Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal Amar Rav declares that the Rabbanan disagree with ben Nannes in our Mishnah. In a case where Reuven said 'Midah be'Chevel Ani Mocher Lach Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' or vice-versa - they will consider it a Safek whether we follow the first Lashon or the last, and will rule 'Cholkin' (or will go after the Muchzak like Shmuel later).

(b) In the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, in a case in Tzipori, where Shimon rented a bathhouse from Reuven in Tzipori at twelve golden Dinrim for a year, a golden Dinar a month, and it turned out to be a leap-year, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi ruled - that Reuven and Shimon should share the extra month .

(c) Were it not for Rebbi Aba bar Mamal Amar Rav, we might have attributed Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi's doubt to the fact that on the one hand, Shimon might have changed his mind when he added 'at a golden Dinar a month', whereas on the other, he might have merely been explaining his initial stipulation of 'a Dinar a month', a S'vara with which ben Nannes may well agree. But in our Mishnah, where the two Leshonos definitely contradict each other, they will concede 'Tofes Lashon Acharon'.

(d) According to Rav, the basis of the Rabbanan's ruling both in our Mishnah and in the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is - the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav he'Re'ayah'.

(a) According to our initial assumption, that the Tana'im of Merchatz hold 'Pirushi ka'Mefaresh', the ramifications of 'Dinar Zahav la'Chodesh', besides the fact that Reuven will receive the extra Dinar are - that Reuven gets paid at the end of each month (and not at the end of the year, as is customary in the realm of S'chirus), and that he has the right to terminate the contract at the end of each month.

(b) The basis of the Rabbanan's Safek (as well as ben Nannes' ruling 'Tofes Lashon Acharon') is - the fact that the two statements were made within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem Mori' or 'Mori ve'Rebbi').

(a) 'Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel Zu Divrei ben Nannes, Aval Chachamim Omrim 'Halach Achar Pachos she'bi'Leshonos' - because they are not sure whether we adopt the first Lashon or the last.

(b) The ramifications of this ruling regarding 'Midah be'Chevel Ani Mocher Lach Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' are - that if it transpires that Reuven gave Shimon more than a Beis-Kur, he may claim the balance (Midah be'Chevel); whereas if he gave him less, Shimon has to accept it (Hein Chaser Hein Yeser).

(c) Rav and Shmuel both rule in a case where Reuven said to Shimon ...

1. ... 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Ani Mocher Lach' - that they can retract right up to the last Sa'ah (even if Shimon made a Meshichah on each Sa'ah before pouring it into his container).
2. ... 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Ani Mocher Lach, Sa'ah be'Sela' - then Shimon acquires each Sa'ah as he pours it into his container.

(d) We currently ascribe Shmuel's latter ruling to the principle T'fos Lashon Acharon', like ben Nannes in our Mishnah. Even though Shmuel's earlier statement 'Zu Divrei ben Nannes, Aval Chachamim Omrim ... ' implies that he does not hold like ben Nannes, we are currently forced to say - that 'Zu u'Sevira Leih'.

(a) With regard to the case of the bathhouse, on the assumption that Reuven and Shimon had arrived in Beis-Din ...

1. ... at the beginning of the thirteenth month - Shmuel rules that the owner may ask the hirer to leave or to pay him for the coming month.
2. ... at the end of the thirteenth month - he rules that the Socher is not obligated to pay for that month,

(b) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi ruled 'Yachloku es Chodesh ha'Ibur', it was in a case - when Reuven and Shimon came to Beis-Din in the middle of the month.

(c) Shmuel's reason for this ruling - is because he holds like the Chachamim of ben Nannes, who are uncertain whether we adopt the first or the last Lashon, so whoever is Muchzak gets to keep what he has (not like Rav's interpretation of their ruling).

(d) And he rules in the case of 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Sa'ah be'Sela, Rishon Rishon Kanah' - for the same reason, because until Shimon acquires the grain, Reuven is Muchzak, but once he pours it into his vessels, he is Muchzak.

(a) If Reuven inverted the order and said 'Sa'ah be'Sela Kur bi'Sheloshim Ani Mocher Lach' Shmuel would still hold Rishon Rishon Kanah ...

(b) ... whereas according to Rav, who holds like ben Nannes ('T'fos Lashon Acharon'), Shimon would then not acquire the grain until all thirty Sa'ah had been poured into his vessel.

6)

(a) Amar Rav Huna, Amri Bei Rav 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i, Me'ah Ma'im; Me'ah Ma'i Astira, Astira'.
'Amri Bei Rav' - refers to Rav Hamnuna.

(b) An Astira is - half a Sela Medinah (alias half a Dinar [an eighth of a Sela Tzuri]), which is the equivalent of ninety-six P'rutos (1 Dinar = 6 Ma'ah, 1 Ma'ah = 2 Pundiyon, 1. Pundiyon = 2 Isrim, 1 Isar = 8 P'rutos).

(c) 'Me'ah Mai' is equivalent to a hundred P'rutos.

(d) Amri Bei Rav is coming to teach us - 'T'fos Lashon Acharon' (like ben Nannes).

(a) Rav stated that had he been in Tzipori when the episode of the bathhouse took place ('bi'Sheneim-Asar Zehuvim le'Shanah, Dinar Zahav le'Chodesh'), he would have declared the owner right - because, as we just explained, he rules like ben Nannes.

(b) In spite of Rav's latter ruling, Amri Bei Rav (who is a Talmid of Rav) found it necessary to issue the former statement (in the case of the bathhouse) - because otherwise, we might have ascribed his ruling there to the fact that the second stipulation ('Dinar le'Chodesh') comes to explain the first ('Sh'neim-Asar Zehuvim le'Shanah'), and not to contradict it (as we already suggested on the previous Amud).

(c) Had we indeed done so, Rav would have then held in the case of 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i ... ' - that we go after the Muchzak, like Shmuel (or 'Yachloku', like we learned at the beginning of the Sugya).

(d) Clearly - the last of Rav's above rulings was that of 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i', from which we learn categorically, that Rav holds like ben Nannes, as we explained.

(a) We refute the text in Bava Metzi'a (with reference to the case of 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i ... '), 'I me'Hasam, Havah Amina Pirushi ka'Mefaresh', meaning that 'Astira' refers to a large Sela worth a hundred P'rutos (and in the reverse case, that 'Me'ah Ma'i' refers to a hundred small ones - on the grounds that Rav might just as well have switched 'Astira' for ninety-six P'rutos (which are not subject to interpretation). And besides, if anything, it is the case of the bathhouse (with which the Sugya there is contrasting 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i') which is subject to interpretation, as we explained (and not 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i').

(b) In the case of the bathhouse, we rule neither like Rav ('T'fos Lashon Acharon') nor like Shmuel ('be'Ba be'Emtza ha'Chodesh Askinan'), but like Rav Nachman in Bava Metzi'a - who gives the owner right in all cases, because of the principle 'Karka be'Chezkas Ba'alehah' (land is always in the owner's possession, so he is considered Muchzak, even if they only arrived in Beis-Din at the end of the month).