Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa rules in a case where Reuven cheated Shimon ...

1. ... Pachos mi'Sh'tus - that the sale is valid and stands as it is.
2. ... Sh'tus (according to Rebbi Nasan) - that the sale is valid but that Reuven must return the entire Ona'ah.
3. ... Yeser al Sh'tus - that the sale is invalid.

(b) We can extrapolate from here (both from the case of Ona'ah and from that of Bitul Mekach), that once one returns the part which the recipient was not Mochel, one returns the part that he was Mochel as well. Otherwise, they ought to return only the difference between Pachos mi'Sh'tus and Sh'tus or Pachos mi'Sh'tus and Yeser al Sh'tus respectively. This seems to corroborate Rav Huna (according to the Lashon of Mamon).

(c) We differentiate between Rav Huna and the Beraisa however, based on the fact that Shimon initially paid for an article that was worth what he paid for it. Only as long as the discrepancy is less than a sixth, it is barely discernible and he is therefore Mochel. Once it reaches as much as a sixth however, it becomes discernible, and he is no longer Mochel. Whereas when it reaches more than a sixth, he disagees to the entire sale. Whereas in our case, where the Rova Tinofes is anticipated, the Tana might well concede that Shimon always accepts it, irrespective of how much Tinofes there really is.

(a) If Reuven hires Shimon to plant trees in his field, he can expect ten trees per hundred to be infertile and to produce no fruit.

(b) In a case where eleven out of a hundred trees turn out to be infertile - the Beraisa rules that it is not sufficient for Shimon to plant the one tree, but he must plant all eleven trees.

(c) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes the proof for Rav Huna from here - because in Rav Huna's case, the Tana might hold that all Shimon wants, is the Sa'ah of crops that he purchased, with a maximum of a Rova of Tinofes; whereas eleven missing fruit-trees is an entire field, and Reuven is not in fact Mochel, until all eleven trees have been planted.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Martef shel Yayin, Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'. According to the Beraisa, if Reuven stipulated 'Martef ...

1. ... shel Yayin (S'tam) - Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'.
2. ... Zeh shel Yayin - Nosen Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' (validating the sale even if all the barrels turn out to be Kos'sos).
3. ... Zeh' - the purchaser must accept whatever he is receives (even if all the wine has turned sour [vinegar]).

(b) According to our current understanding of the Beraisa, the case of Yayin S'tam is different than crops and figs, where the purchaser must expect ten 'bad' ones per hundred - because barrels of wine are a. more Chashuv that crops and fruit, and b. it is less frequent to find bad ones among them.

(c) We reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa - by adding to the Reisha (of Yayin S'tam) 'u'Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'.

(a) Another Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya learns 'ha'Mocher Chavis Yayin la'Chavero, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh' (and not Yayin Koses). In light of the previous Beraisa, the Chidush of this Beraisa is - the fact that although he only purchased one barrel (in which case we might have thought that he purchased the wine to drink immediately, and the wine need not therefore be such good quality) the wine must nevertheless be good quality.

(b) We reconcile this with what we just learned (that by Yayin S'tam, the purchaser must accept one in ten Yayin Kos'sos) - by differentiating between somone who buys ten barrels (who has nine barrels of good wine), and someone who purchases only one (who expects the wine to be good).

(a) We still have a problem based on a Beraisa of de'Bei Oshaya cited by Rav Z'vid. The Tana there reiterates the Din cited in the previous Beraisa with regard to Yayin S'tam, only he repeats the same Halachah with regard to 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' too (whereas in the previous Beraisa, the Tana held 'Mocher Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus'). And it is with regard to the latter case that he adds 'u'Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah' (and not by Yayin S'tam, as we suggested).

(b) When he concludes 've'Zehu Otzar she'Shenu be'Mishnaseinu', he means - that this is the case referred to by our Mishnah.

(c) So we finally establish our Mishnah in a case when the seller said 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher Lach'.

6)

(a) To reconcile it with the Beraisa that we learned earlier 'Nosen Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' (which are all Kos'sos), we establish Rav Z'vid's Beraisa which rules 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh, u'Mekabel Alav ... Kos'sos' - when the seller stated that he was selling him the wine 'le'Mikpah' (as a condiment, to make the food more tasty and to add to cooked dishes).

(b) In the first Beraisa, despite the fact that Shimon must accept as many Kos'sos as he receives, when Reuven stipulated 'shel Yayin' - he meant to preclude vinegar (wine that has turned sour).

(a) If Reuven stipulated 'Martef le'Mikpah', he must give Shimon good wine, even if it is customary to use vinegar for the purpose of 'Mikpah' - because had he meant to give him vinegar, he should not have referred to Mikpah at all, since 'once wine becomes vinegar, it merely deteriorate (so he should have called it 'Martef shel Chometz').

(b) Rav Z'vid's Beraisa does not insert the case of 'Martef Zeh Ani Mocher Lach' - because, having mentioned 'le'Mikpah', 'Martef Zeh' is no different than 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' (based on what we just explained).

(c) The Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina regarding 'Martef shel Yayin' without mentioning 'shel Mikpah' is - whether Reuven must still give Shimon all good wine or whether he must accept Kos'sos.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Martef shel Yayin' without 'le'Mikpah' is equivalent to Martef S'tam with 'le'Mikpah' (since each case has one advantage and one disadvantage).

(a) Both Rav Acha and Ravina extrapolate their respective views from one of the two main Beraisos currently under discussion, both of which state 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher Lach, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'. The one extrapolates ...

1. ... from Rav Z'vid's Beraisa, which we established when Reuven stipulated that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah', that had he not done so, Shimon would have to accept one in ten 'Kesasos', and presumably, this extends to the Reisha ('Martef shel Yayin'), too.
2. ... from the earlier Beraisa, which we established when Reuven did not stipulate that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah' (yet he must give him Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh) - that presumably, this will extend to the Reisha (Martef shel Yayin), too.

(b) The first opinion (which insists on 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) will interpret the Reisha of the first Beraisa - when he stipulated 'le'Mikpah'.

(c) The Tana switches (from case to case) in one Beraisa - in order to be able to discuss the entire gamut of possibilities (i.e. that sometimes the seller must supply all good wine, sometimes wine that is sold in the store and sometimes even vinegar).

(d) And the second opinion (which does not require 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) interprets the Reisha of Rav Z'vid's Beraisa - even when the seller did not stipulate 'le'Mikpah' (since we only needed to establish the Seifa by 'le'Mikpah' in order to resolve the discrepancy between the two Beraisos of 'Martef Zeh').

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' for wine that is sold in the store - that tastes like wine but smells like vinegar).

(b) According to Rav Chisda - one recites 'Shehakol'.

(a) The Beraisa rules - that one recites 'Shehakol' over bread that has gone moldy, wine that has turned into vinegar and a dish that has changed its appearance (turned sour).

(b) Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa by establishing the latter by 'Purtz'ma de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa' - which means poor-quality wine which is sold in the extremities of the city (by the crossroads), where there are a lot of customers looking for cheap wine. In short, it is inferior even to 'Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus'.

(c) Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'be'Pirtzufa de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa'. 'Pirtzufa' means - wine that has changed its appearance.