Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna also ruled like Rebbi Yehudah in his Machlokes with Rebbi Meir, regarding someone who gives wool to a dyer to dye red, and he receives it dyed black or vice-versa. Rebbi Meir says 'Nosen Lo D'mei Tzimro' - because he brands a craftsman who deviates from his instructions as a Gazlan, who acquires the article with Shinuy (by making a physical change in the article).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah - obligates the owner to pay whichever is the lesser of the dyers expenses and the wool's price increase (because he does not like the idea that the latter should benefit from his sin).

(c) Rav Yosef accepted Rav Huna's first ruling, but turned his face away from him at the second - which, he held, was entirely unnecessary ...

(d) ... since we would have known anyway, since Rebbi arranged Rebbi Yehudah's opinion as a S'tam Mishnah after the Machlokes (and we have a principle 'Machlokes va'Achar-Kach S'tam, Halachah ki'S'tam'.

(a) The above Machlokes appears in Bava Kama. The S'tam - in Bava Metzi'a.

(b) Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Yosef, because he holds 'Ein Seider le'Mishnah' - but that is only when the two Mishnahs occur in two Masechtos. Had they occurred in one Masechta, he too, would have conceded to the principle 'Machlokes ve'Achar-Kach S'tam, Halachah ki'S'tam'.

(c) Rav Yosef counters - that the three Bavas (Kama, Metzi'a and Basra) are considered one Masechta, which in fact, he refers to as 'Nezikin'.

(d) Even assuming however, that 'Ein Seider le'Mishnah' would not apply here (like Rav Huna), Rav Yosef had good reason to turn his face away - seeing as the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is located among a series of practical rulings ('Kol ha'Meshaneh Yado al ha'Tachtonah ve'Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah'), rendering it Halachah.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa forbids Reuven to ask Shimon on Shabbos, whether he will be able to come in after Shabbos, indicating that he wants him to do some work (but without actually saying so). Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - permits it.

(b) Rabah bar Chanah rules - like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah.

(c) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa - forbids someone who receives a ruling from a Rav that something is Tamei or Tahor, to go and ask another Rav for his opinion.

(a) In a case where there are two Rabbanim, one of whom says Tamei, the other, Tahor, assuming that one of the two is greater than the other, says the Tana, we follow his opinion; whereas in a case where the two are equal - we always go le'Chumra.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah rules - le'Chumra in matters that are min ha'Torah, but le'Kula, when they are mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Rav Yosef rules - like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah.

(a) When Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa says 've'Chulan she'Chazru Bahen Ein Mekablin Osan Olamis', he means - that Gazlanim and Amei-ha'Aretz can never be accepted into the realm of 'Chaverim' (regarding being believed on Ma'asros).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Meir only if their Teshuvah was done privately, but not if it was done in public. In the second Lashon, he applies this same distinction, only in the reverse - by confining Rebbi Meir's ruling to where they sinned in public, but not to where the sin was performed privately.

(c) "Based on the Pasuk "Shave Banim Shovavim", Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah maintain - that Teshuvah always helps, irrespective of how they sinned or how they did Teshuvah.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak Ish K'far Acco Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - like the latter pair.

6)

(a) We have already discussed the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, who forbids three days after the Nochri festivals as well as before. Rav Tachlifa bar Avdimi Amar Shmuel says that according to him, Sunday is a festival, and all the days of the week are therefore prohibited.

(b) The problem with the Chachamim, who say in our Mishnah 'Lifnei Eidehen Asur, le'Achar Eidehen, Mutar' is - that they seem to be duplicating the ruling of the Tana Kama (in the previous Mishnah).

(c) We answer this Kashya in four ways. Firstly, we attach the Machlokes to the She'eilah we discussed earlier, as to whether the three days include the festival or exclude it. The Chachamim here hold - that 'three days' is inclusive (seeing as according to the Tana Kama, they are exclusive, as we proved earlier).

(a) Alternatively, they argue over whether Bedieved, if someone did business with a Nochri, in spite of the prohibition, he is permitted to derive benefit from the proceeds (as we discussed earlier). The Chachamim -forbid it.

(b) Thirdly, they might argue over Shmuel, who rules - that in the Golah, Chazal forbade only the day of the festival itself.

(c) Since the Chachamim do not explain over what they are arguing, we assume - that they come to forbid even what the Tana Kama permits (le'Chumra [and this reason applies to the previous explanation as well]).

(d) And fourthly, they might over a ruling of Nachum ha'Madi in a Beraisa, who forbids only one day before the festival. In that case, the Chachamim - who do not mention three days, must hold like Nachum ha'Madi.

(a) When Nachum ha'Madi forbade only one day before the festival, the Rabbanan commented - 'Nishtaka ha'Davar ve'Lo Nomar' (meaning either that this was never said before or that it should not be repeated any further).

(b) We cannot ask from the Chachamim in our Mishnah, who concur with him (as we just learned) - because the Chachamim is none other than Nachum ha'Madi himself.

(c) In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan made the same comment with regard to Nachum ha'Madi permitting the sale - of an old male horse in wartime to a Nochri ...

(d) ... which he permitted because it stands to do more harm than good (see Tosfos DH 'Sus'), in which case such a sale is unusual (and Chazal tend not to decree on unusual situations). Otherwise, they would have decreed on this horse on account of other large animal.

(a) Chazal prohibited the sale of a large animal to a Nochri - because one might come to lend or rent an animal to a Nochri over Shabbos, in which case he will contravene the La'av of "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah Atah ... u'Vehemtecha".

(b) ben Beseira permits the sale of a horse - because a horse is used mainly for riding on, and riding a horse only entails an Isur de'Rabbanan (because of the principle 'Adam Nosei es Atzmo' ['a person carries himself']).

(c) When the Rabbanan commented to Nachum ha'Madi that his opinion should be kept 'in wraps' because nobody agreed with him, they did not take into account ben Beseira, who permits selling a horse - because ben Beseira makes no distinction between a male or a female horse, or between a young horse and an old one. Consequently, Nachum ha'Madi holds like the Rabbanan, in which case he ought not to have permitted selling an old male horse.

(a) In another Beraisa, Nachum ha'Madi requires aniseed to be Ma'asered, whether one picks it in the form of seeds, vegetables or stalks - because it is the way to eat it in any of these forms, he considers them all to be fully ripe and therefore subject to Ma'aser.

(b) The Rabbanan commented there too, that his opinion ought to be hidden, despite the fact that Rebbi Eliezer says the same as him - because Rebbi Eliezer is referring to garden aniseed, but not to aniseed that grows in the field.

(c) When Rav Acha bar Minyumi expressed surprise that whatever Nachum ha'Madi said, the Chachamim retorted 'Nishtaka ha'Davar ve'Lo Nomar', Abaye responded that there is indeed one case where we do follow his opinion - namely, that a person is permitted to ask for his personal needs in the B'rachah of Shome'a Tefilah.

(d) When Rav Acha bar Minyumi replied that this case was different, because it is supported by Ashli Ravrevi - he meant that this was not just Nachum ha'Madi's personal opinion, but concurred with the opinion of the Chachamim, whom we will quote shortly. 'Ashli Ravrevi' means - thick ropes or large trees (an allegory referring to great Chachamim).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer interprets the Pasuk "Tefilah le'Ani Ki Ya'atof, ve'Lifnei Hashem Yishpoch Sicho" to mean - that one should first Daven for one's personal needs and then Daven the Amidah (since "Sicho" implies Tefilah).

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk "Eshpoch Lefanav Sichi Tzarasi Lefanav Agid" - that the Amidah precedes Davening for one's personal needs.

(c) Rebbi ...

1. ... Eliezer interprets the Pasuk "Eshpoch Lefanav Sichi Tzarasi Lefanav Agid" - to mean that David would Daven the Amidah after having already Davened for his personal needs.
2. ... Yehoshua interprets the Pasuk "Tefilah le'Ani Ki Ya'atof, ve'Lifnei Hashem Yishpoch Sicho" - to mean that David would pour out his personal supplications to Hashem after having Davened the Amidah.

(a) We conclude that seeing as neither Pasuk coincides exactly with either opinion, they must be arguing over the D'rashah of Rebbi Simla'i, who Darshens from the Pasuk "Hashem Elokim, Atah Hachilosa Le'har'os es Avdecha ... E'ebrah Na Ve'er'eh es ha'Aretz ha'Tovah" - that we are obligated to praise Hashem before continuing with the regular Tefilah.

(b) This conforms with Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion - because due to the fact that our Tefilah begins with the praise of Hashem, it would not be appropriate for our personal to precede Hashem's praises.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with Rebbi Simla'i - because, he maintains, it is not because Moshe, in his greatness, praised Hashem, before proceeding to Daven, that we should do likewise. In fact, for us to do so would be considered arrogant.

(d) Consequently - there is no reason for our personal needs not to precede the Amidah like he said earlier (though apart from the Pesukim that we quoted there, Rebbi Eliezer's source is unclear).

Next daf