Previous daf

1)

(a) If a Nochri employer sends his Jewish workers a barrel of wine in lieu of payment, on what grounds are they permitted to ask for money instead?

(b) Up to which stage does our Mishnah permit this?

(a) In a case where a Yisrael asks a Nochri to pay 'M'nas ha'Melech' on his behalf, on what grounds does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permit him to repay the Nochri, even if he paid the tax with Yayin Nesech? What is 'M'nas ha'Melech'?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about asking a Nochri to take his place to placate the 'Otzer' (an officer who demand money), in the knowledge that he will pay him Yayin Nesech?

(c) What else might 'Otzar' mean?

(d) We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, by citing the Seifa of the Beraisa.
What does the Seifa say?

(a) In a case where a Yisrael sells wine to a Nochri, what distinction does our Mishnah make between where they fixed the price before pouring out the wine (to measure it) and vice-versa?

(b) On what grounds is the Yisrael forbidden to receive payment?

(a) Assuming that 'Pardashni' means 'a gift', how does Ameimar prove that Meshichah is Koneh from Pardashni?

(b) What else might Pardashni mean?

(c) Rav Ashi refutes Ameimar's proof. If Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri, then why, in his opinion, do the Nochrim not retract by Pardashni?

(d) If Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri, then what is?

(a) Rav Ashi bases his opinion on a ruling of Rav. What did Rav advise the wine-salesmen to do when selling wine to Nochrim?

(b) What alternative method did he suggest (assuming that the purchaser had no money with him)?

(c) Why was all this necessary?

6)

(a) How did Rav Ashi extrapolate from Rav's instructions to the wine-salesmen that Meshichah is not Koneh?

(b) Ameimar (who holds that it *is*) will learn that the vessels into which the wine was poured belonged to the Nochrim.
How does that refute Rav Ashi's proof?

(c) On what grounds do we query this too? Why ought the wine to be permitted even in the vessel belonging to a Nochri?

(a) We try to extrapolate from here that 'Nitzuk Chibur'.
How do we do that?

(b) What do we mean when we say 'Sh'ma Minah Nitzuk Chibur'?

(c) How do we refute this suggestion?

(a) Based on the ownership of the barrels, why do we still think that the Nochri ought to acquire the wine even before touching it?

(b) What do we try and prove from the fact that they don't?

(c) We conclude however, that the purchaser's vessels do in fact, acquire for him even in the seller's Reshus, and the money is considered D'mei Yayin Nesech because of Akeves Yayin on the Nochri's small jars.
What is 'Akeves Yayin'?

(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 are actually Asur. We suggest that this does not conform with the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say about Yayin Nesech which fell into a wine-pit?

(b) Why does establishing Rav's ruling not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel pose a problem?

(c) How do we solve the problem, by stressing that the author of the ruling in question is Rav.
What will Rav rule later with regard to the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan that will resolve this problem?

(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who finds an Avodas-Kochavim among broken pieces of silver which he purchased from a Nochri.
What does the Tana rule in a case where he acquired them (with Meshichah) before having paid?

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

(c) According to Rava therefore, it is a false sale in the Seifa no less than in the Reisha. In that case, why did the Chachamim forbid the pieces in the Seifa?

(d) How can Abaye and Rava answer Kashyos on Ameimar, who was much younger than them?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Yeino le'Akum, Pasak ad she'Lo Madad, Damav Mutarim'.
How did Mar Keshisha b'rei de'Rav Chisda prove from here that Meshichah is Koneh?

(b) And how did he query Rav Ashi from the Seifa, when the latter refuted his proof, by establishing the Mishnah when the Nochri paid him in advance?

(c) How did Mar Keshisha 'throw the Kashya back' at Rav Ashi?

(d) So how will we finally explain the Seifa, if we hold ...

1. ... Meshichah Koneh?
2. ... Meshichah is not Koneh?

(a) What ruling, besides that he is Chayav Misah, does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan issue, with regard to a ben No'ach who steals something that is worth less than a P'rutah?

(b) What does Ravina prove from here?

(c) Rav Ashi counters that he is Chayav for causing a Yisrael suffering. Then how will he explain 've'Lo Nitan le'Heishavon'?

(d) In that case, why did Rebbi Yochanan refer to less than a Shaveh P'rutah?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan then say about a case where a second Nochri came and stole the article from the first one?

(b) What do we finally prove from there?

Next daf