Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a case where Reuven hires Shimon to work for him for the duration of the barn-season, and he fixes payment at a Dinar a day, which he pays in advance.
How long does the barn-season last? How much will the work be worth when the barn-season arrives?

(b) Then why does he pay him only one?

(c) Why does the Tana forbid Reuven to benefit from Shimon's work?

(d) What does the Tana hold in a case where Reuven hired Shimon starting from that day, paying him a hundred Dinrim at a Dinar a day, for a hundred days, including the duration of the barn-season?

(a) What makes the Seifa similar to 'Hin bi'Sheneim-Asar Sela'im, Lug be'Sela'?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav and Shmuel?

(c) Rava answers 'Zilzuli bi'Sechirus Mi Asir'? What does he mean by that (see Shitah Mekubetzes)?

(d) Then why does the Tana forbid Reuven to derive benefit from Shimon's work in the Reisha?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the purchaser detatched a small amount of flax that was growing in the field, he acquires the flax.
What is the problem with this?

(b) How do we therefore explain the Mishnah? What did the owner mean when he instructed the purchaser to pick some of the flax?

(a) Our Mishnah discusses Reuven who sells wine or oil to Shimon, and the price rises or drops as he is in the process of selling it.
When is it Reuven who benefits or loses from the change, and when is it Shimon?

(b) Is this Halachah confined to liquids, or will extend to fruit as well?

(c) Is the Tana speaking before the parties fixed the price or afterwards?

(a) And what will be the Din if the Sirsur poured the wine or the oil into his barrel, and the barrel broke? Who must bear the loss? What is a Sirsur?

(b) What is the Tana coming to teach us with this Halachah?

(a) If, after Reuven emptied the wine or the oil into Shimon's barrel plus the three drops that the Tana obligates him to add, more wine or oil subsequently accumulates in the barrel (which is known as 'Mitzis'), who takes it? Why is that?

(b) The same will apply to the Rechinah.
What is the 'Rechinah'?

(c) The Tana Kama absolves a store-keeper from adding the three drops that a private individual is obligated to add.
Why is that?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(a) In the Reisha of the Mishnah (which differentiates between whether the measure is full or not), why can the Tana not be speaking about a measure that belongs to ...

1. ... the purchaser?
2. ... the seller?

(b) Then whose measure is it?

(c) But the *Seifa* speaks about a case where the barrel belongs to the Sirsur (implying that the Reisha doesn't)?

(d) But did we not learn this very Din in the Beraisa of four Dinim that we disussed above?

8)

(a) What did Rebbi Elazar mean when, upon arrival in Eretz Yisrael, he asked Ze'iri for a Tana who learned Midos?

(b) Ze'iri introduced him to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi.
How did Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi reconcile our Mishnah, which grants the Mitzis and the Rechinah to the seller, with the Mishnah in Terumos, which declares them Terumah?

(c) We are not sure whether Rebbi Yehudah rules 'Erev Shabbos Im Chasheichah Patur' (from the three drops), he is referring to the Reisha of the Tana Kama's previous statement, or the Seifa.
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah? What will he be saying if he is referring to ...

1. ... the Reisha?
2. ... the Seifa?

(d) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where Reuven sent his small son to the store with a Pundiyon to buy an Isar's worth of oil.
When the child gave the store-keeper the Pundiyon, how much change did he receive?

(b) What subsequently happened to the change and to the bottle of oil?

(c) Why did the Tana finds it necessary to present a case where the child had to receive change? Why could he not present the case where his father sent him with an Isar?

(a) There is another text that reads 've'Nasan Lo Tinok es ha'Isar (and not 'es ha'Pundiyon').
How would we then explain 've'Avad es ha'Isar'? Which Isar did the child lose?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this version?

(c) The Tana Kama obligates the store-keeper to pay the father for the Isar, the bottle and the oil.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(d) What do the Chachamim say in a case where the store-keeper poured the oil into the bottle without taking it from the child's hand (though this will be discussed in detail later in the Sugya)?

(a) We already explained the logic behind Rebbi Yehudah's ruling.
But what is the Chachamim's reasoning? If the father sent the child to fetch oil, why should the store-keeper be held liable for the subsequent loss of the oil and the change?

(b) Why will this explanation not hold with regard to the bottle?

(c) Why is the money not also an 'Aveidah mi'Da'as'?

(d) How else might we explain the Sugya in a way that circumvents this problem altogether (see Rashbam 88a DH 've'Rebbi Yehudah')?

(a) To answer the Kashya on the bottle, Rav Hoshaya establishes the case when the father was a bottle-seller.
What does he mean when he adds that the store-keeper then took the bottle to examine it? Why does that make the store-keeper liable?

(b) What must we then establish with regard to the price of the bottle?

(c) We base this on a statement of Shmuel.
What does Shmuel say about someone who takes a vessel from a craftsman in order to inspect it?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah then hold?

(a) How will we then explain the Seifa? In which case will the Chachamim concede that the store-keeper is Patur (see also Tosfos DH 'Ela')?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this explanation (connecting the reasoning with regard to the bottle with Shmuel)?

(c) So Rabah and Rav Yosef establish that it is the store-keeper (rather than the father) who is a bottle-seller.
What is then the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim?

(d) What is the problem with this explanation from the Seifa of the Mishnah ('u'Modim Chachamim ... ')?

Next daf