Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that if the purchaser pulled his ass-drivers or laborers into his domain laden with the goods that he intends to purchase, he does not acquire the goods, and both parties are entitled to retract - even if had already fixed the price with the seller.

(b) The sale is not valid - because no Kinyan has taken place. Meshichah on a person in order to acquire the goods that he is carrying, is ineffective, neither does one's domain acquire goods until they are placed on the ground.

(c) Nor will the sale be valid if, before fixing the price, he then measured the goods and placed them on the ground or into his receptacles - because, as we have already learned, no Kinyan is effective before the price has been fixed.

(a) If either the purchaser or the seller unloaded the vessels that contained the goods and placed them in his domain - the sale will be valid from the moment the price is fixed ...

(b) ... irrespective of whether they fixed the price before the goods were unloaded or afterwards.

(c) We see from here - that the purchaser's domain acquires the goods even though they are still in the seller's sacks, how much more so will the seller's domain prevent the purchaser's receptacles from acquiring (a Kashya on Rav and Shmuel, who hold that the receptacle is not Batel to the domain).

(d) Some commentaries explain that the purchaser acquires the goods (not because the purchaser's domain acquires the goods [Kinyan Chatzer] once the price has been fixed as we explained, but) because the purchaser pulled the goods into his domain, after he fixed the price with the seller. This interpretation of 'Pirkan ve'Hichnisan le'Toch Beiso' is incorrect however - because we are concerned with Kinyan Chatzer, and not with Kinyan Meshichah (in which case the initial proof would fall away).

(a) When, to answer the Kashya, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interpreted 'Pirkan' to mean that the seller unloaded his sacks before emptying them on to the purchaser's domain, Rava objected, on the grounds - that there is nothing in the word 'Pirkan' that implies this.

(b) When Mar bar Rav Ashi answers the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by bundles of garlic, he means - that they were not placed in sacks to begin with.

(c) Ravina explained to Huna B'rei de'Mar Zutra the need to fix the price, despite the fact that the seller had already unloaded them and placed them on the ground for the purchaser to acquire - because otherwise, the purchaser will not rely on the sale, as we discussed in our Mishnah.

(d) Ravina asked Rav Ashi about an apparent discrepancy between Rav and Shmuel's statement, and another statement of theirs 'Keilav shel Adam Koneh Lo be'Chol Makom' (which can only come to include even the domain of the seller). He replied - that this latter statement refers to a case where the owner specifically told him to go and acquire the goods (which is akin to lending him the location). His first statement on the other hand, speaks S'tam, when the owner said nothing.

(a) According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, one acquires ...

1. ... Karka with - Kesef, Sh'tar or Chazakah.
2. ... Metaltelin with - Meshichah.

(b) Rav Chisda (according to the text in Sura, and Rav Kahana or Rava, as recorded in Pumbedisa) qualifies the latter ruling - by restricting it to articles that are too heavy to pick up, because those that are, can only be acquired with Hagbahah, and not with Meshichah.

(a) If Reuven picks up Shimon's purse on Shabbos and walks out into the street with it, he is liable to pay. But if he dragged the purse into the street - he is not, says the Tana of the Beraisa, because, whereas in the first case, he became a Ganav before he broke Shabbos, in the latter case, the two occurred simultaneously (and he is Patur because of the principle 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' [the stricter punishment absolves him from receiving the more lenient one]).

(b) He acquires with Meshichah even though he is in the Reshus ha'Rabim - because the Tana speaks when he placed his hand below three Tefachim from the ground (though it is unclear what this has to do with our Sugya [see Tosfos DH 've'Ha']), or that Reshus ha'Rabim here refers to the side of the street, and according to Rebbi Eliezer (see Sugya in Kesuvos 31a).

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Abaye on Rav Chisda from this Beraisa - which implies that one acquires a purse with Meshichah (even though it is subject to Hagbahah [a Kashya on Rav Chisda]).

(a) When Abaye replied that the Tana speaks when he is pulling the purse by a string, Rav Ada bar Ahavah objected on the grounds - that this was precisely what he was asking, since he too was speaking in such a case.

(b) So Abaye finally established the Beraisa - by a purse that was too large (and heavy) to be picked up, and could only be pulled by a string.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that when the Beraisa that we discussed earlier states 'bi'Reshus Mocher Lo Kanah ad she'Yagbihenah O ad she'Yotzi'enah me'Reshuso', it is referring (not to an object which can be acquired either with Hagbahah or with Meshichah, but) - either to a small object that is subject to Hagbahah, or to a large one, that is not (respectively).

7)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Peiros la'Chavero, Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kani'. the Tana rules that if someone buys flax, he must move it from one place to another.

(b) Initially, we explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa in connection with - a minimal Meshichah (less than the length of the fruit), which will suffice by fruit (which is very short), but not by flax (which is long).

(c) Even Rav, who validates a minimal Meshichah by a ship, might concede in this case that flax will need to be moved its full length in order to acquire it - because whereas a ship which begins to move, will continue on its course (due to the movement of the water), fruit will remain wherever it is placed.

(a) After establishing the Reisha by large (heavy) bundles, in order to conform with Rav Chisda, we explain - that this is not possible by flax, because large bundles, which tend to slip, are difficult to handle (and therefore require Hagbahah).

(b) According to Rabeinu Chananel - it is pulling them along (the Meshichah) that causes them to slip.

(c) According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, a large animal is acquired through Mesirah, and a small one, in the opinion of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, through Hagbahah. In the opinion of the Chachamim, one acquires a small animal - with Meshichah.

(d) According to Rav Chisda, the Chachamim permit Meshichah, in spite of the fact that it is possible to acquire a small animal with Hagbahah - because, for practical reasons (based on the fact that it tends to stick its claws in the ground and refuse to be picked up), it is customary to move it by means of Meshichah rather than Hagbahah.

(e) Rabeinu Chananel interprets 'Sha'ani Beheimah de'Sarcha' to mean - that an animal is different because it scratches.

(a) Rav and Shmuel both rule that if Reuven sells Shimon 'a Kur of wheat for thirty Sela', Shimon can retract right up to the time that the last grain has been measured - even if the wheat is being measured in Shimon's receptacles and in his field, and he already made a Meshichah on twenty-nine Sa'ah.

(b) Our Mishnah 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kanah' must therefore speak - when the purchaser acquired the whole bundle in one go.

(c) Rav and Shmuel specifically state that Shimon cannot retract in a case where Reuven added to his contract - 'Sa'ah be'Sela', in which case he would acquire each Sa'ah as it was measured.

(a) We learned earlier in the Beraisa 'Im Haysah ha'Midah shel Achad Meihen, Rishon Rishon Kanah'. We know that the Tana is speaking even if the current measure is not full - because that is the distinction the Tana makes between the Reisha (where the vessel is borrowed and where it does not acquire until it is full) and the Seifa (where it belongs to one of them and where it acquires whether it is full or not).

(b) The Kashya on Rav and Shmuel then is - that if in the case in the Beraisa, the purchaser acquires the Sa'ah measure, even though it is not yet full, then in the first of Rav and Shmuel's two cases, where the twenty-ninth Sa'ah is full, he certainly ought to acquire it. So why can the purchaser retract?

(a) We answer the Kashya by quoting Rav Kahana, who said - that were twelve protruding markings on the Hin measure in the Beis Hamikdash ...

(b) ... to signify the respective drink-offerings of the lamb (half a Hin [six Lugin] for a bull, a third for a ram [four Lugin] and a quarter of a Hin for a lamb [three Lugin]).

(c) Even though the Beraisa too, speaks when the Kur measure had thirty protruding markings on it, determining the sale of each Sa'ah in the Seifa (where the measure belongs to the seller or the purchaser), the purchaser does not acquire the number of Sa'in indicated by the markings in the Reisha (when the measure is a borrowed one) - because the owner of the vessel lent it to the seller for the duration of the sale, and to the purchaser for after the sale (so what difference will the markings make?)

(a) The Kashya on Rav and Shmuel cannot be from the Seifa de'Seifa 'bi'Reshus Loke'ach Keivan she'Kibel Alav Mocher, Kanah Loke'ach', as some commentaries suggest - because there the Tana is speaking when he acquires all the produce (and not bit by bit, which is the basis of the Kashya), and because in that case, we should have asked from our Mishnah 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kanah'.

(b) Neither would the answer fit - because the markings only effect the Kinyan there where the purchaser acquires the goods bit by bit, but not where he acquires them all in one go.