all similar cases.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ramban (103b DH v'Havi):</font></b> Since Pachya eggs are
                    more important because they are fully
                    developed, this is no worse than a mistake in
                    the weight. Even so, (had David wanted to eat
                    them) it would suffice to return the
                    difference, for eggs are like Peros, and he can
                    return an egg to pay the difference.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Ran Kidushin 17b DH ud'Amrei):</font></b> The
                    Ro'oh's text says that he put the eggs under a
                    hen and they did not hatch. If we would say
                    that David wanted to eat them, Yosef would need
                    to return only the difference, because the eggs
                    spoiled and David cannot return them. However,
                    if David could return the eggs, he could claim
                    Mekach Ta'os. Many texts do not say that he put
                    the eggs under a hen, but still we must say
                    that he did, for if not, he could return them.
                    A Mishnah teaches that if one sold good, and it
                    was found to be bad, the buyer can retract. He
                    need not accept bad, even twice as much!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mordechai (Bava Metzia 291):</font></b> Reuven claims that
                    Shimon sold him a golden item and said that it
                    is gold, and he broke it and found that it is
                    of tin. Shimon says 'had you returned it to me
                    intact, I would have accepted it and resold it.
                    Now that you broke it, it is worthless to me.
                    You were negligent with my item!' Rabbeinu Meir
                    ruled that this is not negligence, for Reuven
                    did not know that there is tin inside. Had he
                    known, he would have returned it intact! This
                    is like the overseer of orphans who bought an
                    ox for them. He gave it to a cattle herder
                    (Levi). It did not have teeth, so it died. Even
                    though the seller bought and sold animals and
                    did not know that it had no teeth, he was
                    obligated to return the money (Bava Metzia
                    42a), for the buyer was not negligent.
                    Therefore, Shimon returns the money. However,
                    if Shimon does not believe that the inside was
                    tin, he swears that he does not know that there
                    was tin inside, and he is exempt.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (CM 232:18):</font></b> If the buyer was not negligent at
               all, e.g. he bought a gold ring, broke it and found
               tin inside, the seller must return the money, even
               if the seller overpaid (when he bought it). If the
               seller does not believe that the inside was tin, he
               swears that he does not know about this, and he is
               exempt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (43):</font></b> We do not obligate an oath due to a
                    Safek claim! Why should we assume that the
                    seller knew? Also he bought it assuming that it
                    is gold! Perhaps this is when the buyer claims
                    that the seller told a smith to put tin inside.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (13):</font></b> Since the buyer is sure that tin
                    was inside, he holds that the seller surely
                    owes him. The seller is unsure whether he owes
                    him, so he swears (CM 75:9).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (Teshuvah b'Sof Siman 75):</font></b> If one paid a
                    loan, and afterwards the lender says that one
                    of them coins was Pasul, the borrower is
                    exempt, for he does not know whether he owes.
                    The Chazakah is that he paid with good coins;
                    now, a Safek arose. This is like one who gave a
                    bad coin. He must exchange if only if he
                    recognizes it. The Mordechai says that the
                    seller of the gold ring swears that he does not
                    know, and he is exempt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Pischei Teshuvah 75:27, citing Panim
                    Me'iros 1:60):</font></b> If one does not recognize the
                    coin that he gave, he does not know that he
                    ever owed. A borrower knows that he owed, so he
                    needs to be sure that he paid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (20):</font></b> If Shimon sold garden seeds
               that are not eaten, and Reuven planted them and they
               did not grow, Shimon is liable. He returns the money
               paid for them, for the Chazakah is that they were
               bought for planting. This is if they did not grow
               due to themselves. If the land was afflicted through
               hail or similar things, he is exempt, for perhaps
               the hail caused that they did not grow. The same
               applies to all similar cases.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Ha):</font></b> The Ran
                    (92a DH Masnisin) says that Shimon is liable
                    only if they were sown in tested (fertile) land
                    and in normal years. If he planted in Trashim
                    (rocky land, or weak, fine soil), or the years
                    were substandard (for crops), he is exempt. We
                    attribute the lack of growth to the year or the
                    soil, unless experts saw that the seeds were
                    not proper for seeding. It seems that the Rif
                    and Rambam agree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Chol, citing
                    the Ran):</font></b> What is the Chidush regarding
                    inedible seeds? Surely they were sold for
                    planting! The Chidush is, even though they were
                    planted and cannot be returned, the seller
                    returns the money, for it is as if he told the
                    buyer to plant them. One might have thought
                    that even though it is a Mekach Ta'os, he can
                    say 'return the seeds, and then I will return
                    your money.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>SMA (46):</font></b> Even if the seller did not know that
                    they are bad for planting, he should have
                    realized that perhaps they are bad and the
                    seeds will be ruined. This is why he must
                    return all the money, even though the seeds
                    rotted in the ground.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>WHO MAY RETRACT WHEN THERE WAS ONA'AH </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Many people buy flax seeds for other
               things!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Which Tana'im argue about following the Rov?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Yosi and Chachamim who responded
               to him argue about this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Both follow the Rov. R. Yosi follows
               the Rov of seed bought, and Chachamim follow the Rov
               of people who buy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The first Tana (does not follow the Rov). R.
          Yosi or the latter Chachamim do.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMPENSATION FOR LOSS DUE TO EXPENDITURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Shimon must return the value of seeds for
          planting;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Some say, he pays also the expenditures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana who obligates paying the
          expenditures?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> From which teaching of R. Shimon ben Gamliel
          may we infer this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion (our Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought
               Shimon's fruit and planted it, and it did not grow,
               even flax seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he bought seeds
               that are not eaten, Shimon is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> (Chachamim (the first Tana) exempt for
               flax seeds, which are <i>mostly</i> planted.) Chachamim
               agree about seeds that are <i>never</i> eaten, that
               Shimon is liable!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue only about how much Shimon
                    pays. Chachamim obligate only the value of the
                    seeds, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel obligates also
                    the expenditures.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> There is no source to say so! We could
               equally say just the contrary (Chachamim obligate
               the expenditures, and R. Shimon obligates just for
               the seeds)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The latter Tana always comes to add.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Perhaps the entire Mishnah is R.
               Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Mishnah is abbreviated.
               It means as follows. If Reuven bought Shimon's fruit
               and planted it, and it did not grow, even flax
               seeds, Shimon is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that
               if he bought seeds that are not eaten, Shimon is
               liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> In the following cases, one is liable
          for substandard work if he receives wages (but if he
          works for free, he is exempt):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A grinder received wheat to grind, and he did not
               soak it first, and therefore he produced coarse
               flour;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A baker received flour to make bread, and he made
               bread that crumbles;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A butcher did an invalid Shechitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he must also
               compensate the buyer and the guests for their
               embarrassment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that the
               custom in Yerushalayim was that if one sells food
               for a banquet and it spoiled, he must compensate the
               buyer for his and the guests' embarrassment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Another custom in Yerushalayim is that guests may
               enter to eat only as long as a cloth is spread over
               the doorway.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FLAWED ITEMS THAT A BUYER MUST ACCEPT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sold grain to Shimon, Shimon must
          accept a quarter Kav of Pesoles (waste) mixed in with
          each Se'ah, 10 wormy figs out of every 100, 10 barrels of
          bad wine out of every 100, and 10 bad bottles (in Sharon)
          out of every 100.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: IS A 'SOFER' OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR HIS FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED RESULT?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara lists various examples of workers who fail to do the job they are supposed to do. One example is a baker who is given dough to bake bread, and his finished product turns out to be crumbs. Another example is a Shochet who is given an animal to slaughter, and he performs an invalid Shechitah and renders the animal a Neveilah. In these cases, the worker is obligated to pay for the goods that were given to him, since he has the status of a Shomer Sachar. Raban Gamliel adds that the worker is also obligated to pay compensation for any embarrassment experienced by the owner as a result of the worker's failure to do his job (such as where the bread or meat was needed for a dinner party).
</p><p>
Does this Halachah apply to a Sofer who was commissioned to write a Sefer Torah, but the Sefer Torah he produced contained irremediable mistakes?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 281:5) rules that a Sofer who says that he did not write the name of Hash-m with the proper intentions (Lishmah) is believed with regard to losing his wages, but he is not believed to invalidate the Sefer Torah. What is the reason for this distinction? The Shulchan Aruch writes that a vengeful Sofer might think that he can cause great financial damage to the one who commissioned him to write the Sefer Torah if he says that he did not write the name of Hash-m properly, while he causes himself only the loss of the money which he earned for writing the name of Hash-m. This Sofer ends up accomplishing just the opposite; the Sefer Torah itself is deemed valid, while he loses all of his wages.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>REMA</b> (ibid.) writes that although the Sofer loses his wages for writing the Sefer Torah, he must be paid the value of an invalid Sefer Torah, which is the value of an ordinary Chumash. However, the <b>PISCHEI CHOSHEN</b> (chapter 13, note 39) writes that the Rema's ruling applies only in places where an invalid Sefer Torah is used as a Chumash. Nowadays, when an invalid Sefer Torah is not used as a Chumash, the Rema agrees that the Sofer indeed receives nothing.
</p><p>
However, the <b>MAHARAM SHIK</b> (YD 284) writes that the Shulchan Aruch's ruling applies only in a case where the Sofer was supposed to provide a finished product to the person who commissioned the writing of the Sefer Torah. In such a case, the person does not have to pay anything for the Sefer Torah. However, if the parchment was supplied by the person commissioning the Sefer Torah, the Sofer does not have to pay for the fact that he technically damaged the parchment, even though it is no longer usable. This is because of the Halachah that 'Hezek she'Eino Nikar Lo Shmei Hezek' -- unnoticeable damage is not considered damage for which one is liable. Since the only problem with the Sefer Torah is that the name of Hash-m was not written Lishmah, this form of damage is included in the category of 'Hezek she'Eino Nikar.' (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST A BUYER ACCEPT DIRT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav Katina):</font></b> The Mishnah says that he must
          accept a Rova (quarter Kav) of Pesoles for each Se'ah,
          i.e. legumes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> He need not accept dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Rabah taught that if Levi removes a pebble
          from Yehudah's grain, he must pay him the value of that
          volume of grain (for one who buys from Yehudah would have
          had to accept it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He must accept a Rova of legumes for each
          Se'ah. He must accept a smaller volume of dirt for each
          Se'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He must accept a full Rova of dirt!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A buyer must accept a Rova of legumes
               for each Se'ah of wheat, a Rova of straw for each
               Se'ah of barley, and a Rova of dirt for each Se'ah
               of lentils.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He must accept a full Rova of dirt
               with wheat or barley, just like with lentils.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, he accepts this only with lentils, for they
          are uprooted with dirt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference (and a support for Rav Katina):</font></b> He accepts 
          dirt with lentils, for they are uprooted. Grain is cut,
          and not uprooted, so he need not accept dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Really, he must accept dirt with grain;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa needs to teach about lentils. One
               might have thought that because they are uprooted,
               he must accept more than a Rova. The Beraisa teaches
               that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO EXCEEDED THE QUOTA OF FLAWED ITEMS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If more than a Rova of Pesoles was found,
          the seller must give grain in place of all of the Pesoles
          (i.e. he may not include the allowed amount of Pesoles).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some explain that this is letter of the law.
               Others say that it is a fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Some explain that it is letter of the law. A
               buyer pays for good Peros; one does not bother to
               remove a Rova (or less) of Pesoles;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it is more than a Rova, one toils to remove
                    it. Once he toils, he removes all the Pesoles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Others say that it is a fine. A Rova is common,
               but more than this is not. We assume that he mixed
               in Pesoles. Therefore he is fined. He must give a
               full measure of good Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Se'ah of grain has a Rova of
          another species mixed in, one must diminish the other
          species (before planting, due to Kilayim),
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are thinking that a Rova regarding Kilayim is
               like more than a Rova regarding a sale, and it says
               that he must diminish it (he need not remove all of
               it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, a Rova regarding Kilayim is like a Rova
          regarding a sale.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, why must he diminish it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This is a stringency of Kilayim.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'DINA' AND 'KENASA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (93b) states that when a person buys grain, he accepts that there will be up to a quarter of a Kav of Tinofes (the Gemara discusses whether this refers to dirt or legumes) per each Se'ah of grain that he buys. (This equals 1/24 of the total amount, as there are six Kav in a Se'ah.) The Gemara cites Rav Huna who says that if a buyer notices that the grain appears to have more than the acceptable amount of Tinofes, he is entitled to demand that seller sift the entire amount of grain and give him only pure grain.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the source of this law is either 'Dina' ('law') or 'Kenasa' ('penalty'). 'Dina' means that the source of this law is based on logical considerations: a buyer accepts the fact that the grain he buys might contain up to a quarter of Tinofes, and he does not care if his Se'ah of grain contains slightly less than a true Se'ah of grain. However, he <i>does</i> care if his grain contains <i>more</i> than a quarter of a Kav of Tinofes per Se'ah. Once he decides to buy such grain and demands that it be sifted, he cares to ensure that the grain he is buying should not have <i>any</i> Tinofes. The seller therefore has no right to sell any Tinofes with the newly sifted grain.
</p><p>
'Kenasa' means that this law is a penalty that the Chachamim instituted. It is normal that a Se'ah of grain contains up to a quarter of a Kav of Tinofes. If a Se'ah of grain has more than that amount of Tinofes, it is a sign that the seller purposely attempted to included more Tinofes in the sale. The Chachamim therefore penalized the seller and required that he resift the grain and sell pure grain with no Tinofes.
</p><p>
Is there any Halachic difference between these two opinions about the source of this law?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH v'Amri Lah Kenasa) writes that the difference between these two opinions exists in a case in which it is known for a fact that the seller did not purposely mix more than one quarter of Tinofes in the grain (for example, the customer saw that the seller opened a new bag of grain from a standard grain supplier and spilled it into his tray for sale). If this law is based on logical considerations, then the customer still does not want to purchase grain with so much Tinofes and the seller must resift all of the grain in question. However, according to the opinion that this law is a fine (due to the suspicion that the seller tampered with the amount of Tinofes in the grain), the fine should not apply in this case because the seller clearly did not tamper with the grain. Accordingly, the seller should be able to give the buyer more than a Rova of Tinofes.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> has difficulty with the Rashbam's explanation. Why should the seller ever be entitled to sell more than one quarter of a Kav of Tinofes? This is a standard amount which the Mishnah prohibits a seller from selling with a Se'ah of grain!
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> explains says that the Rashbam's until this point is correct. However, he explains that if the reason is 'Dina,' the grain must be totally resifted even when it is known that the seller did not tamper with the grain. If the reason is 'Kenasa,' the seller <i>still</i> must resift the grain, but he is required to remove only the amount of Tinofes above the permissible amount. He may leave one quarter of a Kav of Tinofes in the grain.
</p><p>
The Ran quotes <b>RABEINU YEHUDAH BAR CHISDAI</b> who explains that because the source of this law is unresolved, the Halachah is that the person who is in possession of the money keeps the money. Accordingly, in a case in which it is known that the seller did not tamper with the grain, the seller does <i>not</i> have to resift the grain and he may leave up to one quarter of a Kav of Tinofes in the grain.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> apparently understands that there is no significant Halachic difference between these two opinions. The only difference is whether one may extrapolate the law from this case to other cases. If the law in this case is 'Dina,' then it may be applied to other cases. If it is 'Kenasa,' then it cannot be applied to other cases (since each situation of a fine is unique).
</p><p>
The Ran points out that this also seems to be the approach of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Mechirah 18:11). The Rambam states merely that if a seller gives the buyer too much Tinofes with the grain, he must resift the entire amount. This implies that even if it is known that the seller did not intentionally tamper with the grain, he still must resift the entire amount of grain and remove all of the Tinofes. The Ran suggests that the Rambam understands that the principle of 'Lo Plug' applies in this case, and thus a seller must always resift the grain when the grain that he has sold appears to contain more than a quarter of a Kav of Tinofes. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PLANTING A MIXTURE OF SEEDS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one sold a Se'ah of grain, and more
               than a Rova of Pesoles (foreign matter) was found in
               it, the seller must give grain in place of all of
               the Pesoles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> This is letter of the law. A buyer pays
               for good Peros. One does not bother to remove a Rova
               (or less) of Pesoles. If it is more than a Rova, one
               toils to remove it. Once he toils, he removes all
               the Pesoles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> This is a fine. A Rova is common, but
               more than this is not. We assume that he mixed in
               Pesoles. Therefore he is fined. He must give a full
               measure of good Peros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Se'ah of grain has a Rova
               of another species mixed in, one must diminish the
               other species (lest he plant Kilayim).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Assumption:</font></b> A Rova regarding Kilayim is like
                    more than a Rova regarding a sale (mid'Oraisa,
                    it is not Batel).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, a Rova regarding Kilayim is like a
               Rova regarding a sale (mid'Oraisa, it is Batel). It
               is a stringency of Kilayim that he must diminish it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Seifa - R. Yosi):</font></b> He must remove all of
               it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If a Rova regarding Kilayim is like more than a
                    Rova regarding a sale, we can say that
                    Chachamim fine what is permitted (less than a
                    Rova) due to what is forbidden (a Rova), and R.
                    Yosi does not fine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> However, if a Rova regarding Kilayim is like a
                    Rova regarding a sale, why must he remove all
                    of it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi is stringent because it looks like
               he intentionally sows Kilayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kidushin 39a:</font></b> Rav Yosef mixed diverse seeds and
               planted them together.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> Kil'ayim applies in
               Chutz La'aretz mid'Rabanan.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> That refers to Kil'ai ha'Kerem
               (Kilayim with grape seeds or in a vineyard). Since
               one may not benefit from Kil'ai ha'Kerem in Eretz
               Yisrael, Chachamim forbade it in Chutz La'aretz. One
               may benefit from Kil'ai Zera'im in Eretz Yisrael, so
               Chachamim did not forbid it in Chutz La'aretz.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kilayim 2:1 (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> One must remove
               other species, whether one or two other species are
               mixed in;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, this was said only regarding one
               species;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b> Chachamim say, whatever is Kilayim joins to a Rova
               (quarter of a Kav) in a Se'ah (six Kavim).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Kilayim 2:1):</font></b> If seeds were mixed
               with another species, if they were one part in 24,
               e.g. a Se'ah of wheat in 23 Se'im of barley, one may
               not plant the mixture until reducing the wheat or
               adding barley. If he planted it (without doing one
               of these), he is lashed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Radvaz:</font></b> In Bava Basra, we require removing all
                    of the other species. If he does not, he
                    transgresses theft mid'Oraisa. The Halachah
                    does not follow R. Yosi, who requires removing
                    all of the other species.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Akiva Eiger):</font></b> The Gemara concludes
                    (at least according to one version) that letter
                    of the law, it is Kilayim only when there is
                    more than a Rova. It is a stringency to reduce
                    exactly a Rova. If so, why is he lashed for
                    this?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (Mutzal me'Esh 40):</font></b> Torah law forbids
                    planting the mixture when there is exactly a
                    Rova. However, the Isur to keep what grows is
                    only due to Mar'is Ayin (lest onlookers think
                    that he grows Kilayim). If one reduced, what
                    grows will not look like Kilayim, therefore, he
                    may keep it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> Everything that is Kilayim with the main
               species joins to one part in 24. E.g. if 23 Se'im of
               wheat were mixed with two Kavim (a third of a Se'ah)
               of barley, two Kavim of lentils and two Kavim of
               beans, one may not plant the mixture until
               diminishing from a Se'ah of the other species, or
               adding wheat. This is because barley, lentils and
               beans are all Kilayim with wheat.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam rules like the first
                    Tana in Kilayim. The Yerushalmi asks, if one
                    was Mevatel an Isur b'Mezid, it is forbidden!
                    It answered that that refers to an Isur Torah.
                    Here, one adds to avoid Mar'is Ayin. Chachamim
                    and the first Tana argue about a Rova of oats
                    and spelt in a Se'ah of barley. The first Tana
                    requires diminishing them. Chachamim do not.
                    They hold that oats and spelt do not join, for
                    they are not Kilayim in a Se'ah of barley. It
                    seems that the Rambam rules like Chachamim, for
                    he discusses three species mixed in that are
                    all Kilayim with wheat. This implies that if
                    one of them were not Kilayim with it, he would
                    not need to diminish them. He rules like
                    Chachamim because their opinion was taught in
                    the plural. Also, since Kilayim is due only to
                    Mar'is Ayin, we follow the lenient opinion.
                    Also, since the entire Rova is not of one
                    species, there is no Mar'is Ayin.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mutzal me'Esh (40):</font></b> Why does the Yerushalmi ask
                    about being Mevatel an Isur? Before it is
                    planted, there is no Isur! Because he intends
                    to plant them, this is considered being Mevatel
                    an Isur. I prefer to answer that the Yerushalmi
                    asked according to the opinion that the mixed
                    seeds fell on the ground, and still one may add
                    to be Mevatel the Isur.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Radvaz:</font></b> The Rambam discussed many species, to
                    disagree with R. Shimon, who says that we are
                    concerned only for one species. The Rambam
                    initially discussed barley. Why did he switch
                    to wheat? It seems that he discussed a normal
                    case. It is common to mix many species with
                    wheat, for wheat is expensive. This is only
                    when the other species became mixed by
                    themselves in the granary. One may not
                    intentionally mix in even one wheat or barley;
                    one is lashed for this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> All seeds do not sprout equally.
                    Perhaps a species was less than a Shi'ur when
                    it was planted, and when it sprouts it will be
                    more than a Shi'ur!
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Radvaz):</font></b> We calculate whether or not
                    there is a Shi'ur based on what their volume
                    will be after they sprout.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 296:1):</font></b> One who plants different
               kinds of seeds together in Eretz Yisrael is lashed
               for 'Sadcha Lo Sizra Kilayim.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (295 DH Harkavas):</font></b> Kilai Zera'im is
                    permitted in Chutz la'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (5):</font></b> If seeds were mixed with another
               species, if they were one part in 24, e.g. a Se'ah
               of wheat in 24 Se'im of barley, one may not plant
               the mixture until reducing the wheat or adding
               barley. If he planted it, he is lashed. Everything
               that is Kilayim with the main species joins to one
               part in 24. E.g. if 24 Se'im of wheat were mixed
               with two Kavim of barley, two Kavim of lentils and
               two Kavim of beans, one may not plant the mixed
               together until diminishing from a Se'ah of the other
               species, or adding wheat. This is because barley,
               lentils and beans are all Kilayim with wheat.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva Eiger (Kilayim 2(6)):</font></b> When there is
                    more than a Rova, letter of the law he must
                    remove all of the diverse seeds! In one answer
                    of Tosfos, this is only according to Version #2
                    (Rav Huna's law, that one must remove all the
                    Pesoles, is a fine). However, the Tur (CM 229)
                    and many rule like Version #2! We can say that
                    since it is a Safek which version we follow, we
                    do not force a seller to remove all the Pesoles
                    when we know that he did not intentionally mix
                    in. We are lenient about Kilayim, for
                    mid'Oraisa it is not Kilayim even when there is
                    more than a Rova. However, Tosfos' other answer
                    holds that even Version #1 (it is not a fine)
                    holds that the Torah requires removing all the
                    Pesoles when there is more than a Rova. We can
                    say that we are stringent due to a Sefek
                    Sefekah. Perhaps we hold like Version #2. Even
                    if we hold that it is not a fine, perhaps even
                    Version #1 requires removing all the Pesoles!
                    Why didn't the Acharonim discuss this?
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>TWO WHO DEPOSITED TOGETHER </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> R. Yosi says, he must remove all of
          it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Rova regarding Kilayim is like more than a
               Rova regarding a sale, we understand the argument.
               Chachamim fine what is permitted (less than a Rova)
               due to what is forbidden (a Rova), and R. Yosi does
               not fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> However, if a Rova regarding Kilayim is like a
               Rova regarding a sale, why must he remove all of it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi is stringent because it looks like he
          intentionally sows Kilayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one person deposited 100 Zuz
          with Reuven, and another deposited 200, and each claims
          that he deposited 200, and Reuven does not know who gave
          which, he gives 100 to each, and we leave the rest until
          Eliyahu comes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That is different, there each definitely owns
          100. Here, perhaps all the dirt was intentionally mixed
          in!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Seifa - R. Yosi):</font></b> If so, the swindler does not
          lose! Rather, we leave all the money until Eliyahu comes
          (or one admits).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is different, for surely one of them is
          intentionally lying. Here, perhaps he did not mix any
          dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a loan document
          specifies that interest will be charged, we fine the
          lender, and he may not collect even the principal;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is different. There, from the time the
          document was written, he transgressed. Here, perhaps he
          did not mix any dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (end of the Beraisa - Chachamim):</font></b> He collects
          the principal, but not the interest.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That is different. There, he is entitled to
          collect the principal. Here, perhaps he intentionally
          mixed in all the dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Ravin bar R. Noson - Beraisa):</font></b> (If Levi said
          'I sell a Beis Kor (an area in which 30 Sa'im of seed are
          sown, i.e. 75,000 square Amos) <i>more or less</i>', and he
          gave an area which was not exactly a Beis Kor, if the
          error was more than a Rova per Se'ah) not only does he
          return the excess, he returns the entire error.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that when we return, we must return
               the entire amount!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> There is different, for he said 'more or
          less';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Up to a Rova (per Se'ah) is not considerable.
               More than a Rova is, since (over the whole Beis Kor)
               it amounts to nine Kavim, which is considered a
               field by itself. Therefore, all must be returned.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) REBBI MEIR'S OPINION IN THE CASE OF A CONTRACT WHICH CONTAINS A CLAUSE OF INTEREST</b></font><b>
<br>OPINION</b>: The Gemara says that in the case of a loan document which shows that a person lent money with interest, Rebbi Meir rules that the lender is penalized in that he may collect neither the principal nor the interest of the loan.
</p><p>
Does this mean that the document is rendered null and void and the lender is never allowed to collect his loan at all, or does it mean that although the document is rendered useless, if witnesses come to Beis Din and testify about the loan, the lender may collect the principal?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Konsin) quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who says that the lender is not allowed to collect the loan at all, even if the borrower admits that he borrowed money, or if witnesses come to Beis Din and testify about the loan. The wording, 'he does not collect,' implies that he may not collect at all.
</p><p>
The <b>RIVAM</b> asks that while this penalty is a fitting punishment for the lender for lending with interest, in what way is the <i>borrower</i> penalized for borrowing with interest? The Torah prohibits a person not only from lending with interest, but also from borrowing with interest. Why should the borrower gain (by not having to pay back <i>anything</i>) as a result of his sin of borrowing with Ribis? The Ri answers that since the lender is the one who profits from a loan with interest, it is he who is penalized. The borrower merely needs a loan and stands to profit nothing from this specific transaction, and thus he is not penalized (and the Chachamim do not mind that he is indirectly rewarded).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Metzia (72a, DH Shtar) quotes the <b>RIVAM</b> who explains that when Rebbi Meir says that the lender may not collect the principal and the interest, he means that he may not collect Meshubadin (land of the borrower which is automatically collateralized when a Shtar is written) on the basis of the Shtar. He may collect, however, the principal of the loan from other assets (Nechasim Bnei Chorin). The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> here explains that the Rivam's logic is precisely as recorded by Tosfos here: since the borrower also sinned by borrowing with interest, why should the borrower profit from his sin? (The Tosfos Rid sides with the opinion of the Ri quoted by Tosfos.)
</p><p>
Tosfos in Bava Metzia questions the position of the Rivam. The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (75b) derives from the verse, 'Lo Sesimun Alav Neshech' -- 'you shall not lay upon him interest' (Shemos 22:24), that the Torah prohibits witnesses from testifying on a loan document which includes a clause of Ribis. Witnesses who testify on such a document transgress a Torah prohibition and are classified as evildoers, and thus are disqualified from serving as witnesses. Accordingly, there are no valid witnesses signed on the Shtar. Why, then, according to the Rivam, may the lender use this Shtar to collect from Nechasim Bnei Chorin? The Shtar is invalid without the signatures of valid witnesses!
</p><p>
Tosfos (72a) answers that it is possible that the Gemara is discussing a case of Ribis d'Rabanan. Since the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan, the witnesses who sign the Shtar do not become Pasul l'Edus. (As Tosfos explains, although a witnesses becomes Pasul l'Edus when he transgresses an Isur d'Rabanan, this applies only when he transgresses an Isur d'Rabanan for a profit. In this case, the witnesses gain nothing by signing the Shtar.)
</p><p>
In his second answer, Tosfos suggests that the Gemara indeed refers to a case of Ribis d'Oraisa. Nevertheless, a person becomes Pasul l'Edus only when he transgresses a Torah prohibition which people <i>know</i> applies to him. In the case of witnesses who sign a loan document which includes a clause of Ribis, it is possible that most people think that when the Torah says 'Lo Sesimun,' it refers to the lender, not to the witnesses. (See a similar example in Bava Metzia 5b.) Therefore, the witnesses who sign the Shtar are not deemed Pasul l'Edus. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO EXCEEDED THE QUOTA OF FLAWED ITEMS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa - R. Noson):</font></b> If the Ona'ah (overcharge
          or undercharge) is less than a sixth, the sale stands. If
          it is more than a sixth, the sale is void. If it is
          exactly a sixth, the Ona'ah is returned;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not say that he returns just enough so that
               the Ona'ah is a sixth!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that when we return, we must return
               the entire amount!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is different. There, (it is as if) the
          seller said that he charges the true value. Since the
          value is not known so well, the buyer pardons a mistake
          of up to a sixth;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> More than a sixth, one knows that it is wrong, so
               it is a totally mistaken sale. (Similar reasoning
               applies if it is worth too little.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a worker accepted to plant trees
          in Reuven's field, Reuven must accept 10 trees of every
          100 that do not bear fruit;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If more than this do not bear fruit; the worker
               must replace all of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> If more than
          this do not bear fruit; it is as if the worker comes to
          plant a field from the beginning.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SELLING A WINE CELLAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If he sold a wine cellar...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case? No matter what he said,
          this is difficult!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If Reuven said 'I sell to you a
               wine cellar', all the wine must be good;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he said 'I sell to you this wine cellar', the
                    wine must be fit to sell in a store;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If he said 'I sell to you a cellar', even
                    if it is all vinegar, the sale stands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Really, he said 'I sell to you a wine
          cellar';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha of the Beraisa should say 'the buyer
               accepts 10 bad barrels out of every 100.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If they did not specify, the buyer need not
          accept bad barrels!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #1:</font></b> R. Chiya taught that if one said 'I
               sell to you a barrel of wine', all the wine must be
               good.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A single barrel is different, for all the
               wine is the same quality.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #2 (Rav Zvid - Beraisa #2):</font></b> If one said
               'I sell to you a wine cellar', all the wine must be
               good;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he said 'I sell to you this wine cellar', all
                    the wine must be good, but the buyer accepts 10
                    bad barrels out of every 100.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WINE OF LOW QUALITY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (93b) states that when a person buys a cellar of wine, he accepts that there will be up to ten barrels of inferior quality. The Gemara questions the Mishnah's ruling from a Beraisa which says that when a seller specifies that he is selling '<i>this</i> cellar of wine,' he is permitted to give the buyer wine of low quality, which the Gemara calls 'wine that is fit to be sold in a store.'
</p><p>
What are the characteristics of wine that is considered low quality?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nosen) explains that the Beraisa refers to wine that smells like vinegar but tastes like wine. This is the implication of the discussion of the Beraisa in the Gemara later (96a).
</p><p>
Tosfos asks, however, that this explanation is not consistent with the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (66b). The Gemara there discusses the definitions of 'Min b'Mino' (a mixture of a forbidden item of a certain type with a permitted item of the same type) and 'Min b'She'eino Mino' (a mixture of a forbidden item of a certain type with a permitted item of a different type). The Gemara there asks, what is the Halachic status of a liquid that smells like vinegar but tastes like wine? Abaye says that it is considered vinegar, while Rava says that it is wine. Tosfos asks that according to Abaye, the Beraisa here is difficult to understand; everyone agrees that the person sold wine, not something which has the Halachic status of vinegar. Tosfos quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who answers that although it is called 'vinegar,' it is still considered wine. The <b>RITVA</b> explains that it is still considered wine in business terminology.
</p><p>
Tosfos quotes the <b>RASHBA</b> who has difficulty with this answer. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (66a) specifically discusses a case of wine that fell into vinegar. Abaye says that since wine which falls into a pitcher of vinegar is automatically classified as vinegar even before it hits the vinegar (because it has already started to smell like vinegar), the mixture is classified as 'Min b'Mino' and is Asur b'Mashehu (even one drop of forbidden wine forbids the entire mixture). Rava argues that the wine which fell into the vessel of vinegar is considered wine, and therefore the mixture is judged as a case of 'Min b'She'eino Mino,' which is Asur b'Nosen Tam (the mixture is forbidden only if the forbidden item gives taste to the mixture).
</p><p>
The Rashba asks that if the Ri is correct that even according to Abaye the mixture is partially considered wine (with regard to its blessing, and what people call it) and partially vinegar (and it is a different Min from wine), why does the Gemara in Avodah Zarah say that Rava and Abaye argue about what exactly the mixture is called? The Gemara should explain instead that everyone agrees that the mixture is called vinegar, and they argue about something else. The Gemara earlier in Avodah Zarah (66a) explains that there is a basic disagreement between Rava and Abaye about whether a Min is determined by its name ('wine,' even if two things called 'wine' are very different), or whether a Min is determined by its taste (two things with different names may have the same taste and thus are considered a single Min). According to Abaye, the taste of the wine is the most important characteristic in determining its 'type.' According to Rava, the categorization (name) of the item is the most important factor in determining its 'type.' The Gemara here should say that because the smell of the wine gives it a vinegar taste, according to Abaye (see <b>RITVA</b> to Avodah Zarah 66a), the mixture is considered 'Min b'Mino,' and according to Rava it is 'Min b'She'eino Mino' because people still call the wine 'wine.' Why does the Gemara need to say that they argue about what the mixture is called? Tosfos does not answer this question. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE BERACHAH ON FOOD THAT BECAME WORSE</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on moldy bread, on
               wine that became Koses (slimy), and on a cooked dish
               that changed form.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Berachos 36a (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One blesses Borei Pri
               ha'Adamah on wheat flour.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rava):</font></b> Shmuel and R. Yochanan say that one
               blesses Borei Pri ha'Etz on olive oil. Even though
               it changed, its Berachah is the same. The same
               applies to flour!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 38b (Rav Chisda citing Rav):</font></b> One blesses ha'Adamah
               on Shelakos (cooked vegetables).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ula citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda himself):</font></b> Anything for which we say
               (when raw) sheha'Kol, if it was cooked we say
               ha'Adamah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This refers to garlic
               and leeks.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Rav holds like R. Meir, who says that
               one may fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah with a cooked
               wafer that did not dissolve. R. Yochanan holds like
               R. Yosi, who says that one is not Yotzei with it,
               for he holds that cooked bread is not called bread.
               Likewise, cooking changes the Berachah for food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, all agree that one blesses ha'Adamah
               on Shelakos. R. Yosi disqualifies cooked Matzah, for
               it lost the taste of Matzah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 40b (Mishnah):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on Novlos.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> These are scorched dates (they dried up due to the
               sun).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif (Berachos 27a):</font></b> All agree that we bless
               ha'Adamah on Shelakos, even on garlic and leeks.
               Gourds get the blessing sheha'Kol when they are raw,
               and ha'Adamah if they were cooked.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 8:8):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol
               on the following: moldy bread, wine that became
               Koses (slimy), a cooked dish that changed form,
               unripe figs, beer, vinegar...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Berachos 6:15):</font></b> We bless ha'Adamah on raw
               garlic or leeks. We bless sheha'Kol if they were
               cooked, for they changed for the worse. Even if a 
               minority like them cooked more than raw, their
               opinion is Batel to the majority of people. Even
               though we normally eat them cooked, this is because
               the meat fat improves the taste.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (202:9):</font></b> We bless sheha'Kol on
               Novlos, which are dates scorched and dried up by the
               sun.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magen Avraham (21):</font></b> Rashi connotes that this is
                    because it changed for the worse.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 204:1):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on
               the following: moldy bread...
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (1):</font></b> This is if it is slightly
                    spoiled. If it totally spoiled and is not
                    proper for people to eat, one does not bless on
                    it at all, like we say later about a cooked
                    food.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bi'ur Halachah:</font></b> The Rambam says that after all
                    of these on which we bless sheha'Kol, including
                    moldy bread, we bless afterwards Borei
                    Nefashos. Since it is still edible, how do we
                    exempt from Birkas ha'Mazon? Granted, we exempt
                    from ha'Motzi beforehand, which is mid'Rabanan,
                    since moldy bread is not important. How do we
                    uproot the mid'Oraisa obligation of Birkas
                    ha'Mazon? One can eat it in pressed
                    circumstances! The Gemara (36b) equates
                    Berachah to Yom Kipur. Eating such food on Yom
                    Kipur is considered eating! One is liable for
                    eating grapevines (81b). Presumably, this is
                    not proper eating; they are eaten only in
                    pressed circumstances. We find that one says
                    the proper Berachah (202:2). Perhaps one
                    blesses Borei Nefashos on moldy bread only if
                    he did not eat to satiation, for then Birkas
                    ha'Mazon is mid'Rabanan, but if he ate to
                    satiation, he blesses Birkas ha'Mazon, even
                    though he blessed sheha'Kol beforehand. We find
                    that one who blessed Borei Minei Mezonos on
                    cake says Birkas ha'Mazon afterwards if he ate
                    enough. This requires investigation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> ...Wine that became Koses, a
               cooked dish that changed form and spoiled, Novlos,
               i.e. dates that were burned due to heat...
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Al ha'Tavshil):
                    Surely, this is when it spoiled a little. If it
                    totally spoiled, one does not bless on it at
                    all.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (2):</font></b> The Bach says that the same
                    applies to dates that fell off before fully
                    ripening.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (205:1):</font></b> We bless ha'Adamah on raw
               garlic or leeks, and sheha'Kol if they were cooked.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rif):</font></b> R. Yonah says that the Rif
               holds that Rav Chisda himself distinguishes between
               raw and cooked Shelakos, but Rav and R. Yochanan do
               not. We do not follow Rav Chisda against them.
               Rather, we bless ha'Adamah even if they are cooked.
               Why does the Tur say that the Rif holds that we
               bless sheha'Kol on raw garlic or leeks, and
               ha'Adamah if they were cooked, for they improved.
               The Rif equates garlic and leeks to Shelakos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (2):</font></b> It seems that the Tur's text of the Rif did
               not say <i>even</i> garlic and leeks. Rather, it says 'we
               bless ha'Adamah on Shelakos. Garlic, leeks and
               gourds get the blessing sheha'Kol when they are
               raw...'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magen Avraham (4):</font></b> The Bach says to bless
                    sheha'Kol even when they are raw. There is no
                    necessity to say so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (5):</font></b> The Shulchan Aruch
                    discusses soft garlics. It is normal to eat
                    them raw. Old garlics are very sharp. It is
                    abnormal to eat them raw (without bread), so
                    one blesses sheha'Kol. The same applies to
                    onions. Sha'arei Teshuvah says that even when
                    they are soft, one blesses ha'Adamah only in
                    places where people eat soft raw garlic and
                    onions without bread, and that one always
                    blesses sheha'Kol on cooked garlic and onions,
                    even if they are cooked with meat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> It is considered that they changed for the
               worse. Even if they were cooked with meat and
               improved, the improvement is not due to themselves,
               only due to the meat.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Taz (3):</font></b> We bless ha'Etz on nuts fried in
                    honey, even though the cooking makes them
                    worse, and only the honey improves them! We
                    must say that only the Berachah of Borei Peri
                    ha'Adamah is lost through cooking, even if the
                    food is improved through meat. Perhaps this is
                    because the law was taught only for vegetables.
                    Therefore, we bless ha'Etz on an Esrog fried in
                    honey, or on compote of fruits, just like nuts.
                    We distinguish among vegetables. We bless
                    sheha'Kol on radishes fried in honey, for the
                    cooking itself without the honey harms it, just
                    like garlic and leeks. If we fry carrots, Rubin
                    (beans), Kirvas (gourds), we bless ha'Adamah,
                    for cooking improves them. This requires
                    investigation.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Tzlach 36a, before DH Hachi):</font></b> Rava
                    supported that we bless ha'Adamah on wheat
                    flour from a ruling that one blesses ha'Etz on
                    olive oil. According to the Taz, we do not
                    learn (about a change for the worse) from Borei
                    Peri ha'Etz to Borei Peri ha'Adamah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>R. Akiva Eiger:</font></b> The Taz challenged himself from
                    Tosfos.He could have asked from 38b, which
                    tried to learn about Shelakos from olives!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (5):</font></b> We bless ha'Etz on fried
                    nuts, for the nut is primary. The honey is just
                    to sweeten the nut. There is no difference if
                    we cook the nut in water or honey. Here, the
                    meat is primary, and the garlic receives taste
                    from it. Therefore, when we fry vegetables in
                    oil, we bless ha'Adamah.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</font></b> The Acharonim side with the
                    Magen Avraham. The Taz himself wavered.
                    Therefore, 'Safek Berachos Lehakel' does not
                    apply here.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (9):</font></b> The Bach says that since
                    there is an argument, we always bless sheha'Kol
                    on garlic and leeks. The Taz distinguishes
                    between when they are soft or hard. Perhaps it
                    depends on the custom in different places. We
                    bless sheha'Kol on cooked garlics, for we are
                    lenient about Safek Berachos. Also, we see that
                    cooking in water makes them worse. However,
                    cooking improves onions, so they become
                    ha'Adamah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (6):</font></b> This is when they were
                    cooked with another food. If one made a dish
                    food out of onions themselves, e.g. he cooked
                    them until they became dry and good to eat, he
                    blesses ha'Adamah, for they improved.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (7):</font></b> If one cooked vegetables
                    with meat, surely he intends also to eat the
                    vegetables, so he blesses ha'Adamah, even if
                    the vegetables get worse when cooked without
                    meat. Here, the garlic was not put in the pot
                    for itself, rather, only to give taste to the
                    meat. Therefore, it gets the Berachah of the
                    meat.<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  This is the cellar of our Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he said 'I sell to you this wine
          cellar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Beraisa #1 says that (when he said '<i>this</i>
          wine cellar') the wine must be fit to sell in a store.
          Beraisa #2 says that it must be good!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> In Beraisa #2 he sold '(this wine cellar) to
          use for cooking', so the wine must be good (so it will
          last a long time), and the buyer accepts 10 bad barrels
          out of every 100;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In Beraisa #1 he did not say 'for cooking', so it
               suffices that it can be sold in a store.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If he said 'I sell to you a wine cellar' and
          did not say 'for cooking, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Acha or Ravina):</font></b> The buyer accepts (10
          bad barrels out of every 100).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina):</font></b> The buyer
          need not accept.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first opinion learns from Beraisa #2. When he
               said 'I sell to you a wine cellar', all the wine
               must be good. We established the case to be that he
               said 'for cooking';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Had he not said 'for cooking', he
                    would have to accept bad barrels.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The latter opinion learns from Beraisa #1. When
               he said 'I sell to you a wine cellar', all the wine
               must be good;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We established the case to be when he did not say
                    'for cooking'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Beraisa #1 refutes the first opinion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows
          (all the wine must be good) - this is when he said 'for
          cooking Had he not said 'for cooking', he would have to
          accept bad barrels.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'I sell to you this wine cellar' and
               did not say 'for cooking', it suffices that it is
               fit to sell in a store.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Beraisa #2 is difficult for the latter
          opinion!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We established it when he said 'for cooking.' Had
               he not said 'for cooking', he would have to accept
               bad barrels.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even had he not said 'for cooking', he
          would not have to accept bad barrels;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We established it to be when he said 'for
               cooking' to resolve the contradiction (with Beraisa
               #1) in the case of '<i>this</i> wine cellar'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>BAD WINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One blesses Borei Peri ha'Gafen on wine
          fit to sell in a store.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda):</font></b> That is bad wine! One blesses on it
          sheha'Kol (Nihyeh bi'Dvaro).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on moldy
          bread, on wine that became Koses (slimy), and on a cooked
          dish that spoiled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Zvid):</font></b> Rav Yehudah admits regarding very
          bad wine that is sold only at the crossroads.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHAT IS A 'TAVSHIL SHE'NISHTANEH TZURASO'?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records a Beraisa which says that for a 'Tavshil she'Avrah Tzuraso' -- a 'cooked dish whose form has passed,' one does not recite the usual blessing for the cooked dish, but rather the blessing of 'Shehakol.' What is the definition of 'a cooked dish whose form has passed'?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH she'Avrah) writes that this refers to a dish that has gone sour or bad. The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> and <b>TAZ</b> (OC 204:1-2) explain that this means that the cooked food became slightly spoiled. If it went totally bad, one does not recite a blessing on it at all.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASH</b> in Shevi'is (8:2) says in the name of the Yerushalmi that this refers to a cooked food that has been left overnight, which makes it inedible. This opinion is quoted by the <b>DA'AS TORAH</b> (OC 204:1).
</p><p>
<b>RAV SHALOM SCHWADRON</b> zt'l, in his notes to his grandfather's Sefer, <b>DA'AS TORAH</b>, asks that this opinion is perplexing. There is no known custom to recite 'Shehakol' over food which was left overnight. Moreover, people do not refrain from eating something just because it was cooked the day before. It seems odd to call such a cooked dish inedible. Why is the fact that it was left overnight reason to downgrade its blessing to 'Shehakol'?
</p><p>
Rav Shalom notes that he found further reference to this opinion in his grandfather's notes to the Yerushalmi, where he quotes a <b>RASHASH</b> in Berachos (40b). The Rashash suggests basis for defining 'Avrah Tzuraso' as cooked food left overnight. The phrase, 'Avrah Tzuraso,' is used commonly with regard to Kodshim. When an item of Kodshim is questionably Pasul, it must be left overnight to become definitely Pasul, and then it may be burned (see Chagigah 22b). However, the Rashash notes that the Rashbam here gives a different definition, and that his definition is the one used by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 204:1). He therefore retracts his opinion.
</p><p>
After a lengthy inquiry, Rav Shalom concludes that the Rash himself clearly does not mean that such food is not fit for human consumption, but rather that it is no longer as good as regular food.
</p><p>
Since most commentaries do not bring his explanation, it seems that in practice one may recite the original blessing on a food which tastes good, even after it has been left overnight. (See Rav Shalom's notes at length regarding how this argument impacts the law of Shemitah.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN WE ARE CONCERNED FOR SPOILAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Abaye (to Rav Yosef):</font></b> What is your opinion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven left a barrel of wine,
          and when he tithes his wine, he declares that the tithes
          should take effect on (the proper amount of) wine in the
          barrel. Once, he checked the barrel and found that it had
          become vinegar (tithes taken from vinegar to exempt wine
          are invalid). The first three days are definite (this
          will be explained). Past this is doubtful.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The first three days
               (after it was last checked, and tasted and smelled
               like wine), it was surely wine. After this, we are
               in doubt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Wine spoils from the top. Even if
                    it started souring immediately after the last
                    tasting, the smell would be like vinegar but
                    the taste would be like wine for three days.
                    This is still considered wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Version #1 - Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):
               The last three days (before it was found to be
               vinegar) it was surely vinegar. Before this, we are
               in doubt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (If it now tastes like vinegar, it
                    started to smell like vinegar at least three
                    days ago. R. Yehoshua ben Levi considers this
                    to be vinegar. If) wine spoils from the bottom,
                    perhaps it already spoiled when he last tasted
                    it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  Even if we say that it spoils from the top,
                    perhaps it immediately started to smell like
                    vinegar after the last tasting, and this is
                    considered vinegar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Version #2 - Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):
               The first three days (after the previous checking,
               when it tasted and smelled like wine), it was surely
               wine. The last three days (before it was found to be
               vinegar) it was surely vinegar. We are in doubt
               about the intermediate days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If the first three days it was surely
               wine, he must say that if it smells like vinegar but
               tastes like wine, it is wine;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  However, he says that the last three days it was
                    surely vinegar. This implies that if it smells
                    like vinegar but tastes like wine, it is
                    vinegar!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> (Really, he holds that if it smells like
               vinegar but tastes like wine, it is wine.) The case
               is, it was found to be very strong vinegar, so it
               must have tasted like vinegar for at least three
               days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Like whom does Rav Yosef hold?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Mari or Rav Zvid):</font></b> He holds like R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(The other of Rav Mari and Rav Zvid):</font></b> He holds like R.
          Yehoshua ben Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> If Reuven sold a barrel of wine to Shimon, and
          it became vinegar, if this was within three days of the
          sale, it already started spoiling before the sale, so the
          sale is invalid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If this was more than three days after the sale,
               it started spoiling after the sale, so the sale is
               valid.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RAV'S OPINION IN THE CASE OF WINE THAT QUICKLY TURNS TO VINEGAR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a person buys a barrel of wine and it turns into vinegar. Rav rules that if it turned into vinegar within three days of the purchase, this is a clear indication that it had already started to turn into vinegar when it was still in the possession of the seller, and thus the seller is liable. If it turned into vinegar after three days from the purchase, this is a clear indication that it started to go bad only when it was in the possession of the buyer, and thus the seller is not liable.
</p><p>
Is the Gemara discussing a case in which the buyer did not check the wine inside the barrel at the time of the purchase to determine that it had not started to turn into vinegar, or a case in which the buyer inspected the wine at the time of the purchase, but for some reason failed to notice that the wine was going bad?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH Amar Rav) writes that even if the buyer tasted the wine before he bought it and did not think that the wine was going bad, the fact is that when wine turns into vinegar, that process must have started three days earlier. This means that the sale is a Mekach Ta'us, since the buyer intended to buy regular wine and not wine that was going bad. This is also the opinion of the <b>CHOCHMEI TZARFAS</b>. (See also <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> in <b>TOSFOS</b> to 96b, DH Shmuel.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ALIYOS D'RABEINU YONAH</b> explains that the buyer did not taste the wine at the time of purchase. If he did taste it and he found that it tasted fine, it must be that the wine started to go bad only later. It is not reasonable to assume that Rav maintains that a buyer who accepts the wine to his satisfaction is entitled to a refund because the wine's change to vinegar was undetectable at the time of purchase.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> quotes others who explain that when Shmuel says that the wine turned bad because it was transported, he does not mean that it was transported in its barrel, but rather that the buyer poured the wine into a different barrel. Such a procedure can cause wine to go bad, as the verse says, 'It was not poured from one vessel to another, therefore its taste was maintained' (Yirmeyahu 48:11). Rav, however, maintains that even when the wine was poured into a different barrel, it is assumed that this was not what caused the wine to go bad when it happened within three days of when the wine turned into vinegar. It must have already been on its way to becoming vinegar exactly three days earlier. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WINE THAT STARTED TO SOUR</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 95b (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One blesses Borei Peri ha'Gafen
               on wine fit to sell in a store.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> That is bad wine! One blesses on it
               sheha'Kol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on wine
               that became Koses (slimy).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Zvid):</font></b> Rav Yehudah admits regarding very
               bad wine that is sold only at the crossroads.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one used to declare that tithes on his
               wine take effect on wine in a certain barrel, and he
               checked and found that the wine in the barrel had
               become vinegar, the first three days are definite.
               Past this is doubtful.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The first three days
               (after it was last checked, and was found to be
               wine), it was surely wine. After this, it is a
               Safek.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> He holds that wine spoils from the top. Even if it
               started souring immediately after the last tasting,
               even if it smelled like vinegar, it would taste like
               wine for three days. This is still considered wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Opinion #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> The
               last three days (before it was found to be vinegar)
               it was surely vinegar. Before this, it is a Safek.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> He holds that wine spoils from the bottom. (If it
               tastes like vinegar now, it smelled like vinegar
               three days ago. He holds that this is vinegar.)
               Maybe it already spoiled when he last tasted it.
               Even if wine spoils from the top, perhaps it began
               to smell like vinegar right after the last tasting;
               this is considered vinegar.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Chachamim of the south) Opinion #2 (R.
               Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> The first three days (after he
               last checked it), it was surely wine. The last three
               days (before now) it was surely vinegar. The
               intermediate days are a Safek.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If the first three days it was surely
               wine, he must say that if it smells like vinegar but
               tastes like wine, it is wine. However, he says that
               the last three days it was surely vinegar, i.e.
               whatever smells like vinegar is vinegar!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> (Really, whatever tastes like wine is wine.)
               The case is, he found that it is very strong
               vinegar, so surely it tasted like vinegar three days
               ago.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 97a (Rav):</font></b> One must make Kidush on wine Kosher for
               Nesachim (libations poured on the Mizbe'ach).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 97b:</font></b> He excludes wine that is Koses or smells bad.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> These are Pasul for Nesachim even
               b'Di'eved.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avodah Zarah 66a:</font></b> Abaye holds that if wine tastes
               like wine, but smells like vinegar, it is considered
               vinegar. Rava holds that it is considered wine.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 23a and Bava Basra 6:8):</font></b> The
               Halachah follows R. Yochanan, for Rava (in Avodah
               Zarah) holds like him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> Also, according to Chachamim of the south, R.
               Yehoshua ben Levi agrees with R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 8:8):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol
               on wine that became Koses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 29:15):</font></b> If wine smells like
               wine and tastes like vinegar, one may not say Kidush
               on it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (17):</font></b> If wine smells like vinegar and tastes
               like wine, one may say Kidush on it.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 204:.3):</font></b> One blesses Borei Peri
               ha'Gefen on wine that smells like vinegar and tastes
               like wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Yayin):</font></b> The
                    Beraisa mentions wine that was Hikrim. Rashi
                    explains that this is Butir (it formed a
                    crust). The Tur explains that this is only if
                    it smells like wine and tastes like vinegar. If
                    it smells like vinegar and tastes like wine, we
                    hold like Rava (against Abaye), that it is
                    wine. R. Yochanan agrees. Therefore, we bless
                    Borei Peri ha'Gefen.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (1):</font></b> Birkos Maharam and the Tur explain
                    that wine that was Hikrim is Zeigra; it smells
                    like wine but tastes like vinegar. Why didn't
                    the Beraisa simply say that if it tastes like
                    vinegar, we bless sheha'Kol? Also, why did the
                    Tur need to teach that one may not use it for
                    Kidush? This is obvious, for we bless sheha'Kol
                    on it! It seems that we bless sheha'Kol only
                    when it is evident that it soured. This is why
                    the Beraisa says Hikrim, i.e. it formed a crust
                    (Kanik). If it smells like wine but tastes like
                    vinegar, we bless sheha'Kol. If it smells like
                    vinegar and tastes like wine, we say Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen, even if it grew a crust. Regarding
                    Kidush, the Tur discusses when there is no
                    crust. If it smells like wine but tastes like
                    vinegar, even if we would bless Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen on it, the Halachah depends on the
                    taste, so one may not use it for Kidush. If it
                    has a crust, even if it smells like vinegar and
                    tastes like wine, so we bless Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen, it is Pasul for Kidush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal (Taz 1):</font></b> We do not discuss Kanik, for
                    it is Kosher even for Kidush. Wine at the
                    bottom of the barrel, even though it has dregs,
                    can be strained (272:3)! Rather, we discuss
                    Koses; it itself is bad. We do not bless Borei
                    Peri ha'Gefen, for it smells like wine but
                    tastes like vinegar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (4):</font></b> If people refrain from drinking
               it due to its sourness, we do not bless Borei Peri
               ha'Gefen on it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (14):</font></b> Rav Yehudah agrees that we bless
                    sheha'Kol on such wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (14):</font></b> The Tur (YD 123:8) says in
                    the name of R. Tam that we are not proficient
                    about what is vinegar. There is (a level of
                    soured wine) that some call it vinegar, and
                    others drink it and make Kidush on it! Due to
                    the Safek, one should drink wine with it to
                    exempt it from the Berachah beforehand and
                    afterwards.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Machatzis ha'Shekel (DH Kol):</font></b> The Magen Avraham
                    teaches that the Shulchan Aruch says to bless
                    sheha'Kol because it is a Safek.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Bi'ur Halachah):</font></b> The Magen Avraham is
                    from Sefer ha'Terumos, which the Beis Yosef
                    brought. He does not connote that it is due to
                    Safek! Also the Gra says that the Gemara says
                    that we bless sheha'Kol on this wine. This is
                    not due to Safek, rather, because it changed
                    for the worse.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (27):</font></b> The Beis Yosef says that
                    even though we are stringent if a Nochri
                    touched it (to forbid it, lest it is wine),
                    since people refrain from drinking it, we do
                    not bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (28):</font></b> If one blessed Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen, he was Yotzei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (272:1):</font></b> One may not say Kidush on
               wine that smells bad, even if it smells and tastes
               like wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Bi'ur):</font></b> Even though we bless
                    Borei Peri ha'Gefen on it, one may not say
                    Kidush on it, for it is slightly putrid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (1):</font></b> This is because it is Pasul for
                    Nesachim. If it did not smell like wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (2):</font></b> It smells bad because it
                    was out in a filthy Keli. We say Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen on it; it is Pasul due to 'Hakrivehu
                    Na l'Fechasecha (would your governor accept
                    such a gift?!)'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bi'ur Halachah (DH Ein):</font></b> The Ramban says that
                    b'Di'eved he was not Yotzei Kidush. This
                    requires investigation. Such wine may not be
                    used for Nesachim due to Hakrivehu Na. If so,
                    b'Di'eved it is Kosher!
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (5):</font></b> B'Di'eved he was Yotzei, for
                    Kidush on wine is only mid'Rabanan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (1):</font></b> R. Akiva Eiger was unsure
                    if it is Kosher for Havdalah I say that surely
                    it is not, due to Hakrivehu Na!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> One may not say Kidush on wine that smells
               like wine and tastes like vinegar.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Taz (3):</font></b> This is obvious, for we bless
                    sheha'Kol on it! The Tur merely taught it along
                    with wine that smells like wine and tastes like
                    vinegar. The Bach says that we bless Borei Peri
                    ha'Gefen on it as long as there is no crust.
                    This is wrong. This is worse than a crust!
                    However, it seems that whenever the taste is
                    vinegar, it has a crust.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (2):</font></b> 'Tastes like vinegar' means
                    that people refrain from drinking it due to its
                    sourness.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Gra (3):</font></b> We hold that it depends on the taste.
                    Tosfos (96a DH ha'Bodek) says that if it smells
                    like wine, it definitely tastes like wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (272:3):</font></b> One may say Kidush on wine
               that smells like vinegar and tastes like wine. In
               any case, it is a Mitzvah to pick good wine for
               Kidush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (9):</font></b> One may say Kidush on it
                    l'Chatchilah, but the ideal Mitzvah is to use
                    good wine.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>THE BERACHAH ON FOOD THAT BECAME WORSE </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> Even if it spoiled within three days, this is
          due to Shimon's Mazel (fortune), so the sale is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Rav Yosef ruled like Rav in a case involving beer, and
          like Shmuel in a case involving wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	The Halachah follows Shmuel.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TEMED (WINE FROM DREGS)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> One blesses sheha'Kol on beer of dates or
          barley, and on dregs of wine;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Others say, if the dregs have the taste of wine, he
          blesses Borei Peri ha'Gafen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow
          'Others'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> All agree that if one puts three measures of
          water on the dregs and four measures of liquid come out
          (at least one measure came from the dregs), it is
          considered wine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rava taught elsewhere, that if one
               measure of (raw) wine cannot be mixed with three
               measures of water (lest the mixture be too weak),
               the (raw) wine is substandard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> All agree that if one puts in three measures
          and three come out, it is considered water;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue in a case that he puts three, and
               three and a half come out. Chachamim say that the
               same three measures of water came out, and a half-
               measure from the dregs;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  There is six times as much water as dreg-wine, so
                    this is not considered wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Others say that two and a half measures of water
               came out, and one measure from the dregs;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  There is two and a half times as much water as
                    dreg-wine, so this is considered wine.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) SHMUEL'S OPINION IN THE CASE OF WINE THAT QUICKLY TURNS TO VINEGAR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a person buys a barrel of wine and it turns into vinegar. Shmuel rules that even if the wine turned into vinegar within three days, which usually indicates that the wine had started to go bad in the possession of the seller, the seller may say to the buyer that the wine turned bad only as a result of being carried on the buyer's shoulder. What does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) The Rashbam (96b, DH u'Shmuel) explains that when Shmuel says that the wine turned bad 'when it was being carried on the buyer's shoulder,' he means that the wine turned into vinegar only because of the sins of the buyer, and it did not turn into vinegar in the possession of the seller.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> has difficulty with this explanation. If Shmuel's intention is to say that the inauspicious Mazal or the sins of the buyer caused the wine to go bad, Shmuel should say instead, 'Mazlei Garam' -- 'his sins caused it.' Why does he use a cryptic phrase that 'wine on the shoulder of a person jumps (goes bad)'? Moreover, how does the Rashbam understand the rulings of Rav Yosef, who rules like Shmuel in the case of wine that goes bad, but like Rav in the case of beer that goes bad? If a person's sins can ruin wine, they should also be able to ruin beer!
</p><p>
Some answer that sins ruin specifically wine and turn it into vinegar, as the Gemara later (98a) implies. The Rashbam there (DH she'Ne'emar) explains the Gemara's statement that a haughty person's wine goes bad because of 'Midah k'Neged Midah.' Just as a haughty person pretends that he is something important and he really is not, the haughty person's wine turns into vinegar, showing that he really is not the important person he pretends to be. This analogy does not apply to the spoilage of other beverages.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHOCHMEI TZARFAS</b> (see <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> in <b>TOSFOS</b> to 96b, DH u'Shmuel) explain that Shmuel maintains that although most wine which has turned into vinegar started to go bad three days earlier, it is possible that when the wine is transported by the buyer it turns bad due to the rigors of being transported. The seller therefore cannot be faulted for selling bad wine.
</p><p>
There appears to be a clear practical difference between the way the Rashbam understands the ruling of Shmuel and the way the Chochmei Tzarfas understand his ruling: a case in which the sale was consummated but the wine was not subjected to any transport. According to the Rashbam, Shmuel's ruling still applies; it is the buyer's responsibility if the barrel is opened within three days and found to contain vinegar. According to the Chochmei Tzarfas, Shmuel may agree in this case that the seller is responsible, since there is no way to prove that the wine did not start going bad when it was still in his position.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> quotes others who explain that when Shmuel says that the wine turned bad because it was transported, he does not mean that it was transported in its barrel, but rather that the buyer poured the wine into a different barrel. Such a procedure can cause wine to go bad, as the verse says, 'It was not poured from one vessel to another, therefore its taste was maintained' (Yirmeyahu 48:11). Rav, however, maintains that even when the wine was poured into a different barrel, it is assumed that this was not what caused the wine to go bad when it happened within three days of when the wine turned into vinegar. It must have already been on its way to becoming vinegar exactly three days earlier. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TEMED (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is it really true that they argue about when
          more came out than was put in?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one put water on dregs, and the
               same volume came out, it is exempt from Ma'aseros;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah obligates.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They argue only about when the same volume came
                    out. If more came out, all obligate to take
                    Ma'aseros!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, they argue even about when more came
          out. The Beraisa discusses the case when the same volume
          came out to teach the extremity of R. Yehudah's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> What is the
          blessing on dregs that have the taste of wine?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> (It is sheha'Kol.) It is
          not wine. It is a mere taste.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa #1):</font></b> The first and second times that one puts
          water on dregs of Terumah wine, what come out is
          forbidden (like Terumah). The third time, it is permitted
          (like Chulin);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	R. Meir says, even the third is forbidden if it tastes
          like wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one puts water on dregs of Ma'aser wine, (what
               comes out) the first time is forbidden (like
               Ma'aser, and the second time is permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, even the second is forbidden if it
               tastes like wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If one puts water on dregs of Hekdesh, the first
               three times are forbidden. The fourth time, it is
               permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, even the fourth is forbidden if it
               tastes like wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Dregs of Hekdesh are always
          forbidden. Dregs of Ma'aser are always permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #1 says that the dregs are sometimes
               forbidden and sometimes permitted regarding Hekdesh
               and Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (part 1, regarding Hekdesh):</font></b> Regarding Kedushas
          ha'Guf (something that is itself offered in the Mikdash,
          e.g. wine for Nesachim), the dregs are always forbidden.
          Regarding Kedushas Damim (their value is Hekdesh), only
          the first three times are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (part 2, regarding Ma'aser):</font></b> Regarding definite
          Ma'aser, the first time is forbidden. Regarding Ma'aser
          of Demai (Safek Tevel, i.e. perhaps it was already tithed
          and the Ma'aser is really Chulin), it is always
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> The law of Hechsher (food can become
          Tamei only after a liquid was put on it) is the same as
          the law of when the dregs are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Which Hechsher does he address?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Neither water nor wine needs any Hechsher!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, he put rainwater on the dregs.
          (Rainwater that was not willfully collected is not
          Machshir for Kabalas Tum'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Once he put the water in a Keli, this shows
          that he wants the water, so it is Huchshar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The rainwater fell on the dregs by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The first time he removes the Temed, this
          shows that he is happy that the water fell there, so it
          is all Huchshar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He did not remove the Temed. A cow
          was drinking it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WINE FOR KIDUSH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> One must make Kidush on wine fitting for
          Nesachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this come to exclude?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It excludes unfermented wine (grape
               juice).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #1:</font></b> R. Chiya taught that one should not
               bring unfermented wine for Nesachim. If he brought
               it, it is Kosher;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since it is Kosher b'Diavad for Nesachim, it is
                    Kosher l'Chatchilah for Kidush!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE TASTE OF SEDIMENTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that according to the Chachamim, when one mixes wine sediments with water and later finds that the amount of water in the container is the same as the original amount, the beverage is exempt from Ma'aser. Since the amount of water in the mixture remained the same, the mixture has the status of water, and there is no obligation to separate Ma'aser from water. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees and states that Ma'aser must be separated from the beverage.
</p><p>
The <b>ALIYOS D'RABEINU YONAH</b> asks that the Chachamim's position seems difficult. A general rule with regard to mixtures states that when two different types of things are mixed up (Min b'she'Eino Mino), each entity is considered present in the mixture only when each entity's taste is discernible in the mixture (Nosen Ta'am). In the case of the Gemara here, even the Chachamim should consider the water to be wine. Despite the fact that the amount of water stayed the same, the sediments probably added some flavor to the water. Rabeinu Yonah says that one cannot suggest that this is a case of 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' (where the wine sediments spoil the taste of the water), in which case the wine would not be considered a Halachic 'presence' in the mixture, because the person purposely put the water into the sediments. It must be that the wine sediments give a desirable taste to the water. Why, then, do the Chachamim say that it is considered water?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ALIYOS D'RABEINU YONAH</b> quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who explains that the Gemara refers to sediments of Demai, produce from which Ma'aser may have been separated already. The Gemara in Chulin (6a) teaches that the Rabanan did not decree that one must separate Ma'aser from a mixture of Demai with another an entity which is not obligated in Ma'aser. However, in an ordinary wine-making process, in which the volume -- after the sediments are placed in the water -- is greater than the original amount of water, the mixture is not exempt from Ma'aser. Since this is the normal process of wine-making, the water is considered as though it becomes part of the sediments and is called wine, and not water mixed with a wine flavor.
</p><p>
(b) The Aliyos d'Rabeinu Yonah quotes others who explain that a mixture of water and wine is an exception to the rule of 'Nosen Ta'am.' Normally, 'Nosen Ta'am' means that one entity imparts its taste to the other when it comprises at least one-sixtieth of the mixture. In the case of a mixture of water and wine, when there is one part wine and more than six parts water, the wine is considered 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam,' despite the fact that many people begin the wine-making process by pouring more than six parts water into the wine, and later they add more wine to make the mixture into wine. As long as more wine has not been added, the wine is considered 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam.' This is also the opinion of the <b>TORAS HA'BAYIS HA'KATZAR</b> (5:5). (See also <b>IGROS MOSHE</b> YD 3:19 and <b>AVODAH BERURAH</b> 73a, DH Yayin b'Mayim.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH WINE IS KOSHER FOR KIDUSH?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 20b (Beraisa):</font></b> One may set up a baker's or dyer's
               store under another's wine, because the smoke
               improves the wine,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even smoke of a candle harms wine of
               Bavel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 97a (Rav):</font></b> One must make Kidush on wine Kosher for
               Nesachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> He does not exclude unfermented wine (grape juice),
               for b'Di'eved it is Kosher for Nesachim, so it is
               Kosher l'Chatchilah for Kidush!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rather, he excludes wine that was diluted, exposed,
               smells bad...
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One should not bring any of these
                    for Nesachim. If he did, it is invalid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Surely, he did not need to exclude exposed
               wine. It is dangerous, and one may not drink it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He disqualifies it even if it was passed
               through a strainer according to R. Nechemyah. Then
               one may drink it, but it is invalid for Nesachim -
               'Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha (would your governor
               accept such a gift?!)'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Menachos 86b (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not bring for Nesachim
               wine that is sweet, smoked or cooked. If it was
               brought, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bechoros 17a (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If one draped a vine over a
               fig tree, wine from its grapes is Pasul for Nesachim
               (libations on the MIzbe'ach). It says 'Zevach
               u'Nesachim' - just like the Zevach must be
               unchanged, also the Nesachim. Draping a vine over a
               fig tree changes the smell of the wine.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif (Pesachim 22b) brings the Gemara in Bava
               Basra.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ran (DH Ein):</font></b> We disqualify from Kidush wine
                    Pasul for Nesachim due to its inferiority. This
                    rule does not exclude cooked wine, for cooking
                    improves wine, just like smoking it improves it
                    (20b)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 29:14):</font></b> One may say Kidush
               only on wine Kosher for Nesachim. Therefore, if any
               honey was mixed in, even a drop in a big barrel, one
               may not say Kidush. We rule like this in the entire
               west. Some permit saying Kidush on it. 'Wine Kosher
               for Nesachim' excludes only wine that smells bad,
               was exposed or was cooked. One may not say Kidush on
               them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ra'avad:</font></b> The latter opinion is correct. The
                    Yerushalmi permits to make Kidush on Konditon
                    wine (which has honey and peppers).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Gemara did not discuss
                    cooked wine. All the Ge'onim disqualify it,
                    like the Rambam. The Gemara is not a peddler
                    (it need not teach every law). Some say that we
                    bless sheha'Kol on it. The Rambam did not say
                    so in Hilchos Berachos. The Acharonim say that
                    one may say Kidush on it, for it improved; the
                    Ramban and Rashba say so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Basra 6:10):</font></b> One must make Kidush on wine
               Kosher for Nesachim. This excludes wine that smells
               bad or was exposed, even if it was passed through a
               strainer. It is invalid due to Hakrivehu Na. R. Tam
               says that we bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on cooked
               wine, and one may say Kidush on it. Even though
               cooked vegetables lose their Berachah because they
               changed, this refers to garlic and leeks, which
               changed for the worse. They had pungency, and lost
               it. Other vegetables change for the better (through
               cooking), so their Berachah does not change. Also
               cooked wine improved! One may not derive from here
               that it is Kosher for Kidush because the Gemara did
               not exclude it. Perhaps it is obvious that it is
               Pasul, for we do not bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on
               it, for it changed for the worse! In Terumos 11:1,
               R. Yehudah permits cooking Terumah wine because this
               improves it. All agree that cooking improves it;
               Chachamim forbid only because this diminishes it!
               The Yerushalmi asks why one may be Yotzei the four
               cups of Pesach with cooked wine, but one may not
               take cooked wine to be Terumah on uncooked wine, for
               it is from bad on good! We answer that a Yisrael may
               not take cooked wine to be Terumah, for then the
               Kohen receives a smaller quantity. Also, some people
               cannot drink cooked wine because it is too potent.
               Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue about whether a Kohen
               may cook his own wine. In a Teshuvah, Rashi says
               that we do not bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on cooked
               wine. Rav Tzemach Gaon says that this is why we did
               not need to exclude it. I refuted this proof. In
               Menachos we disqualify cooked wine b'Di'eved for
               Menachos, but here we conclude that 'Kidush wine
               must be Kosher for Nesachim' disqualifies only wine
               with a bad smell, that was exposed or was changed
               for the worse. Cooked wine is Pasul for Menachos
               because it changed from its initial state, just like
               wine from a vine that grew over a fig tree (Bechoros
               17a). 
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (OC 272:13):</font></b> Rav Tzemach Gaon learns from
                    Menachos that cooked wine is Pasul for Nesachim
                    and Kidush. The Rosh refuted this, for Bava
                    Basra says that if it improved, it is Kosher!
                    Rather, it is Kosher, for it is Kosher for the
                    four cups. However, the Shulchan Aruch (YD
                    331:63) allows taking uncooked wine to be
                    Terumah to exempt cooked wine, but not vice-
                    versa. This shows that cooked wine is inferior!
                    Why does the Rambam (Dameshek Eliezer - this
                    should say 'Tur') say that we bless sheha'Kol
                    on cooked wine, but allows it for the four
                    cups? The Yerushalmi explains that all agree
                    that cooking improves it, just it decreases
                    (the volume or number of people who drink) the
                    wine. Surely, wine from a vine that grew over a
                    fig tree is Kosher for Kidush!
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 272:1):</font></b> One may not say Kidush on
               wine that was exposed, even nowadays that we are not
               particular about exposure.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magen Avraham (1):</font></b> If it was exposed only a
                    brief time, we are not concerned, especially in
                    our lands where wine in not so plentiful. Also,
                    officers are not particular about this, unless
                    it lost its smell and taste.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (3):</font></b> The Chayei Adam says that
                    this is only where wine is expensive and people
                    are not so concerned if it was exposed a short
                    time. One who says Kidush on beer should be
                    careful about this. It seems that if he has no
                    other (wine or beer), he need not be particular
                    b'Di'eved even about beer, just like for wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Gra (2):</font></b> Nowadays is like after it was strained
                    in the days of the Gemara.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</font></b> If it was exposed overnight,
                    it is Pasul even if it did not lose its smell
                    and taste. Tosefes Shabbos is stringent even if
                    it was exposed a short time. L'Chatchilah one
                    should not leave it exposed even a short time;
                    b'Di'eved, it is Pasul only if it lost its
                    smell and taste or was left overnight.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (8):</font></b> Beis Yehudah says that we do
                    not distinguish Havdalah from Kidush regarding
                    this. This is not only like the Rambam, who
                    holds that Havdalah is mid'Oraisa. Even those
                    who say that it is mid'Rabanan hold that
                    Chachamim enacted like mid'Oraisa.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (9):</font></b> If an open bottle is in a
                    closed box, it is not disqualified unless it
                    lost its smell and taste.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</font></b> Birkei Yosef says that if
                    one said Kidush on exposed wine, he was not
                    Yotzei. It is difficult to say that he says
                    Kidush again, for Kidush on wine is only
                    mid'Rabanan, especially nowadays that we are
                    not concerned for exposure and most people
                    drink such wine! Rather, he need not say Kidush
                    again.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (11):</font></b> One must be careful about
                    this at a Sheva Berachos, for the Satan
                    prosecutes more at a time of Simchah. Also,
                    people are distracted, and it is common to
                    leave the bottles esposed. Also, the wine can
                    become forbidden or repulsive through
                    mosquitoes and flies.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (3):</font></b> One may say Kidush on sweet
               wine. In any case, it is a Mitzvah to pick good wine
               for Kidush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Kaf ha'Chayim (22):</font></b> This refers to naturally
                    sweet wine. If sugar or something else was
                    added to sweeten it, the latter opinion in
                    Sa'if 8 (which disqualifies wine with honey)
                    disqualifies it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (4:88):</font></b> Preservatives
                    (sorbet, Gafris (lime) and lemon salt) detract
                    from the taste, so they disqualify. Only the
                    Rambam disqualifies if sugar was added. The
                    custom is to be lenient about all this; one who
                    seeks pure wine for Kidush will be blessed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (8):</font></b> One may say Kidush on cooked
               wine and wine with honey. Some disagree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (19):</font></b> The latter opinion holds
                    that it changed for the worse, and we bless
                    only sheha'Kol on it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (21):</font></b> According to the Rambam,
                    one should not put sugar into the wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (43):</font></b> If cooked wine and uncooked
                    wine were mixed, we follow the majority
                    regarding Berachah and Kashrus for Kidush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> This is according to the latter opinion.
                    The Kaf ha'Chayim (38) says that we bless Borei
                    Peri ha'Gefen on cooked wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> The custom is to say Kidush on it, even if he
               has other wine, but it is not as good as the cooked
               wine or wine with honey.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source:</font></b> Agur, cited in Beis Yosef (DH v'Al).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (23):</font></b> When they are equal, we
                    are concerned for the latter opinion. However,
                    we bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (45):</font></b> If the uncooked wine is
                    good, but not as good as the cooked wine, one
                    says Kidush on it.
<br><br>
<p>


