Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava rules that if three people handed one person money to buy something on their behalf - then whatever he buys, he buys on behalf of all of them (they are joint owners).

(b) Rava's ruling will not apply however - in a case where each one gave him money wrapped separately.

(a) Rav Papi ruled in the name of Rava that Situmta acquires. 'Situmta' is - the stamp that was used by the storekeeper, who after purchasing a large quantity of barrels of wine, would mark the barrels that he wanted, place them in the seller's storehouse and then transport them one by one to his own store for sale.

(b) Rav Chaviva explains Rava's statement literally. According to the Rabbanan - 'Situmta acquires' means only as regards a 'Mi she'Para', but not completely.

(c) We rule like the Rabbanan. However, we conclude - where local custom dictates otherwise, then we follow local custom and it acquires completely.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who arrives early at the haystack is permitted to pay for wheat that he will only receive later, even before the official price has been fixed, because the seller has grain (albeit not yet ready for consumption). When Rav restricts this concession to where 'two are missing but not three', he means - that it is only permitted if a maximum of two Melachos have yet to be performed (before it is called 'Dagan'), but not three.

(b) Shmuel has a totally different criterion. According to him, it doesn't matter how many manual Melachos are missing, but if one natural Melachah has yet to be performed, it is forbidden (i.e. it is not considered that the seller has wheat).

(c)

1. Rav explains the previous Halachah in our Mishnah - by establishing the case when the wheat still requires threshing and winnowing, but when the wheat has already been spread out in the sun to dry.
2. Shmuel explains - that despite the fact that the wheat still requires winnowing (which in turn, needs a wind) - it is always possible to sift it by using a manual fanning system.

(d) Our Mishnah also permits paying for wine 'by the pot of grapes'. Seeing as ...

1. ... the grapes would normally still require heating, carrying to the press, pressing and running the wine from the press to the pit - Rav amends the Mishnah from 'ha'Avit shel Anavim' to 'Komer shel Anavim' (like Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa on the next case), in which case, the grapes no longer require heating.
2. ... even after that, there are still three Melachos missing - Rav will establish the Mishnah in a place where the onus of running the wine from the press to the pit lies on the purchaser.

(a) The Tana also permits paying for oil 'by the pot of olives'. Here too, the Tana would normally be speaking when the oil is still missing ...

1. ... heating, taking to the press, threshing and running the oil from the press to the pit (four Melachos). Rav therefore amends the Mishnah according to the Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya, which changes 'Ma'atan shel Zeisim' to 'Komer shel Zeisim' (in which case, the olives no longer require heating).
2. ... three Melachos. Here too however, Rav will establish the Mishnah in a place where the onus of running the oil from the press to the pit lies on the purchaser.

(b) And he also permits paying for pots 'by the balls of clay of the potter'. Rav explains that, although the clay would still normally require ...

1. ... shaping into pots, drying, taking to the oven, baking and removing from the oven (five Melachos) - the Tana is speaking when they have already been shaped and dried.
2. ... three Melachos - the Tana is speaking in a place where the onus of removing the pots from the oven lies on the purchaser.

(c) Our Mishnah also permits paying for lime from the time that the materials have been placed in the furnace. Even though burning, removing from the furnace and adding water to melt the lime-bricks (three Melachos) still need to be performed - Rav will establish our Mishnah in a place where the onus of melting the lime-bricks lies on the purchaser.

(d) According to Shmuel, who permits purchasing goods even if a hundred Melachos still need to be performed, when the Tana states 'mi'she'Yeshak'enu be'Kivshan', he means - from when they are ready to be placed in the furnace.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, forbids paying for balls of clay until they have actually been manufactured. Rebbi Yossi agrees with him with regard to pots made of white earth, but not of black earth - and he cites as an example of the latter, the earth that is found in the villages of Chananyah and Shichin.

(b) The reason for Rebbi Yossi's distinction is - because white earth is scarce and the seller does not normally sell them until they are made, whereas black earth is available in abunsdance, in which case, we will apply the principle 'Im Ein la'Zeh, Yesh la'Zeh'.

(a) Ameimar gave money for balls of clay after the potter had gathered the earth - black earth.

(b) Ameimar ...

1. ... cannot hold like Rebbi Meir - who requires the clay balls to be already manufactured.
2. ... does he not seem to hold like Rebbi Yossi either - because *he* permits paying for clay balls of black earth even if the potter has not yet gathered the earth, as we just explained.

(c) We finally reconcile Ameimar with Rebbi Yossi - by pointing out that the black earth in *his* town was more scarce and expensive than that of Rebbi Yossi's. Consequently, the purchasers did not rely on the sellers unless they had earth already piled, and there was not even a 'Mi she'Para' (which is a major factor of 'Im Ein la'Zeh Yesh la'Zeh').

(d) The Tana Kama permits paying money now to receive manure the whole year round. Rebbi Yossi requires the seller to have manure, and the Chachamim argue with him - in the summer, when everyone has manure in their fields (and 'Im Ein la'Zeh, Yesh la'Zeh' applies), but in the winter, they agree with Rebbi Yossi and argue with the Tana Kama.

7)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah concludes 'u'Posek Imo ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah', he means - that throughout the Mishnah, the purchaser only receives the fruit at the new cheaper price if he specifically made such a stipulation; otherwise, he must accept it at the original price. (b) When that man gave money on behalf of his father-in-law for ornaments (clothes ...) for his sister-in-law's dowry - the price of ornaments dropped, and his father-in-law reacted by retracting, unless the seller agreed to give him the ornaments at the new price.

(c) The Rabbanan queried Rav Papa's ruling that, if the Sheli'ach did not specifically stipulate to take from the Sha'ar ha'Gavohah, he was obligated to accept them at the original price - on the grounds that money does not acquire, so why was he not able to retract?

(d) Rav Papa therefore explained, that when he said that ...

1. ... if he stipulated, he takes like the Sha'ar ha'Gavohah - he meant that in that case, should the seller retract, he would receive a 'Mi'she'Para'.
2. ... if he did not stipulate, he must accept like the original Sha'ar - he meant that in that case, should the purchaser retract, then *he* would receive the 'Mi she'Para'.

(a) Rav Papa assumes that the author of our Mishnah (which requires the purchaser to stipulate for the Sha'ar Gavohah) is the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who hold that money is not Koneh. Ravina asked Rav Papa how we know that the author is not specifically Rebbi Shimon, having failed to stipulate, the Sheli'ach would have to accept the goods according to the original price - because the money that he paid acquired the goods.

(b) And the Rabbanan would then hold - that he would in any event be entitled to receive the goods at the cheaper price, because that is what people expect, and it is on that condition that they pay the money (which is the S'vara of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah).

(c) To answer this Kashya, Rav Papa establishes Rebbi Shimon exclusively by one Sha'ar, by which he means - that Rebbi Shimon only holds that money acquires if the purchaser paid the money to receive the goods immediately and, either the price did not change, or it changed before the seller had a chance to deliver them. But by two She'arim (where the purchaser gave the seller the money with the intention of receiving the goods later, after the price had dropped), Rebbi Shimon will agree that the money does not acquire (because the purchaser's mind is on the new price [like the basic S'vara of Rebbi Yehudah]), only he cannot retract because of a 'Mi she'Para'.

(d) This now explains why our Mishnah must go like the Rabbanan too - because the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon is confined to one Sha'ar, but by two She'arim, they are of one accord.

(a) When Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava posed the Kashya to Rav Ashi 've'Teipuk Lei di'Sheli'ach Shavyeih Me'ikara', he means to ask - why the Sheli'ach should receive a Mi she'Para, when it was his father-in-law who retracted?

(b) Nor could Rav Papa have threatened the father-in-law with a Mi she'Para - seeing as it was not his fault that his son-in-law had failed to stipulate 'ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah.

(c) Rav Ashi replied 'be'Tagra de'Zavin u'Mazbin', by which he meant - that, in fact, the son-in-law was not a Sheli'ach at all, but adopted the role of a merchant, who purchased the goods (perhaps even on his own initiative), to sell at a profit to his father-in-law.

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah permits lending one's Aris 'Chitin be'Chitin', he means - 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah', which is permitted in the case of an Aris, as will be explained shortly.

(b) And he qualifies this concession - by confining it to where the owner lends the Aris the Sa'ah of wheat to sow, but not to eat.

(c) Rebbi found it necessary to insert this Mishnah because of Raban Gamliel - who, following a drop in price, used to take back the wheat from his Aris at the cheaper price, thereby sustaining a loss.

(d) He did that - as a Chumra, not out of obligation.

(a) The qualifier that the Tana of the Beraisa adds to 'Chitin be'Chitin by an Aris', that our Mishnah deliberately omits is - that it is only permitted as long as the Aris has not yet gone down to the field to begin work, but once he has, 'Chitin be'Chitin' is forbidden.

(b) The basic difference between the two cases presented by Rava in the name of Rav Idi, that explains this distinction is - that whereas our Mishnah speaks in a place where it is the Aris who normally provided the seeds, in the place of the Beraisa, the onus lies on the owner.

(c) This explains why our Mishnah permits 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah' (which is normally forbidden) - because by not providing the seeds, the Aris effectively accepts the fact that the owner will take more of the proceeds (since they are after all, his seeds), and that he will just receive a wage for his Arisus, that is less than other Arisin.

(d) And even according to the Tana of the Beraisa, as long as the Aris has not gone down to the field, there is no problem of 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah' - because the owner still has the right to retract from the deal (which is really the basic S'vara according to the Tana of our Mishnah, too). Consequently, there as well, it is as if the Aris accepts to receive less than other Arisin.

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa begins with the statement that Reuven can ask Shimon to lend him a Kur of wheat on the express condition that he repays the loan with money - to be paid at the original price of the wheat.

(b) The continuation of the Beraisa however, appears to clash with the Reisha, because it continues - that if the price of wheat dropped, the seller must pay wheat; whereas if it rose, he pays cash.

(c) To resolve the contradiction, Rav Sheishes adds the clause (to the Seifa) - 'Im Lo Katzatz ... '.