Previous daf

1)

(a) In the case cited in the Beraisa, when Reuven met Shimon transporting goods from a cheap place to a place where they were more expensive, he asked him - to hand him the goods, which he would take to the more expensive place and sell there, and use the money, and he promised to pay him back later in the more expensive place.

(b) This is permitted only on condition that the seller takes responsibility for anything that happens to the goods for the duration of the journey - because then, until the fruit is sold, it belongs to the seller, so that, even if the purchaser were to sell them at a profit, it is really the seller's goods that made a profit, and it is only at that point that the money becomes a loan (see also Tosfos DH bi'Reshus').

(c) When, in the Seifa, Reuven met Shimon transporting fruit from a cheap place to a more expensive one - he asked him to give him the fruit to eat there, and he would repay him with fruit in the more expesive place.

(d) This is permitted - provided he has fruit in the second place, because then we place the fruit in his possession already from that moment (not because he had acquired it, but) - because from then on he was subject to a 'Mi she'Para', should he retract.

(a) When the Tana concludes 've'ha'Chamarim Ma'alim be'Makom ha'Yoker ke'be'Makom ha'Zol' he means - that the donkey-drivers who purchase wheat in a cheap place and sell it in a more expensive one, are permitted to take money from the Balabatim in the more expensive place, in order to give them grain at the cheap rate.

(b) According to Rav Papa, this does not constitute Ribis, because the merchants benefit from the rich Balabatim's money, inasmuch as it helps to establish them as merchants (enabling them to purchase goods on credit). Acording to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika, it is permitted - because when the sellers in the cheap place get to know that the donkey-drivers are not making any profit, they will give them a cheaper deal.

(c) The ramifications of this Machlokes will manifest themselves in the case of new merchants, who are as yet unknown, and whom the Balabatim do not as yet believe. Consequently, Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika's reason will not apply.

(a) In a case where wheat went in Sura for four measures per Zuz, and in Kafri, at six, Rav gave the donkey-drivers money, and then, in addition to taking upon himself the Achrayus of the journey, he only took five measures per Zuz. The problem with this is - that we just permitted a Balabos to give a donkey-driver money in the expensive place and to receive the goods at the cheap price, even without accepting full responsibility, so there are two good reasons why Rav was entitled to take six measures (so why did he only take five).

(b) The reason that Rav did not take six measures of wheat per Zuz was - because an important person must sometimes be stringent, even where the Halachah takes a lenient view (so that people should not learn from him to adopt leniencies even where there are none).

(c) We think that the concession of the previous Halachah might not apply to merchants who wish to sell lumps of gold or other metal vessels - because these are not commonly sold (in the way that wheat is). Consequently, neither of the above reasons will apply (since it is only merchants who travel regularly who need to become known as merchants (in order to obtain credit), and it is only when they sell the same goods to the same customers, that they obtain a better deal from the customer who already knows them.

(d) Rebbi and Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi were close friends. When one of them attempted to apply the concession to linen garments - the other one stopped him from going through with it.

(a) Rav adopts a stringent view with regard to 'Pardeisa' - which entails paying for the entire stock of the coming year's wine from the vineyard, at a cheap rate at the beginning of the season, when the grapes begin to ripen, and only rerceiving the wine as it made.

(b) Shmuel disagrees with Rav however - on the grounds that the purchaser reoves any aspect of Ribis, by accepting the losses of that year, such as hail, rain or ice.

(c) When Rav Shimi bar Ashi says that Rav will agree with Shmuel when there are oxen, he means - that there where it is customary to pick the grapes using oxen and carts, it is permitted?

(d) The reason for this concession is - because, as we learned above in the second Perek, these workers tended to be extremely careless, causing large-scale damage to the vines and the crops with the exen and the carts.

(a) 'Hanahu de'Shivshei Shivsha' were - landowners who would lend their Arisin (sharecroppers) a Sa'ah of grain at the beginning of the season (after they had already taken over the land - see Shitah Mekubetzes quoting the Ritvo), which the Aris would repay at the end of the season.

(b) Shmuel instructed them to dig the land - thereby acquiring a partnership in the land, and avoiding the Isur of Ribis. Otherwise, we have already learned that Sa'ah be'Sa'ah is forbidden if the borrower does not have any of the purchased goods in stock.

(c) The problem of Ribis regarding the men who were hired to guard the valleys lay in the fact - that the owners would give them gifts at the end of the season, after their work contract had expired and their wages (which they agreed to accept only after the winnowing at the very end of the season) had become a loan. Consequently, And the gifts they received constituted Ribis (Me'ucheres).

(d) To get round the problem, Rava instructed them to help the harvesters a little with the threshing which preceded the winnowing. That helped by extending their contract until the end of the season, in which case, based on the principle 'Ein Sechirus Mishtalemes Ela be'Sof', the gift constituted extra wages (rather than Ribis on a loan).

(a) The Rabbanan accused Rava of taking Ribis - because all the landowners took four Kurim at the end of the year from the Aris whom they would dismiss in Nisan; whereas *he* let him work until Iyar and took six (apparently as 'Agar Natar Lei' for allowing him to remain an extra month).

(b) Rava vindicated himself however - by informing the Rabbanan that it was they who were in the wrong for dismissing the Aris prematurely in Nisan, thereby causing him a loss (since the produce was not yet fully ripe), whereas for allowing the Aris to remain his full term, *he* was entitled to take two extra Kur.

(c) 'Ar'a la'Arisa Mishtabed' means - that the land is Meshubad to the Aris, until the season terminates in Iyar.

7)

(a) Rav Mari bar Rachel was - the son of Shmuel's daughter who was captured and who Isur Giyora married before converting. Rav Mari was conceived before the conversion but born afterwards, and it is out of deference to him, that he is called after his mother Rachel.

(b) His Nochri debtor - sold the house that he had given him as a Mashkon, to Rava.

(c) Rav Mari only brought Rava the rental for the second year and not the first - because of the principle 'S'tam Mashkon Shata' (which means that the Nochri could not have redeemed the Mashkon during the first year anyway, as we learned above, and consequently, he had no right to sell it).

(d) After informing Rav Mari that, had he known that the Nochri had given him the land as a Mashkon, he would not have bought it in the first place, he added - that he would follow the Nochri law, and not accept any rental at all from him without redeeming it (i.e. without forcing the Nochri to settle the debt).

(a) Rava from Barnish accused the Rabbanan of taking Ribis - by paying for wine in Tishri, although they only received it in Teives, when the wine had turned out well.

(b) This differs from what we learned earlier, that if the seller has wheat, then it is permitted - because here, although the sellers had wine, which they could have given them there and then, nevertheless, that wine might have turned sour. Consequently, the fact that the Rabbanan received good wine because they paid early, constituted Ribis.

(c) Rav Ashi vindicated them however - on the grounds that wine that turns sour does not *become* sour; it was sour from the beginning, in which case the Rabbanan did nothing wrong (because even if they had received the wine with their payment, had it turned sour, it would have been a false sale, from which they would have been permitted to retract.

(a) Ravina gave money to sellers from Akra on the River Shinvasa for wine to be supplied later in the harvest season. When he asked Rav Ashi whether he was permitted to take the little extra that they poured him, he replied - that he was, because they were Mochel him (though this is only permitted by Mekach u'Memkar, and not by loans - see Maharam Shif).

(b) He also queried the validity of the entire sale, seeing as the land which contained the vineyards did not belong to them. In fact - the land belonged to wealthy men who had paid the land-tax in place of the owners, who, unable to pay, had fled the country.

(c) Rav Ashi replied - that based on the principle 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna', the sale was perfectly legal, because by law, the land was Meshubad to whoever paid the land-tax.

(a) The complaint that Rav Papa brought before Rava about the Rabbanan was - that after paying the head-tax of people who for some reason, had not paid it themselves, they forced them to do hard work.

(b) Rava replied - by sanctioning their actions, because this too, was law, that whoever paid the head-tax of someone who failed to pay it himself, was permitted to put him to hard labor.

(c) Rav Se'oram, Rava's brother - used to take the not nice people that he found and harness them to Rava's vehicle, which they would have to then draw.

(d) Rava vindicated his actions. He Darshened from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu u've'Acheichem ... " - that it is permitted to enslave even Jews who behave badly.
2. ... "u've'Acheichem Beis Yisrael Ish be'Achiv Lo Sirdeh Bo be'Farech" - that doing so with Jews who behave as they should is prohibited.

(a) Rav Acha stated that if Reuven, who accepted money from Shimon with which he undertook to purchase wine on his behalf, fails to keep his word - he is obligated to compensate him according to the price that wine is sold in the harvest season in Parvasa de'Zulshefat (a town where wine was sold in large quantities).

(b) Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a confined Rav Acha's ruling to where he undertook to buy Yayin S'tam, which is easily obtainable, but not when he said 'Yayin Zeh', which is completely outside his jurisdiction to obtain.

(c) Rav Ashi disagrees with Rav Chama's ruling even with regard to Yayin S'tam - because, even if had specifically agreed to compensate the owner should he fail to carry out his undertaking, it would be no more than an Asmachta (and would not be binding without a Kinyan).

(d) The reason that the Mishnah later in Perek ha'Mekabel rules that a Mekabel who declares that if he fails to work the field that he received, he will compensate the owner with the best of his lands, is bound by his words (since his promise did not constitute an exaggeration) is binding - because there, his undertaking is entirely in his own hands, whereas in our case, where the purchase of even S'tam wine, depends upon the goodwill of others, the Din of Asmachta applies.