Previous daf

1)

(a) When the Tana ...

1. ... forbids mixing fruit with fruit (i.e. grain with grain) - he is referring to Reuven, who promised to sell Shimon crops that grew in a specific field, forbidding him to add fruit from a different field, since it might be inferior.
2. ... takes for granted that 'Chadashim bi'Yeshanim' is forbidden, he means - that the seller promised to sell old crops (which are superior, inasmuch as they are drier [and therefore produce more flour] than new ones).

(b) The seller may however, mix 'hard' wine with the 'soft' wine that he promised the purchaser - because it improves it.

(c) The Tana permits the sale of wine which became mixed with water, in a store - provided he informs each purchaser who buys from him.

(d) But he is not permitted, under the same circumstances, to sell the entire barrel to a merchant - because the intention of the latter is clearly to cheat his customers.

(a) It is permitted to sell wine mixed with water even without informing the purchaser - if it conforms with local custom.

(b) A merchant is permitted to buy corn from five producers and to place them all in the same pile in order to sell them - because everyone knows that it is the way of merchants to do this, making it the accepted practice.

(c) And the same applies to wine that he purchased from five wine-producers.

(d) It is however, forbidden to do that - if he previously informed the public that most of his wine was top quality, conveying the impression that he was not going to mix it.

(a) New grain might cost more than old - because some people want to let the grain mature in their own granaries.

(b) This does not then mean that the seller will be allowed to add new crops to the old ones that he promised to sell the purchaser - because seeing as the purchaser wants old grain, it is evident that he does have that in mind.

(c) With regard to the Din of mixing hard wine with soft, our Mishnah stated 'be'Emes Amru', which Rebbi Elazar interprets to mean - that it is Halachah.

(d) The seller is not permitted to mix ...

1. ... soft (mild) wine with hard (strong) wine, or ...
2. ... old grain with new grain (see Hagahos ha'Gra).

(a) Rav Nachman confines the Mishnah's concession of mixing hard wine with soft to when the barrels are still near the wine-press - because it is when the wine is still effervescing that the hard wine effects the soft wine, but not afterwards.

(b) Nowadays however, it is permissible to do so even at a later stage - because, Rav Papa explains, it has become common practice, and the buyer is therefore Mochel.

(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika disagrees. He establishes the Mishnah's ruling like Rebbi Acha - who permits mixing wherever the result can be tasted prior to purchasing.

(a) Our Mishnah first forbids the seller to add dregs to the wine, then adds that he may give him its dregs. We cannot resolve the seeming contradiction by establishing the second statement when he informed the purchaser of what he had done - because the Seifa ('Lo Yimkerenu ba'Chanus Ela-im-Kein ... ') speaks in such a case, implying that the Reisha doesn't.

(b) Rav Yehudah therefore establishes the first statement by the dregs of yesterday, and the second, by the dregs of today - by which he really means to distinguish between the dregs from a different barrel of wine (which spoil the wine to which they are added, even if both wines are from the same day) and the dregs from the same wine, which don't (even if they are from different days).

(c) And the reason that he said what he said is - because usually when we speak of wine from two different days, we mean from two different barrels.

(d) We corroborate Rav Yehudah's answer from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says the same thing. When he speaks about 'ha'Shofeh Yayin', he means - someone who gently pours wine from one barrel to another, to avoid the dregs from pouring out together with the wine.

(a) When on one occasion, after diluting his wine, Rava found it to be somewhat bland - he sold it to a merchant.

(b) Abaye queried him - from our Mishnah, which forbids selling diluted wine to a merchant even after having informed him of what he had done.

(c) Rava dismissed Abaye's concern that the merchant might then add a little wine to dispel Rava's trademark - on the grounds that, in that case, 'Ein le'Davar Sof' (one should not even be permitted to sell him water, in case he adds it to wine before selling it as undiluted wine). Clearly, our concern is limited to the merchant selling the goods as they are under false conditions, but not to what that he might do to them after purchase.

(d) The Beraisa comments on the Mishnah's concession of adding water to wine if that is local custom, 'le'Mechtzah, li'Shelish ve'li'Revi'a', and Rav adds - that this is only permitted as long as the barrel is still in the vicinity of the wine-press.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah prohibits a storekeeper from ...

1. ... distributing pop-corn and nuts to his young customers - because by doing so, he lures potential customers away from other storekeepers.
2. ... selling his goods at a reduced price - for precisely the same reason.

(b) The Chachamim nevertheless permit ...

1. ... the distribution of pop-corn and nuts to one's young customers - because he can say to his competitors 'I distribute popcorn and nuts; you distribute plums!'
2. ... the reduction of the price of one's goods, even going so far as to say 'Zachur la'Tov' - because that will force others to lower their prices.

(c) Aba Shaul prohibits removing the chaff before selling the corn - because this gives the goods an expensive look, causing the seller to hike his price (way above the difference between corn with the chaff and corn without it.

(d) The Chachamim nevertheless permit it - because people are willing to pay the extra price to spare themselves the bother of having to clean the corn.

(e) The Chachamim concede to Aba Shaul however - that one may not clean only the top layer of corn, causing potential purchasers to think that the entire batch has been cleaned, when really, it has not.

8)

(a) The Chachamim who permit the seller to remove the chaff from the corn before selling it is - Rebbi Acha, who permits any improvement that is visible to the eye. Here too, everyone can see the difference between corn with chaff and corn without it (and if a purchaser still decides to pay the high price of clean corn, it because he considers it worth his while to be relieved of the bother of cleaning it.

(b) Our Mishnah forbids the seller to beautify a person, an animal or vessels that he is selling. When the Tana speaks about selling a person, he is referring to - an Eved.

(c) The Beraisa forbids the 'Shirvut' of an animal. 'Shirvut' might mean feeding it with oat-water - which causes the hair to rise (like a Sharvit [a stick)].

(d) Ze'iri Amar Rav Kahana explains 'Shirvut' as - brushing the animal with a hard brush, which has the same effect.

(e) The other two things that the Tana forbids regarding the meat of an animal - are blowing up the stomach (giving it the appearance of being larger than it really is) and soaking the flesh in water (giving it color and making it look in better shape than it is really is).

(a) Various Amora'im permitted the seller to enhance the looks of their wares prior to selling.

1. Shmuel permitted a seller to attach silk fringes to a cloak.
2. Rav Yehudah permitted him to rub colored clothes with oat-water (to bring out the colors).
3. Rabah permitted him to beat a hemp garment with a hammer (to demonstrate its fineness)?
4. ... Rava permitted him to paint his arrows, as did Rav Papa bar Shmuel, his baskets.

(b) We reconcile all of these with our Mishnah, which forbids beautifying vessels prior to selling them - by establishing our Mishnah by old vessels (because enhancing their looks to make them look new is cheating), whereas the above cases are speaking about new ones (where he is merely demonstrating their real value).

(a) Rava declined to purchase that 'black-haired and black-bearded' Cana'ani who asked him to buy him - because, based on the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos 've'Yiheyu Aniyim B'nei Beischa', he preferred to employ poor Jews, so as to sustain them.

(b) And he must have been a Cana'ani, because after the Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, when the Din of Yovel no longer applies, that of Eved Ivri does not apply either.

(c) Rav Papa bar Shmuel did purchase him. When his new master asked him to get him a drink of water - he washed off the dye from his hair, revealing the fact that in reality, he was an old man.

(d) When Rav Papa bar Shmuel quoted the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Tzadik mi'Tzarah Nechlatz", he was referring to Rava.
2. ... ve'Yavo Acher Tachtav" he was referring to himself.

11)

(a) The Tana describes Neshech, which means bite (because it is as if the creditor bites a chunk out of the debtor's property).

(b) The Tana then describes Tarbis. If Reuven owes Shimon wheat that he sold him for a Dinar Zahav, and the price rises to thirty Dinrim, he is now permitted to give Shimon wheat to the value of thirty Dinrim (even if he did not have wheat at the time of the sale) - provided the price is fixed at a golden Dinar (twenty-five Dinrim) at the time of the sale.

(c) This is permitted - because since the price is fixed, the wheat is easily obtainable, if not from Reuven, then from somebody else.

(d) What turns this case into 'Tarbis' is - if, when Shimon asks for his wheat, Reuven, who has no wheat, transfers the loan of wheat into wine for the same price as the wheat is currently worth (even if the price of wine is already fixed) We will see later why.

(a) We refer to Neshech in our Mishnah as Ribis d'Oraysa, and Tarbis, as Ribis de'Rabbanan. The basis of this difference - lies in the fact that the case in the Seifa takes the form of a sale, and not a loan (whereas Ribis d'Oraysa is confined specifically to loans).

(b) We extrapolate from the previous statement that the Tana clearly considers Neshech and Tarbis to be one and the same thing. The problem with that is - that the Torah presents them as two cases 'Neshech Kesef' and 'Ribis Ochel'?

(c) We think that if Reuven lends Shimon ...

1. ... a hundred measures for a hundred and twenty, only initially a hundred measures is worth a Danka (a sixth of a Zuz [also known as a Ma'ah]), and by the time Shimon pays him, a Danka can buy a hundred and twenty measures, this is Neshech but not Tarbis - because on the one hand, Shimon pays more measures than he borrowed, but on the other, at the end of the day, Reuven receives the same Danka's-worth that he lent Shimon.
2. ... a hundred measures for a hundred measures, only initially, a hundred measures cost a Danka, and by the time Shimon pays him, it costs a fifth of a Zuz, this is Tarbis but not Neshech - because on the one hand, Reuven receives one thirtieth of a Zuz more than he lent Shimon, but on the other, Shimon borrowed a hundred measures and that is hat he receives in return.

(d) We refute ...

1. ... the first proposal on the grounds that - if we go after the time of the loan, it is both Neshech and Tarbis; whereas if we go after the time of payment, it is neither the one nor the other.
2. ... the second proposal on the grounds that - if we go after the time of the loan, it is neither the one nor the other, whereas if we go after the time of payment, it is both.

(a) In spite of our conclusion (that there is no such thing as Neshech without Tarbis or Tarbis without Neshech), the Torah presents them both as if they were two La'avin - because they are two La'avin (not two different La'avin, but) one and the same La'av (and whoever contravenes the one, contravenes the other).

(b) The Torah writes "Lo Sachich le'Achicha Neshech Kesef, Neshech Ochel". We know that one also transgresses the La'av of Neshech by food - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sashich le'Achicha Neshech Ochel".

(c) If the La'av in Behar refers to the creditor, the La'av in Ki Seitzei refers to - the debtor (because that is the implication of "Lo Sashich").

(d) The Pasuk in "Lo Sashich le'Achicha *Neshech* Kesef *Neshech* Ochel" includes Ribis (see Tosfos) - because "Lo Sashich le'Achicha Kesef, Ochel" already teaches us that Neshech applies to both money and food. So the two "Neshech", which are now not needed for themselves ('Im Eino Inyan'), come to teach us Ribis in both cases.