Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask what the Din will be if, in the case of 'Nasan Lah ve'Achar-Kach Ba Alehah', instead of actually sacrificing the animal, she only managed to declare it Hekdesh, before they had relations. In spite of the fact that the animal is still alive, we think that 'Hikdishaso' may be as good as 'Hikrivaso' - based on the principle 'Amiraso li'Gevohah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot', in which case it might even be considered as if the animal was already brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) We try and resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Elazar himself, who said 'ke'she'Kadmah ve'Hikrivaso', implying that 'Hikdishaso' without 'Hikrivaso' remains Asur.

(c) We reject that proof however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Elazar himself might not have been sure (and because he had the same Safek as we have, he only mentioned 'Hikrivaso', of which he was certain).

(a) The Reisha of the Beraisa stated 'Ba Alehah ve'Achar-Kach Nasan Lah Esnenah Mutar'. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Amar Rav Chisda reconciles this with the Beraisa ' ... Afilu mi'Ka'an ad Shalosh Shanim, Esnenah, Asur' - by establishing the latter Beraisa when he promised her 'T'leh Zeh' (in which case she acquires it straight after the Bi'ah), whereas our Beraisa speaks when he promised her Esnan S'tam, in which case she does not acquire it.

(b) We establish this second Beraisa by a Zonah Nochris (who acquires with Mamon [with Bi'ah in this case], because if it was speaking in the case of a Zonah Yisre'elis, she would not even acquire the lamb if he said 'T'leh Zeh', seeing as there has not been a Kinyan Meshichah (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha Mechs'ra').

(a) We nevertheless manage to establish it even in the case of a Zonah Yisre'elis - by establishing it when the lamb is standing in her Chatzer.

(b) The problem with this explanation is - that in that case, she would acquire the lamb immediately (even before the Bi'ah), and how can the Tana refer to it as 'Ba Alehah ve'Achar-Kach Nasan Lah'?

(c) We resolve the problem - by establishing it when he made the lamb an Apotiki, adding that if he redeemed it up to a certain date, that was fine. Otherwise, she would acquire it as her Esnan (after the Bi'ah).

4)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a man paying his Nochri or Am ha'Aretz workers. When the Tana permits him to give them a Dinar, and to instruct them to go and buy food or drink with it, without having to worry about ...

1. ... Shevi'is - he is referring to the fear that his Am ha'Aretz workers will purchase Sh'mitah-fruit (for more than the three meals that is permitted) to sell.
2. ... Ma'aser - he is referring to the fear that they will purchase un-Ma'asered fruit.
3. ... Yayin Nesech - he is referring to the fear that his Nochri workers will purchase Yayin Nesech.

(b) In the same case, only where he says to them 'Tze'u ve'Ichlu va'Ani Pore'a', the Tana says - Choshesh Mishum Shevi'is ... ', because, in this case, it is as if he is actually feeding them?

(c) The problem this poses for de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, on the previous Daf is - that we see from here the exchange of Shevi'is is forbidden, even though the Shevi'is itself is no longer there at the time when the Chalipin are paid.

(a) To solve the problem, Rav Chisda establishes the Beraisa by a Chenvani ha'Makifo - meaning a store-keeper who constantly lends the Ba'al ha'Bayis on credit, in which case *the employer will be Makneh the money to the store-keeper* immediately on receipt of the fruit.

(b) We can infer that by a Chenvani she'Eino Makifo - he will *not*.

(c) We query this from the Seifa 'Amar Lehu Tze'u ve'Ichlu va'Ani Pore'a, Choshesh Mishum Shevi'is ... ' however - because according to Rav Chisda's distinction, the Tana ought to have rather switched to a Chenvani she'Eino Makif (rather than changed the employee's condition).

(d) We also ask on Rav Chisda from Rava, who says - that in a case where Reuven says to Shimon 'Ten Manah li'Peloni ve'Yikanu Kol Nechasai Lach', he is immediately Meshubad (obligated to pay) from the Din of Areiv, who, like Reuven, obligates himself even though he personally receives nothing. That being the case, the employer ought to be Chayav even by a Chenvani she'Eino Makifo.

(a) Consequently, Rava concludes, Chenvani she'Eino Makifo is no different than Chenvani ha'Makifo in this regard, and de'Bei Rebbi Yanai paid back the debt of Shevi'is a year later - because they did not specify the Shibud (i.e. what they would pay to the poor).

(b) Nevertheless, says Rav Papa, the Tana in the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'Im Amar Lahem Tze'u ve'Ichlu ... ' rules 'Choshesh Mishum Shevi'is' (even though he did not specify his Shibud either) - because the Tana speaks when the employer gave the storekeeper a Dinar in advance.

(c) When Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a asked Rav Kahana that the Beraisa ought then to have said 'Tze'u u'Shesu va'Ani Mechashev' (rather than 'va'Ani Pore'a' [seeing as he has already paid]) - he replied 'T'ni Tze'u ve'Ichlu ... va'Ani Mechashev'.

(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Seifa of the Beraisa by 'Natal ve'Nasan be'Yad' - meaning that the employer actually took the Shevi'is from the store-keeper ... and placed it in the hands of the employer, which is Asur because he is feeding the employee an Isur.

(b) When Rav Yeimar queried Rav Ashi from the Beraisa, which ought then to have said 'T'lu ve'Ichlu ... ' (rather than 'Tze'u ve'Ichlu ... '), he replied - 'T'ni T'lu ve'Ichlu ... '.

(a) Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi bar Papi asked whether someone who is hired to empty barrels of Yayin Nesech is permitted to take payment for his work. Despite the fact that his job is to pour out the wine, his wages might nevertheless be forbidden - because he wants the wine to remain in the barrels (so that he can pour it out and earn his wages).

(b) Rav Nachman ruled - 'Yishbor, ve'Tavo Alav B'rachah' (because the S'vara that he is getting rid of the wine takes precedence over his desire to retain the wine in the barrels).