(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 60

BAVA METZIA 60 - sponsored by Rabbi Dovid Hofstedter, Shlita, of Toronto, whose remarkable Harbatzas Torah -- and Dafyomi Shi'urim and Kollelim in particular -- are by now a Kidush Hashem that is familiar to Yeshiva students and Ba'alei Batim alike. May he and his family be blessed to continue their incredible work "until 120."


(a) What does the Tana mean when he ...
  1. ... forbids mixing fruit with fruit (i.e. grain with grain)? Why is it forbidden?
  2. ... takes for granted that 'Chadashim bi'Yeshanim' is forbidden? Which one did the seller promise to sell, and in which regard are the old crops better than the new ones?
(b) The seller may however, mix 'hard' wine with the 'soft' wine that he promised the purchaser.
Why is that?

(c) Under which circumstances does the Tana permit the sale of wine which became mixed with water, in a store?

(d) Then why is he not permitted, under the same circumstances, to sell the barrel to a merchant?

(a) When is it permitted to sell wine mixed with water even without informing the purchaser?

(b) On what grounds is a merchant permitted to buy corn from five producers and to place them all in the same pile in order to sell them?

(c) May he do the same with wine that he purchased from five wine-producers?

(d) Under which circumstances is it forbidden to do that?

(a) Why might new grain cost more than old?

(b) Does this then mean that the seller will be allowed to add new crops to the old ones that he promised to sell the purchaser?

(c) Our Mishnah stated 'be'Emes Amru' with regard to the Din of mixing hard wine with soft.
How does Rebbi Elazar interpret 'be'Emes Amru'?

(d) Is the seller permitted to mix ...

  1. ... soft (mild) wine with hard (strong) wine?
  2. ... old grain with new grain?
(a) Rav Nachman confines the Mishnah's concession of mixing hard wine with soft to when the barrels are still near the wine-press.
Why is that?

(b) Nowadays however, it is permissible to do so even at a later stage. What reason does Rav Papa give for that?

(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika disagrees. He establishes the Mishnah's ruling like Rebbi Acha.
What does Rebbi Acha say?

(a) Our Mishnah first forbids the seller to add dregs to the wine, then adds that he may give him its dregs.
Why can we not resolve the seeming contradiction by establishing the second statement when he informed the purchaser of what he had done?

(b) Rav Yehudah therefore establishes the first statement by the dregs of yesterday, and the second, by the dregs of today.
What does he really mean by that?

(c)Then why did he say what he said?

(d) We corroborate Rav Yehudah's answer from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says the same thing.
What does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he speaks about 'ha'Shofeh Yayin'?

(a) What did Rava once do when, after diluting his wine, he found it to be somewhat bland?

(b) On what grounds did Abaye query him?

(c) How did Rava dismiss Abaye's concern that the merchant might then add a little wine to dispel Rava's trademark?

(d) The Beraisa comments on the Mishnah's concession of adding water to wine if that is local custom, 'le'Mechtzah, li'Shelish ve'li'Revi'a'.
What qualifier does Rav add?

(a) Why does Rebbi Yehudah prohibit a storekeeper from ...
  1. ... distributing pop-corn and nuts to his young customers?
  2. ... selling his goods at a reduced price?
(b) On what grounds do the Chachamim then permit ...
  1. ... the distribution of pop-corn and nuts to one's young customers?
  2. ... the reduction the price of one's goods? Why did they say 'Zachur la'Tov'?
(c) Why does Aba Shaul prohibit removing the chaff before selling the corn?

(d) And why do the Chachamim then permit it?

(e) What do the Chachamim concede to Aba Shaul?

Answers to questions



(a) Who are the Chachamim who permit the seller to remove the chaff from the corn before selling it?

(b) Our Mishnah forbids the seller to beautify a person, an animal or vessels that he is selling.
What is the Tana referring to when he speaks about selling a person?

(c) The Beraisa forbids the 'Shirvut' of an animal. 'Shirvut' might mean feeding it with oat-water.
What will that achieve?

(d) How does Ze'iri Amar Rav Kahana explain 'Shirvut'?

(e) Which other two things does the Tana forbid regarding the meat of an animal?

(a) Various Amora'im permitted the seller to enhance the looks of their wares prior to selling. What did ...
  1. ... Shmuel permit a seller to do with a cloak?
  2. ... Rav Yehudah permit him to do with colored clothes?
  3. ... Rabah permit him to do with a hemp garment?
  4. ... Rava permit him to do with arrows, and Rav Papa bar Shmuel, with baskets?
(b) How do we reconcile all of these with our Mishnah, which forbids beautifying vessels prior to selling them?
(a) On what grounds did Rava decline to purchase that 'black-haired and black-bearded' Cana'ani who asked him to buy him?

(b) How do we know that he was a Cana'ani and not a Jew?

(c) Rav Papa bar Shmuel did purchase him.
What did the Eved do when his new master asked him to get him a drink of water?

(d) To whom was Rav Papa bar Shmuel referring when he quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei ...

  1. ... "Tzadik mi'Tzarah Nechlatz"?
  2. ... ve'Yavo Acher Tachtav"?
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Zahav' *****

***** Perek Eizehu Neshech *****


(a) How does the Tana describe 'Neshech'? What is its literal meaning?

(b) The Tana then describes Tarbis.
If Reuven owes Shimon wheat that he sold him for a Dinar Zahav, and the price rises to thirty Dinrim, under what condition is he now permitted to give Shimon wheat to the value of thirty Dinrim? Does it matter that he did not have wheat at the time of the sale?

(c) Why is this permitted?

(d) Then what turns this case into 'Tarbis'?

(a) We refer to Neshech in our Mishnah as Ribis d'Oraysa, and Tarbis, as Ribis de'Rabbanan.
What is the basis of this difference? What makes the Seifa a case of Ribis de'Rabbanan?

(b) We extrapolate from the previous statement that the Tana clearly considers Neshech and Tarbis to be one and the same thing.
What problem do we have with that?

(c) Why do we think that if Reuven lends Shimon ...

  1. ... a hundred measures for a hundred and twenty, only initially a hundred measures is worth a Danka (a sixth of a Zuz [also known as a Ma'ah]), and by the time Shimon pays Reuven, a Danka can buy a hundred and twenty measures, this is Neshech but not Tarbis.
  2. ... a hundred measures for a hundred measures, only initially, a hundred measures cost a Danka, and by the time Shimon pays him, it costs a fifth of a Zuz, this is Tarbis but not Neshech?
(d) On what grounds do we refute ...
  1. ... the first proposal? Why is this not considered Neshech but not Tarbis?
  2. ... the second proposal? Why is this not a case of Tarbis but not Neshech?
(a) Seeing as we conclude that there is no such thing as Neshech without Tarbis or Tarbis without Neshech, why does the Torah then present them both as if they were two La'avin?

(b) The Torah writes in Behar "Lo Sachich le'Achicha Neshech Kesef, Neshech Ochel".
From where do we know that the La'av of Neshech pertains to food?

(c) If the La'av in Behar refers to the creditor, to whom does the La'av in Ki Seitzei refer?

(d) How do we know that the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sashich le'Achicha *Neshech* Kesef *Neshech* Ochel" includes Ribis (see Tosfos)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,