Previous daf

1)

(a) If a Nochri employer sends his Jewish workers a barrel of wine in lieu of payment, they are permitted to ask for money instead - because a. the wine is not yet theirs, and b. the employer owes them money and not wine.

(b) Consequently, our Mishnah permits it - as long as they have not yet acquired it.

(a) In a case where a Yisrael asks a Nochri to pay 'M'nas ha'Melech' (a royal tax on produce and animals) on his behalf, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits him to repay the Nochri, even if he paid the tax with Yayin Nesech - because he had the option of paying in cash (or other goods), and the choice to pay in wine was the Nochri's.

(b) The Beraisa - forbids asking a Nochri to take his place to placate the 'Otzer' (an officer who demands money from the people), in the knowledge that he will pay him Yayin Nesech?

(c) 'Otzar' might also mean - a tax on wine and oil to replenish the royal wineries and oil stores.

(d) We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, by citing the Seifa of the Beraisa - which permits asking the same Nochri to save him from the Otzar, implying that he pays him money or other goods (where again, the decision to pay in Yayin Nesech is the Nochri's).

(a) In a case where a Yisrael sells wine to a Nochri, our Mishnah permits the money - provided the fixing of the price precedes the pouring out of the wine, but not vice-versa ...

(b) ... because then the wine will become Yayin Nesech before the obligation to pay occurs, and the money will be Yayin Nesech (as we will explain later).

(a) Assuming that 'Pardashni' means 'a gift', Ameimar proves that Meshichah is Koneh from Pardashni - since the Nochrim would never retract from a gift (even if in reality, they had changed their minds).

(b) 'Pardashni' might also mean - a sample of wheat, which the seller would send to the purchaser to test the quality of the Kur of wheat for which they had already fixed a price.

(c) Rav Ashi refutes Ameimar's proof. In his opinion, Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri, and the reason that the Nochrim declined to retract by Pardashni is - because of their pride.

(d) Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri - but money is.

(a) Rav Ashi bases his opinion on a ruling of Rav, who advised the wine-salesmen - to take payment from their Nochri clients before pouring out the wine.

(b) Alternatively (assuming that the purchaser had no money with him), he advised them to lend them the money, and accept it as payment prior to pouring out the wine.

(c) All this was necessary - because otherwise, the wine would become Yayin Nesech (the moment the Nochri touched it [which he usually did after the Meshichah]), before he actually acquired the wine, and the money would then be 'D'mei Yayin Nesech'.

6)

(a) Rav Ashi extrapolated from Rav's instructions to the wine-salesmen that *Meshichah is not Koneh* - because if it were, then when the Nochri touched the wine, it would be his own wine that he was making Nesech, and the payment would be for the wine before it became Yayin Nesech.

(b) Ameimar (who holds that it *is*) will learn that the vessels into which the wine was poured belonged to the Nochrim - in which case the wine would have become Asur immediately the at the same time as he acquired it (because all wine in the vessel of a Nochri is Yayin Nesech).

(c) We query this too however, on the grounds - that whereas the Nochri acquires the wine as soon as it enters the air of the barrel, it will not become Nesech until it reaches the floor of the vessel. Consequently, what the Nochri owes the Yisrael will not then be D'mei Yayin Nesech, and ought to be permitted even if the vessel belongs to a Nochri.

(a) We try to extrapolate from here that 'Nitzuk Chibur' - because then, seeing as the wine that enters the air of the Nochri's vessel is joined to the wine on the floor of the barrel (which is Nesech), it too, ought to become Asur immediately.

(b) When we say 'Sh'ma Minah Nitzuk Chibur', we are referring to the dispute in Bava Metzi'a, which the current proposal would then resolve.

(c) We refute this suggestion however - by establishing the case when the Nochri's barrel was lying on the ground (and was not being held by the owner whilst the wine was being poured), in which case even the wine on the floor of the barrel is not Asur either.

(a) Based on the ownership of the barrels, we still think that the Nochri ought to acquire the wine even before touching it (in which case, it ought not to be considered D'mei Yayin Nesech) - because his vessels ought to acquire on his behalf.

(b) From the fact that they don't - we try and prove that the vessels of the purchaser cannot acquire on his behalf in the sellers domain.

(c) We conclude however, that they do, and the money is considered D'mei Yayin Nesech because of Akeves Yayin on the Nochri's small jars. This is a narrow lip, which holds a few drops of wine, which are certainly Yayin Nesech.

(a) We just explained that Rav forbade the wine-merchants to accept any of the money because of D'mei Yayin Nesech, even though only the few drops in the Akeves were actually Asur. We suggest that this does not conform with the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - who rules that if Yayin Nesech which fell into a wine-pit, it may be sold to a Nochri, who deducts only the value of the Yayin Nesech.

(b) Establishing Rav's ruling not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel poses a problem however - due to the principle that whenever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel states an opinion in a Mishnah, it is the Halachah.

(c) We solve the problem, by stressing that the author of the ruling in question is Rav, who will rule later - that the Halachah is indeed like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a barrel of Yayin Nesech that got mixed up with good wine, but not with regard to Yayin Nesech that fell into a wine-pit (which is equivalent to Rav's case here).

(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who purchased broken pieces of silver from a Nochri, and finds among them an Avodas-Kochavim. In a case where he acquired them (with Meshichah) before having paid, the Tana rules - that he may return them.

(b) Abaye refutes the proof from there (against Ameimar) that Meshichah is not Koneh - by ascribing that ruling to the fact that it is a Mekach Ta'us. Rava queries Abaye's answer, from the Seifa of the Beraisa. In a case where the Nochri paid before acquiring them, the Tana rules - that the Yisrael must take the Hana'ah and throw it in the Yam ha'Melach.

(c) According to Rava therefore, it is a false sale in the Seifa no less than in the Reisha. Nevertheless, the Chachamim forbade the pieces in the Seifa - because when the Nochri returns the money in exchange for the pieces of silver, it looks as if he is selling the Avodah-Zarah back to the Nochri.

(d) Abaye and Rava answer Kashyos on Ameimar, who was much younger than them - because Ameimar himself was citing the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, and not his own (indeed, in Bechoros, Abaye and Rava give the same answer directly with reference to Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Yeino le'Akum, Pasak ad she'Lo Madad, Damav Mutarim'. Mar Keshisha b'rei de'Rav Chisda proved from here that Meshichah is Koneh - because if it weren't, why would the money be permitted?

(b) When Rav Ashi refuted Mar Keshisha's proof by establishing the Mishnah when the Nochri paid the Yisrael in advance - he asked him, in that case, why in the Seifa, the Tana rules 'Madad ad she'Lo Pasak, Damav Asurim'?

(c) Mar Keshisha 'threw the Kashya back' at Rav Ashi, by pointing out to him that even if one ascribed the ruling in the Reisha to 'Meshichah Koneh' (like *he* just did) - the question would remain why the money was then forbidden.

(d) We therefore conclude that, even if we hold ...

1. ... 'Meshichah Koneh' - he will not be Koneh in the Seifa, because the purchaser does not rely on the Kinyan as long as the price has not been fixed, and the same reason will apply even if we hold ...
2. ... 'Meshichah is not Koneh' (in spite of the fact that the Nochri paid him in advance), because he is afraid that the seller will ask him for more.

(a) Besides that the Nochri is Chayav Misah, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan also rules - that a ben No'ach who steals something that is worth less than a P'rutah is Chayav Misah.

(b) Ravina proves from here - that Meshichah is Koneh, because otherwise, why would he be Chayav Misah?

(c) Rav Ashi counters that he is Chayav for causing a Yisrael suffering, and 've'Lo Nitan le'Heishavon' means - that the obligation of returning the article does not apply to a Nochri, even if it is worth more than a P'rutah (seeing as he did not acquire it in the first place).

(d) And Rebbi Yochanan referred to less than a Shaveh P'rutah - to teach us that even there he is Chayav Misah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan then says that if a second Nochri came and stole the article from the first one - he too, is Chayav Misah ...

(b) ... a final proof that a Nochri must acquire with Meshichah, because otherwise, seeing as the second Nochri does not does not cause the Yisrael to suffer, why should he be Chayav Misah?