Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav and Shmuel both rule that a receptacle belonging to the purchaser acquires everywhere but for the Reshus ha'Rabim. Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish say - 'Afilu bi'Reshus ha'Rabim'.

(b) We qualify the statement 'Keilav shel Adam Koneh Lo' - by confining it to where the owner specifically declared that they should (as we shall see later in the Sugya).

(a) According to Rav Papa, there is no dispute - because 'Afilu bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' said by Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, refers (not to a Reshus ha'Rabim, but) to a Simta.

(b) They refer to it as 'Reshus ha'Rabim' - because it is not a Reshus ha'Yachid.

(c) We prove Rav Papa right from a statement of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled that - a person's receptacles acquire wherever he has the right to place them (which precludes the Reshus-ha'Rabim).

(a) The Beraisa discusses four Dinim regarding someone who sells wine or oil, the first by a measure which belongs to neither party and in a Reshus ha'Rabim or a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them (but which they borrowed for the sale). The measured contents belong ...

1. ... until the measuring process is complete - to the seller.
2. ... after it has been completed - to the purchaser.

(b) The second Din concerns where the wine or oil is being poured into the receptacle belonging to one of them - in which case the Din is 'Rishon Rishon Kanah' (depending on whose receptacle it is. This will be explained shortly).

(c) In the third case, where the wine or oil is lying in the domain of the purchaser - the latter acquires it from the moment the seller agrees to sell it.

(a) The fourth Din refers to when the wine or oil is lying in the domain of the seller or of the guardian. The purchaser then acquires it in one of four ways, the first through Hagbahah, and the second through Meshichah from the owner's domain to a Simta, as we learned earlier - the third and fourth through the seller or the guardian (under the seller's instructions) undertaking to lend or to rent the purchaser a place with which he will acquire the goods simultaneously.

(b) The Tana divides the last Din into two parts, connecting the first two with a seller, and the second two with a guardian. The advantage of counting them as two out of the four Dinim (rather than one), and Reshus Mocher and Reshus Loke'ach as the other two would be - that the four groupings would then be coincide with the four domains (Reshus ha'Rabim, Reshus Mocher, Reshus Loke'ach and Reshus Nifkad), which is a neater categorization than the one that we in fact adopt.

(c) Despite the fact that all four Dinim apply both to Reshus Mocher and to Reshus Nifkad, the Tana lists Hagbahah and Hotza'ah together with Reshus Mocher, and Kabalah and Sechirus Makom together with Reshus Nifkad - because generally, the owner wants the sold article removed from his domain, whereas the guardian, who is already looking after something for Reuven, will agree to add Shimon's purchase to his charge.

(a) The ramifications of ...

1. ... 'Ad she'Lo Nismal'es ha'Midah, le'Mocher' are - that if the wine spills, it is the Mocher who loses, and if the price of wine rises, it is the Mocher who loses. 2. ... 'mi'she'Nismal'es, le'Loke'ach' are - that he now has the right to pour the wine or the oil into his own receptacles or to use the borrowed vessel to store it until he decides to do so.

(b) The ramifications of ...

1. ... 'Im Haysah Midah shel Echad Meihen, Rishon Rishon Kanah' (assuming that the receptacle belongs to the buyer) are - that as the wine is poured into his receptacles, he acquires it.
2. ... the seller) are - that the wine never becomes the purchaser's, since the seller's receptacle cannot acquire on his behalf in the Reshus ha'Rabim (the domain that we currently think we are speaking about), even if they fixed the price.

(c) We establish this in a Reshus ha'Rabim or in a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them. In order to place it in the same category as a Reshus ha'Rabim, we must qualify 'a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them' - by confining it to where the owner did not grant either of them permission to effect the sale there.

(d) This Beraisa, which specifically validates a sale that is effected by means of the purchaser's vessel in the Reshus ha'Rabim, poses a Kashya - on Rav and Shmuel, who ruled earlier that a purchaser's receptacles cannot acquire in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

6) Rav and Shmuel must interpret ...

1. ... 'bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' to mean - in a Simta (like we did earlier).
2. ... 'Chatzer she'Einah shel Sheneihem' (in order to conform with that) to mean - that the Chatzer does not belong to either of them, but to both of them jointly.

(a) Rav Sheishes asked Rav Huna whether the receptacle of a purchaser will acquire on his behalf in the seller's domain - either by fixing the price and pouring the goods into them, or by, in addition, first measuring the goods in his own vessel before pouring them.

(b) Perhaps he will acquire the goods because they are, after all, in his receptacle, which is considered his own domain. Perhaps on the other hand, he will not acquire them - because the receptacle is Batel to the domain.

(c) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that if a husband threw his wife a Get which landed in her lap or in her basket - she is divorced.

(d) When Rav Sheishes attempted to resolve his She'eilah from the latter case (on the assumption that his wife was sitting in his house at the time) Rav Nachman protested - on the grounds that the Amora'im in the Sugya there explain the Mishnah in numerous ways each of which will automatically refute the proof, as we shall now see.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel established the Mishnah there where her basket was hanging from her; Resh Lakish, where it was tied but not hanging - by which he means that it was tied to her, but was lying on the ground (and not hanging from her waist, as Resh Lakish explains).

(b) This refutes Rav Sheishes proof - inasmuch as she is now divorced because the basket is considered like her hand (and not because her receptacle can acquire even in his domain).

(c) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the basket is lying between her thighs - even if it is also lying on the floor of the husband's house (because a man is not particular about the area where his wife sits, placing it in her domain for her needs).

(d) This explanation (as well as the subsequent ones), serve to refute Rav Sheishes proof - inasmuch as, she is divorced because it is as if her husband was Makneh his domain to her (see Tosfos. DH 'K'gon') which is not applicable by a Reshus ha'Rabim).

(a) Rav Mesharshaya B'rei de'Rav Ami explains that the Mishnah speaks when her husband was a basket-seller - in which case, he will not mind her leaving her basket in the room where he keeps his baskets.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains that it is the *location* of her lap and of her basket that acquires on her behalf - which Rava explains to mean that similar to the previous case, a man is not fussy about his wife using the location where the clothes that she is wearing hang from her, or the location where she places her basket.

(a) So we try to resolve Rav Nachman' She'eilah from the Beraisa 'bi'Reshus Mocher, Lo Kanah ad she'Yagbihenah ... '. Assuming that the Tana speaks when the goods are placed in the purchaser's receptacles - we extrapolate from the Beraisa that the purchaser's receptacles do not acquire for him in the seller's domain.

(b) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav and Shmuel, we establish it - when the receptacle belonging to the seller.

(c) Nevertheless, we establish the Seifa 'bi'Reshus Loke'ach, Keyvan she'Kibel Alav Mocher, Kanah Loke'ach' - by a receptacle belonging to the purchaser.

(d) The logic behind establishing the Reisha by receptacles belonging to the seller, and the Selfa a by receptacle belonging to the purchaser is - that seeing as the Reisha is speaking in the seller's domain, and the Seifa, in the purchaser's, that is what one would expect to find there.