ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 98
(a) Our Mishnah absolves Reuven from responsibility should he sell Shimon
wine and it turns sour.
(b) The Tana does however, consider the sale false - if the seller's wine is
known to turn sour?
(c) If Reuven promised to sell Shimon spiced wine, he must provide Shimon
with his purchase before Shavu'os - because even spiced wine will be
adversely affected by the heat of the summer season (Tekufas Tamuz), which
begins shortly after Shavu'os.
(d) If he promised him ...
1. ... Yayin Yashan - he must provide him with last year's wine.
2. ... Yayin Meyushan - then he must provide him with wine from the year
before last, and it must last until Succos (three complete years, as we will
learn in a Beraisa later).
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina qualify Reisha of our Mishnah - by
establishing the case when the wine is placed in the purchaser's barrels
(for the sale to be valid), because that is what probably caused the wine to
(b) We query this however, on the grounds that even if the wine were to have
been in the seller's barrels, the purchaser would have had no right to blame
the seller - because he should have used up the wine immediately, and not
kept it for so long.
(c) We reply however - that the Tana is speaking when Reuven stipulated when
he sold the wine, that he was selling it to him le'Mikpah (which is expected
to last longer, as we learned earlier), which would explain why the sale
would have been negated had the wine been in the seller's barrels.
(d) He would be liable, if the wine was in his barrels, in spite of the fact
that it turned sour only after he had sold it - because wine that turns sour
was poor-quality wine to begin with (as we learned above in the Sugya of
(a) Rav, who learned above that for the first three days following the sale,
the wine remains in the seller's domain, will establish our Mishnah (which
absolves the seller from responsibility) - either when the wine is in
Shimon's barrels (even within three days), or when it is in barrels
belonging to Reuven, but after three days.
(b) Rava proves from the Seifa ('ve'Im Yadu'a she'Yeino Machmitz, Harei Zeh
Mekach Ta'us') - which can only be the case if we assume that he sold the
wine le'Mikpah. Otherwise, Reuven can counter that Shimon should have used
up the wine sooner.
(c) Even if the majority of people tended to leave wine for longer periods -
we would blame the purchaser for not drinking the wine sooner, because, as
we have already learned 'Ein Holchin be'Mamon Achar ha'Rov' (like the
opinion of Shmuel, like whom we rule).
(d) Even according to Rav, who does go after the Rov in money-matters, we
cannot go after the majority of people who purchase wine to keep for a long
time, to hold Reuven responsible even if he did not sell the wine
le'Mikpah - because this Rov is non-existent, since some people buy wine to
drink immediately, whereas others buy it to drink over a long period.
(a) Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He
learns from the Pasuk in Chavakuk "ve'Af Ki ha'Yayin Boged, Gever Yahir ...
" - that when wine turns sour, it is due to the Mazel of the current owner
(i.e. his conceit), meaning that the wine turns out to be not what he
thought it was, just as he made himself out to be what he was not). Note,
that this is probably not the Yayin Koses that we discussed earlier (which
smells like vinegar but still tastes like wine, since that is poor-quality
wine that will never mature, as we learned there, and is not subject to this
(b) Consequently - Reuven is Patur from reimbursing Shimon, even though he
stipulated 'le'Mikpah', and even if the wine was in his (Reuven's) barrels.
(c) Rav Mari learns from the above-mentioned Pasuk " ... Gever Yahir ve'Lo
Yinaveh" - that someone who is conceited will be despised by his own wife.
(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Lo *Yinaveh*"
"el *Nevei* Kodshecha" - that someone who is conceited will not be allowed
to enter the confines of the Shechinah.
(e) 'Kol ha'Misga'eh be'Talis shel Talmid-Chacham, ve'Eino Talmid-Chacham' -
refers to someone who puts on airs as if he were a Talmid-Chacham by wearing
clothes that are exceedingly modest in the style of a Talmid-Chacham (as we
learned in 'Chezkas ha'Batim'), even though he is not.
(a) In the case of Reuven who gave Shimon the store-keeper a barrel of wine
to sell for a small profit, should the wine turn sour after he sold a third
or half of the barrel - Rava absolved Shimon from all responsibility, since
he is no more than Reuven's Sheli'ach (seeing as he is neither joint-owner
of the wine, nor is the barrel his).
(b) He would however, be liable to pay if he had changed the tap of the
barrel (since this may have caused the wine to turn sour), or even if he
hadn't - but if he delayed selling the barrel until after market day.
(c) If Shimon received a barrel of wine (to sell and share the profits) from
Reuven, and a price-change occurs or the barrel is stolen or lost - then
Reuven and Shimon share the gains and losses equally.
(a) In a case where Reuven instructed Shimon to sell the barrel in Davel
Shafat (or Zulshefat), and the price dropped before he arrived there
however, Rava rules - that Reuven must bear the entire loss (seeing as
Shimon had no authority to sell it earlier anyway [any more than he would
have had, had the price risen in his town before he arrived in Davel Shafat.
(b) They asked what the Din would be if under the same circumstances, the
wine turned sour before Shimon arrived in Davel Shafat. Rav Hillel quoting
Rav Kahana, answered Rav Ashi by quoting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who
rules - that as long as the wine is in the barrels of the seller, he must
take responsibility for the wine (provided that the purchaser could not be
expected to dispose of the wine immediately [as is the case here]).
(c) Consequently, Rav Hillel either ruled that if the wine became vinegar,
the responsibility does not lie solely with Reuven (the seller), not like
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina; or that it does, like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
(d) The Halachah is like the first Lashon (which in fact, rules like Rav
Chiya bar Yosef, who places the responsibility on the shoulders of the owner
or owners) - on the basis of Shmuel, who rules like the latter, and with
whom Rav Yosef concurs (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).
(a) The minimum size room that Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah obligates ...
1. ... a father who undertakes to accommodate his son after his marriage, to
provide him with is - four by six Amos.
(b) The same applies to a father-in-law for his widowed daughter. It is ...
2. ... someone who sells his friend land to build a room for his son after
his marriage is - four by six Amos.
1. ... the father who accommodates his son after his wedding (and not the
father-in-law) - because due to the closeness that exists between a man and
his mother-in-law, it is incorrect for a man to live with his parents-in-law
(for fear that he might develop an illicit relationship with her), as ben
(c) Rebbi Yishmael - considers four Amos by six a stable (and unfit to live
2. ... the father-in-law who needs to provide accommodation for his widowed
daughter after her husband's death - for the same reason, because until now
she and her husband were living with his parents.
(d) If Reuven contracts Shimon to build him a room, or sold him land to
build himself one, if he stipulated ...
1. ... a small room, he would be obligated to build a room - six by eight
2. ... a room, he would be obligated to build a room - six by eight Amos
(since the builder, not having been given instructions, would have the upper
3. ... a large room - eight by ten Amos.
4. ... a T'raklin (a dwelling for princes) - ten by ten Amos.
(a) The common height that each of the above must be is - half of the sum of
the length and the breadth (five, seven, nine and ten Amos respectively).
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel brings a proof from the Heichal (of the
Beis-Hamikdash), which was - forty Amos long, twenty Amos wide and thirty
(c) What ben Sira found that was lighter than ...
1. ... bran was - a man living in his mother-in-law's house.
2. ... a man living in his mother-in-law's house was - one guest inviting
3. ... one guest inviting another guest was - someone who replies to a
question before the questioner has finished the question.
(a) If the author of the Mishnah 'ha'Rotzeh La'asos Refes Bakar, Boneh Arba
Amos al Sheish' is Rebbi Yishmael, the explanation is obvious. Assuming the
author to be Rebbi Akiva however, what the Tana is saying is - that even
though these are the dimensions of a stable, people sometimes make their
residences the size of stables.
(b) The difference between the two explanations is - that should the author
be Rebbi Yishmael, Rebbi Akiva will argue with him in this regard too,
inasmuch as, according to him, a stable is smaller than four by six Amos.
(a) We interpret 'T'raklin' in our Mishnah as Kuvsah Bei Vardi. The full
name of 'Kubah', after which this room is named, is 'Kubah shel Zonos' (a
(b) This princely room is called by such a name - because, like a brothel,
it contained many windows. They also used to adorn it with roses, hence the
title 'Bei Vardi'. Note also, that the word 'Kubah' also means a cube, and
the dimensions of the T'raklin were ten by ten by ten Amos.
(c) We learned in a Beraisa that if a contractor undertook to build someone
a Kantir, he is obligated to build him a Tarbatz Apadni - a large courtyard
similar to those which princes used to build beside their palaces.
(d) The significance of 'Tarbatz' is - they would constantly sprinkle water
to *settle* the dust (which is what Tarbatz means).
(a) Some explain 'Re'ayah le'Davar' followed by the proof from the Heichal
cited in our Mishnah in the name of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we
explained it above. Others however, establish 'Re'ayah le'Davar' as a proof
by the Chachamim. However, before they were able to explain what they
meant - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer interjected with 'ke'Binyan
ha'Heichal?' He was querying the Chachamim's proof (which he knew was from
the Heichal), on the grounds that one cannot compare other buildings to the
Heichal, due to its Chashivus.
(b) We query the first interpretation, which seems to be the obvious one -
on the basis of the fact that the Tana placed the words 'Re'ayah le'Davar'
before 'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer', instead of afterwards, as one would
(a) Acherim in a Beraisa gives the height of a house as 'the beams' - which
is the equivalent to its width (because that is how the beams are generally
(b) One possible reason that Acherim equates the height with the length of
the beams, rather than with the width of the house, is because 'Beisa
me'Ila'i Ravach' which means - that, for strength, they tended to build
houses wider at the bottom and narrower at the top. Consequently, the
measurement of the beam was correspondingly less than the width of the house
(which would have been measured at the base).
(c) The second answer to this Kashya is - that the width of the house might
exclude the width of the walls (which housed the windows), whereas the
beams, which ran between the two outer extremities of the two walls,
(a) When Rebbi Chanina went to town, they asked him an apparent discrepancy
between two Pesukim in Melachim. One Pasuk gives the dimensions of the
Heichal together with the D'vir as we quoted them earlier, including a
height of thirty Amos; the second Pasuk gives it as twenty.
(b) Rebbi Chanina resolved the discrepancy - by establishing the second
Pasuk by the height of the D'vir above the edge of the Keruvim (and not from
(c) The Pasuk gives the height of the D'vir as twenty Amos, measured from
above the Keruvim, and not the real height of thirty Amos from the floor, to
teach us - that the lower ten Amos contained nothing (as if the Keruvim and
the Aron were not there, as we shall now see), just as the top twenty Amos