ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 95
BAVA BASRA 91-95 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) The Beraisa rules in a case where Reuven cheated Shimon ...
1. ... Pachos mi'Sh'tus - that the sale is valid and stands as it is.
(b) We can extrapolate from here (both from the case of Ona'ah and from that
of Bitul Mekach), that once one returns the part which the recipient was not
Mochel, one returns the part that he was Mochel as well. Otherwise, they
ought to return only the difference between Pachos mi'Sh'tus and Sh'tus or
Pachos mi'Sh'tus and Yeser al Sh'tus respectively. This seems to corroborate
Rav Huna (according to the Lashon of Mamon).
2. ... Sh'tus (according to Rebbi Nasan) - that the sale is valid but that
Reuven must return the entire Ona'ah.
3. ... Yeser al Sh'tus - that the sale is invalid.
(c) We differentiate between Rav Huna and the Beraisa however, based on the
fact that Shimon initially paid for an article that was worth what he paid
for it. Only as long as the discrepancy is less than a sixth, it is barely
discernible and he is therefore Mochel. Once it reaches as much as a sixth
however, it becomes discernible, and he is no longer Mochel. Whereas when it
reaches more than a sixth, he disagees to the entire sale. Whereas in our
case, where the Rova Tinofes is anticipated, the Tana might well concede
that Shimon always accepts it, irrespective of how much Tinofes there really
(a) If Reuven hires Shimon to plant trees in his field, he can expect ten
trees per hundred to be infertile and to produce no fruit.
(b) In a case where eleven out of a hundred trees turn out to be infertile -
the Beraisa rules that it is not sufficient for Shimon to plant the one
tree, but he must plant all eleven trees.
(c) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes the proof for Rav Huna from
here - because in Rav Huna's case, the Tana might hold that all Shimon
wants, is the Sa'ah of crops that he purchased, with a maximum of a Rova of
Tinofes; whereas eleven missing fruit-trees is an entire field, and Reuven
is not in fact Mochel, until all eleven trees have been planted.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Martef shel Yayin, Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos
le'Me'ah'. According to the Beraisa, if Reuven stipulated 'Martef ...
1. ... shel Yayin (S'tam) - Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'.
(b) According to our current understanding of the Beraisa, the case of Yayin
S'tam is different than crops and figs, where the purchaser must expect ten
'bad' ones per hundred - because barrels of wine are a. more Chashuv that
crops and fruit, and b. it is less frequent to find bad ones among them.
2. ... Zeh shel Yayin - Nosen Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' (validating the
sale even if all the barrels turn out to be Kos'sos).
3. ... Zeh' - the purchaser must accept whatever he is receives (even if all
the wine has turned sour [vinegar]).
(c) We reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa - by adding to the Reisha (of
Yayin S'tam) 'u'Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'.
(a) Another Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya learns 'ha'Mocher Chavis Yayin
la'Chavero, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh' (and not Yayin Koses). In light
of the previous Beraisa, the Chidush of this Beraisa is - the fact that
although he only purchased one barrel (in which case we might have thought
that he purchased the wine to drink immediately, and the wine need not
therefore be such good quality) the wine must nevertheless be good quality.
(b) We reconcile this with what we just learned (that by Yayin S'tam, the
purchaser must accept one in ten Yayin Kos'sos) - by differentiating between
somone who buys ten barrels (who has nine barrels of good wine), and someone
who purchases only one (who expects the wine to be good).
(a) We still have a problem based on a Beraisa of de'Bei Oshaya cited by Rav
Z'vid. The Tana there reiterates the Din cited in the previous Beraisa with
regard to Yayin S'tam, only he repeats the same Halachah with regard to
'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' too (whereas in the previous Beraisa, the Tana held
'Mocher Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus'). And it is with regard to the latter
case that he adds 'u'Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah' (and not by Yayin
S'tam, as we suggested).
(b) When he concludes 've'Zehu Otzar she'Shenu be'Mishnaseinu', he means -
that this is the case referred to by our Mishnah.
(c) So we finally establish our Mishnah in a case when the seller said
'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher Lach'.
(a) To reconcile it with the Beraisa that we learned earlier 'Nosen Lo Yayin
ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' (which are all Kos'sos), we establish Rav Z'vid's
Beraisa which rules 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh,
u'Mekabel Alav ... Kos'sos' - when the seller stated that he was selling him
the wine 'le'Mikpah' (as a condiment, to make the food more tasty and to add
to cooked dishes).
(b) In the first Beraisa, despite the fact that Shimon must accept as many
Kos'sos as he receives, when Reuven stipulated 'shel Yayin' - he meant to
preclude vinegar (wine that has turned sour).
(a) If Reuven stipulated 'Martef le'Mikpah', he must give Shimon good wine,
even if it is customary to use vinegar for the purpose of 'Mikpah' - because
had he meant to give him vinegar, he should not have referred to Mikpah at
all, since 'once wine becomes vinegar, it merely deteriorate (so he should
have called it 'Martef shel Chometz').
(b) Rav Z'vid's Beraisa does not insert the case of 'Martef Zeh Ani Mocher
Lach' - because, having mentioned 'le'Mikpah', 'Martef Zeh' is no different
than 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' (based on what we just explained).
(c) The Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina regarding 'Martef shel Yayin'
without mentioning 'shel Mikpah' is - whether Reuven must still give Shimon
all good wine or whether he must accept Kos'sos.
(d) The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Martef shel Yayin' without
'le'Mikpah' is equivalent to Martef S'tam with 'le'Mikpah' (since each case
has one advantage and one disadvantage).
(a) Both Rav Acha and Ravina extrapolate their respective views from one of
the two main Beraisos currently under discussion, both of which state
'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher Lach, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'. The
one extrapolates ...
1. ... from Rav Z'vid's Beraisa, which we established when Reuven stipulated
that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah', that had he not done so, Shimon
would have to accept one in ten 'Kesasos', and presumably, this extends to
the Reisha ('Martef shel Yayin'), too.
(b) The first opinion (which insists on 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to
obligate the seller to sell all good wine) will interpret the Reisha of the
first Beraisa - when he stipulated 'le'Mikpah'.
2. ... from the earlier Beraisa, which we established when Reuven did not
stipulate that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah' (yet he must give him
Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh) - that presumably, this will extend to the Reisha
(Martef shel Yayin), too.
(c) The Tana switches (from case to case) in one Beraisa - in order to be
able to discuss the entire gamut of possibilities (i.e. that sometimes the
seller must supply all good wine, sometimes wine that is sold in the store
and sometimes even vinegar).
(d) And the second opinion (which does not require 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin
Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) interprets the Reisha of
Rav Z'vid's Beraisa - even when the seller did not stipulate 'le'Mikpah'
(since we only needed to establish the Seifa by 'le'Mikpah' in order to
resolve the discrepancy between the two Beraisos of 'Martef Zeh').
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' for
wine that is sold in the store - that tastes like wine but smells like
(b) According to Rav Chisda - one recites 'Shehakol'.
(a) The Beraisa rules - that one recites 'Shehakol' over bread that has gone
moldy, wine that has turned into vinegar and a dish that has changed its
appearance (turned sour).
(b) Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa by establishing the latter
by 'Purtz'ma de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa' - which means poor-quality wine which is
sold in the extremities of the city (by the crossroads), where there are a
lot of customers looking for cheap wine. In short, it is inferior even to
'Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus'.
(c) Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'be'Pirtzufa de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa'.
'Pirtzufa' means - wine that has changed its appearance.