Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules - that if a Nochri hires someone to work ...

1. ... with Yayin Nesech - he *may not accept his wages*.
2. ... S'tam, and his employer asks him to transport a barrel of Yayin Nesech from one place to another - he *may*.

(b) The Tana also rules that if a Nochri hires a donkey ...

1. ... to transport Yayin Nesech - one *may not take rental for the donkey*.
2. ... to ride on it, if the hirer also places his flask of Yayin Nesech on the donkey's back - one *may*.

(c) We initially think that the employee is forbidden to take his wages - because they are Yayin Nesech money, and Yayin Nesech is itself Asur be'Hana'ah (so the wages are too).

(d) The Mishnah in Kidushin however, rules that if someone sells Orlah or K'lai ha'Kerem and betroths a woman with the proceeds - the Kidushin is valid (even though the fruit itself is Asur be'Hana'ah [disproving our previous theory]).

(a) So we try to ascribe it to the fact that Yayin Nesech is like Avodas-Kochavim, which is more stringent that Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem - inasmuch as the Kedushah of Shevi'is is transferred on to the article with which one swaps it, and if its value is forbidden, so too, we assume, are its wages.

(b) We refute this explanation too however, from a Mishnah in Shevi'is, whose Kedushah is also transferred on to whatever one swaps it with; yet the Tana rules that in a case where Reuven gives Shimon a Dinar and says to him 'L'kot Li ...

1. ... Bo Yerek ha'Yom - S'charo Asur' (because this Lashon implies that he is asking him to pick the vegetables and sell them to him, which is forbidden in the Sh'mitah).
2. ... Yerek ha'Yom - S'charo Mutar' (because this Lashon implies that he is hiring him to pick the vegetables and give them to him (which is permitted).

(c) This proves - that although the Kedushah of Shevi'is is transferred on to whatever one swaps it with, the wages of Shevi'is are not forbidden, and so it ought to be with the wages of Yayin Nesech.

(d) The reason that Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan ultimately gives for the prohibition - is that the Chachamim decreed a K'nas on Yayin Nesech.

(a) When the Chachamim decreed a K'nas on Yayin Nesech, they also decreed a K'nas - on Chamarin (donkey-drivers who do business with the fruit of Shevi'is).

(b) We suggest that, when the Beraisa says 'ha'Chamarin she'Hayu Osin Melachah be'Peiros Shevi'is, S'charan Shevi'is', the Tana means that their wages are paid from the fruit of Shevi'is - a K'nas, because they would then have to treat the fruit with Kedushas Shevi'is, including having to do Biy'ur at the end of the season.

(c) We initially reject this explanation however, because the prohibition "le'Ochlah", 've'Lo li'Sechorah', includes paying a worker's wages with it.

(d) So we suggest that their wages adopt Kedushas Shevi'is. But we reject this theory too, based on the Mishnah in Shevi'is that we cited a little earlier ('ha'Omer le'Po'el') - which concludes 'L'kot Li Yerek ha'Yom, S'charo Mutar', from which we see that fruit does not adopt Kedushas Shevi'is when it does not involve an actual sale.

(a) Abaye re-establishes our initial explanation, based on a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini. The Tana there prohibits Reuven from saying to Shimon 'Carry this Ma'aser-Sheini fruit for me to Yerushalayim for a portion in it'. He is however, permitted to say - 'Carry this Ma'aser-Sheini fruit for me to Yerushalayim to eat and drink ...

(b) ... because - whereas in the former case, Reuven is paying Shimon wages with Ma'aser-Sheini (see Tosfos DH 'He'elah'), in the latter case, he is merely inviting him to join him in eating it (and one is permitted to give away Ma'aser as a gift).

(c) One can therefore apply the same theory by the Chamarim, and pay them with the fruit of Shevi'is - using a Lashon that implies a gift rather than payment.

(a) Rava establishes our Mishnah like the second suggestion. The basic difference between this case and the case in the earlier Mishnah 'ha'Omer le'Po'el L'kot Li Yerek ha'Yom' is - that they issued a K'nas on the donkey-drivers, who earn big money, but not on the workers, whose wages are small.

(b) The reason they decreed in the case of workers who deal with Yayin Nesech (in spite of their meager earnings) is - because of the Chumra of Yayin Nesech.

6)

(a) The K'nas currently under discussion applies to Yayin Nesech. We now ask whether it also extends to S'tam Yeinam, whose Isur on the one hand, is equivalent to that of Yayin Nesech, but whose Tum'ah, on the other, is not. In fact ...

1. ... the Isur of S'tam Yeinam is equivalent to that of Yayin Nesech - inasmuch as both are Asur be'Hana'ah.
2. ... the Tum'ah of S'tam Yeinam is more lenient than that of Yayin Nesech however - inasmuch as whereas the 'k'Zayis' of the latter is Metamei, the former requires as much as a Revi'is in order to render whatever it touches, Tamei.

(b) We resolve our She'eilah from an episode that occurred with Rav Chisda, who ruled that, in the case where they paid a ship-owner with wheat, to transport a cargo of S'tam Yeinam - the wheat needed to be burned and buried.

(c) He did not instruct him to ...

1. ... scatter the wheat into the wind - because that would have created a Takalah, as whoever would find the scattered kernels, (not knowing their past history) would make good use of them.
2. ... burn it and scatter it - because there too, people would benefit from it in the form of manure.
3. ... just bury it as it is - because here again, people would think that someone had stolen it and hidden it, and there would be nothing to make people aware that this wheat was Asur be'Hana'ah.

(a) The Mishnah in Sanhedrin requires the stone with which Beis-Din stoned someone who was Chayav Sekilah, and the wooden beam on which they hanged certain cases of Sekilah afterwards - to be buried.

(b) The other two items that the Tana includes in this list are - the sword with which they killed someone who was Chayav Hereg, and the cloth with which they strangled someone who was Chayav Chenek.

(c) That case is better than ours (where merely burying is insufficient, as we just explained) - because since it was Beis-Din who buried the above-mentioned items in the special grave-yard designated for those who were killed at the hand of Beis-Din, everybody will know that whatever is buried there, is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(a) When they informed Rebbi Yochanan that the family of Rebbi Yanai would borrow Sh'mitah-fruit, and repay their debt in the following year - he commented that this was perfectly acceptable.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan's informants thought that it was Asur - because it seemed that the poor were eating Chalipei Peiros Shevi'is (the exchange of Sh'mitah fruit [which is forbidden]).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless permitted it - because in view of the fact that at the time that they ate he eighth-year crops, the Sh'mitah produce was no longer there, it does fall under the category of 'Chalipei Peiros Shevi'is'.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan added - that in the same circumstances, Esnan Zonah is permitted, too.

(a) The problem with the Beraisa (that serves as the basis of Rebbi Yochanan's latter ruling) ...

1. ... 'Nasan Lah ve'Lo Ba Alehah, Esnenah Mutar' is - that if he did not have relations with her, then what he gave her was no more than a gift, and there is no Chidush in permitting it.
2. ... 'Ba Alehah ve'Lo Nasan Lah, Esnenah Mutar' is - that if he did not give her anything, then what is the Tana permitting?

(b) We therefore amend the two statements to read - Nasan Lah ve'Achar-Kach Ba Alehah, O Ba Alehah ve'Achar-Kach Nasan Lah, Esnenah Mutar'.

(a) To answer the Kashya why, in the first of the two cases, the Esnan does not become Asur from the moment that he has relations with her, Rebbi Elazar establish the Beraisa - when she had already brought the animal as a Korban by the time they had relations.

(b) The problem with Rebbi Elazar's answer, assuming that he told her to acquire the animal ...

1. ... immediately is - that seeing as he gave her the animal prior to the Bi'ah, it is again obvious that it is not considered S'char Bi'ah.
2. ... only after the Bi'ah - then her Korban ought to be invalid, since from the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh" we learn that (like one's house) one can only be Makdish something that one owns.

(c) So we establish the case, when he told her - to keep the animal until the Bi'ah, but that, if she needed it earlier, she should acquire it as from now.