Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask what the Din will be if a mouse falls into a barrel of vinegar. The Din there might be more lenient than the previous case (where it fell into a barrel of wine) - because beer has a more sharp taste, and perhaps the mouse will not affect its taste significantly.

(b) Rav Hillel cited such a case that occurred by Rav Kahana, who forbade it. Rav Ashi retorted that that case was different - because the mouse had been cut into small pieces, and Rav Kahana afraid that someone might just swallow some of them.

(c) The smallest Shi'ur of Sheretz for which one would be Chayav Malkos is - a 'k'Adashah' (the size of a lentil, which is the Shiur of its Tum'ah.

(a) Ravina thought to measure the mouse in a hundred and one of vinegar - because he considered it unlikely that the Din of a Sheretz should be more stringent than that of Terumah, which is Bateil in a hundred and one.

(b) Rav Tachlifa bar Giza countered Ravina's suggestion that perhaps we ought to compare it to spices of Terumah that fell into a pot - which do not become Bateil at all (see also Tosfos DH 'ke'Tavlin').

(c) Rav Achai measured the mouse in fifty measures of beer - because of the sharp taste of beer (as opposed to most other foods), which would diminish the effectiveness of the mouse.

(d) Rav Shmuel b'rei de'Rav Ika measured the mouse in sixty measures of beer, and we finally rule 'Idi ve'Idi be'Shishim' (meaning whether the mouse fell ito a barrel of beer or it fell into a barrel of wine), and that is the Din regarding all Isurin in the Torah.

(a) We qualify this ruling - confining it 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno' (two different species), because 'Miyn be'Miyno' forbids the mixture even if only a Mashehu (the smallest amount) of Isur fell into it.

(b) The only Isur that is not Bateil be'Shishim - is Chametz on Pesach, which always forbids with a Mashehu (even when it is 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno') ...

(c) ... because the Chachamim decreed 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno' on account of 'Miyn be'Miyno'.

(a) Our Mishnah rules - that barrels of wine which a Nochri is transporting for a Yisrael are permitted, as long as they are 'be'Chezkas ha'Mishtamer' (which means that the Yisrael did not inform the Nochri that he was going far, as the Beraisa explains), even if he travelled ahead as far as a Mil.

(b) In the event that the Yisrael informed the Nochri that he was going way ahead, the Shiur for the wine to become Asur is 'Kedei she'Yistom ve'Yistom ve'Yigov' - meaning the time it takes to bore a hole in the lid of the barrel, to seal it again and for the seal to dry.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is more lenient. He permits the wine until the Shiur of as long as it takes to remove the (sealed) lid from the barrel (which inevitably entails breaking it), to re-place it with a new lid and for the new lid to dry ('K'dei she'Yiftach, ve'Yigof ve'Teigov').

(d) He disagrees with the Tana Kama - because, he argues, the Nochri would not dare bore a hole in the lid, since the seal would invariably be discernable, and would give him away.

(a) The Mishnah repeats the same Machlokes two more times. In the Reisha of the first case, the Yisrael leaves the barrel of wine with the Nochri in a wagon or in a ship, whilst he goes 'be'Kapendarya' - meaning that he takes a short cut into town). The Tana describes him as visiting the bathhouse, once he arrives there?

(b) In the second case, he leaves the barrel of wine in the store with the Nochri. The wine will be permitted - as long as the Yisrael 'pops in' (at unspecified times) from time to time to check.

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah discusses a case where the Yisrael invites the Nochri to eat by him, and exits in the middle of the meal, leaving the Nochri alone in the room. The Tana ...

1. ... forbids the jar of wine that the Yisrael left on the table ...
2. ... but permits the one on the top of the cupboard ...

(b) ... because the Nochri will take advantage of his initial invitation to help himself to the former, but he will not be so brazen as to pour himself a drink from the latter.

(c) If, before leaving the room, the Yisrael instructed the Nochri to help himself to a drink - then the fresh invitation will encourage him to help himself to the jar on the cupboard as well, in which case, it too, becomes Asur.

(d) The Tana finally forbids all the open barrels in the room. As for the closed barrels, he says - they become forbidden only if he stays away 'K'dei she'Yiftach, ve'Yigof ve'Teigov' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(a) The Beraisa rules in a case where someone's donkey drivers or workers were transporting his Taharos, and he went ahead by as much as a Mil - that his wine is permitted.

(b) In the Seifa however, the Tana rules that as soon as he is out of sight, his Taharos become Tamei - because there he is speaking when he told them that they should continue traveling, and that he would catch them up.

(c) To explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa, Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha establishes the Reisha - when the owner forced his employees to Tovel in a Mikvah.

(d) The mere fact that the owner did not go far away will not suffice - because nothing is said in the Beraisa to suggest that the wine was sealed.

(a) Even if we say the same in the Seifa, it will not help however - because we are afraid that they will allow their friends (who have not Toveled) to touch the wine (something about which Amei ha'Aretz tend not to be particular).

(b) This fear does not apply in the Reisha, Rava explains, because they are afraid that the owner will return from a different angle and catch them allowing their friends to touch the Taharos. They are not afraid of the same thing in the Seifa - because, since he instructed them to carry on traveling and that he would catch them up, they are not afraid that he will come back so fast.

9)

(a) Having taught us the Halachah of ...

1. ... 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' in the case of 'ha'Meni'ach Akum ba'Chanuso', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add that of 'Kapendarya' in the case of 'ha'Meni'ach Yeino be'Karon O bi'Sefinah' - where they may be less afraid that he will catch them touching the wine, since they are able to sail the boat further away from the river bank, and do what they want.
2. ... 'Kapendarya' by 'ha'Meni'ach Yeino be'Karon O bi'Sefinah', the Tana finds it necessary to add that of 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' in the case of 'ha'Meni'ach Akum ba'Chanuso' - where they are perhaps less afraid, because they are able to lock the door and do what they want.

(b) Rabah bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Chachamim - by confining it to where the lid is made of cement, which is white, and which the replacement will therefore resemble. Whereas if the lid was made of clay, which is black the Chachamim would concede that the Shiur is 'she'Yiftach, ve'Yigof ve'Yigov' - because, were he to make a hole in the lid, the seal (which is initially white, and takes a day or so to turn black) would be easily discernible, and they would not dare to just make a hole.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Chachamim in a Beraisa - that seeing as the seal is easily discernible, both on the outside and on the inside, they would definitely be afraid to make a hole and then to seal it, so how can they give the Shiur as 'K'dei she'Yistom ve'Yistom ve'Yigov'?

(d) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - because how could Raban Shimon ben Gamliel suggest that the seal would be discernible even on the outside, if they were arguing in the case of a lid made of cement.

(a) And we answer that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was not sure what the Chachamim were saying. His point of doubt was - whether the Chachamim were speaking about whether the lid was made of cement or of clay.

(b) What he told them was - that if they were speaking about a clay lid, then the seal would be discernible both on the outside and on the inside; whereas if they were speaking about a lid made of cement, then it would at least be discernible on the inside ...

(c) ... due to the fact that the new seal would not be level with the rest of the lid.

(d) The Chachamim countered - that a. the Nochri will not worry about that, because, since the seal on the outside of the barrel is level, it will not occur to the owner to check the inside, and b. sometimes, the cement fills the hole completely, so that it is level with the barrel on the inside as well.

(a) Rava rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because the Seifa ('Hayah Ochel Imo al ha'Shulchan ... K'dei she'Yiftach, ve'Yigof ve'Teigov'.

(b) Rava needs to teach us that the Seifa is a S'tam Mishnah like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because we might otherwise have thought that the Seifa is a continuation of the words of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and is not an independent case.

(a) When we rule like Rebbi Eliezer (in 'Ein Ma'amidin') regarding 'Ziyufa', we mean - that whenever a big 'Tircha' is involved (such as making a new lid, like in our case), we do not suspect a Nochri of taking the trouble to indulge in forgery ...

(b) ... to preclude - the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who does).

(c) And we rule like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (not with regard to his specified opinion, but) - with regard to his rejection of the opinion of the Chachamim, who suspect that the Nochri might make a hole and fill it in, as we explained.

(d) In spite of these two rulings, we do not trust Nochrim with our barrels of wine nowadays - because of 'Shaycha' (a tiny hole in the barrel, which was necessary to let out the smell of the wine, and) - which we suspect the Nochri of enlarging very slightly, just enough to drink from.

(a) Rava permits an open jar of wine belonging to Yisre'elim who are sitting at table with a Nochri Zonah - because even though the Yetzer-ha'Ra for adultery is strong, the Yetzer-ha'Ra for Yayin Nesech is not (in which case they would not let the Zonah touch the wine).

(b) In the reverse case however, where the wine belongs to a Zonah Yisre'elis who is sitting with Nochrim at table, he forbids the wine - because, due to the fact that they despise her, she will not stop them should they want to be Menasech the wine.