Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 27, 2017 | 讗壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 95

Study Guide Bava Batra 95. More attempts are brought from tannaitic sources similar to our case to prove Rav Huna’s opinion that if the bad parts mixed in with the produce add up to more than the permitted percentage, one can demand compensation for all of them. However, each comparison as rejected and the gemara explains why each case if different. 聽The gemara聽tries to analyze what the seller stipulated in the case in the mishna regarding a sale of wine cellar – was it “wine in a cellar,” “wine in this cellar” or “this cellar?” 聽A braita聽stipulating the halacha in these 3 cases are brought as well as a different version brought by Rav Zevid. 聽These are discussed and reinterpreted in order to fit聽with the mishna and with each other.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛转诐 讛谉 讞住专 讛谉 讬转讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讜 专讘讬注 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讬转专 诪专讘讬注 讞砖讬讘

There, in the case of the sale of land, the reason the buyer may keep the extra land when it is less than the acceptable limit is that the seller said to him: I am selling you this piece of land whether it is slightly less or slightly more than a beit kor, i.e., he agrees to accept a small deviation from the stated area. But while an extra quarterkav area per beit se鈥檃 is not significant, and therefore the seller is willing to forgo it, more than a quarterkav area per beit se鈥檃 is significant, and the seller is not willing to forgo any of it. Consequently, all of the extra land must be returned. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepts this possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities is greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

讚讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讘转砖注转 拽讘讬谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗专注讗 讞砖讬讘转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讗 讜讛讚专讗

The Gemara explains why more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land is significant: The reason is that since all those extra areas of land are fit to combine together to form an area in which one could sow nine kav of seed, the extra land is a significant plot of land in its own right, and therefore it must all be returned. The land that was sold was stated to be a beit kor, which is thirty beit se鈥檃. If the area of the extra land was of a proportion somewhat more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land, then thirty such areas would collectively be about equal to an area required to sow nine kav.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: The halakha of price exploitation is that if the disparity is less than one-sixth of the value of the merchandise, the merchandise is acquired immediately and the sum of the exploitation need not be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, then the transaction is nullified. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the entire sum of the exploitation.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讚专 注讚 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚讘注讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讻讜诇讛 诪讛讚专

The Gemara explains the proof: Why, in the case where the disparity is precisely one-sixth, is the entire sum of the exploitation returned? Instead, let him return only a small amount of the exploitation until the difference is less than one-sixth. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the fact that he must return the entire sum that when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 砖转讜转 讬讚讬注讛 讜诇讗 诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讬转专 诪砖转讜转 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讘讟诇 诪拽讞

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of exploitation, the seller initially said to the buyer that he would sell the merchandise for a sum equal to its value. Any price difference should be unacceptable. But a disparity of less than one-sixth is not recognizable in a sale worth one hundred dinars, and a person will forgo it. By contrast, a disparity of one-sixth is considered significant, and a person will not forgo it. Consequently, the entire sum of the exploitation must be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, it is a mistaken transaction and the transaction is nullified. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepted that possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities was greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘专讜 诇讬讟注 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 讘讜专讬讜转 诇诪讗讛 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: When one receives a field from another under a contract to plant trees in it, then this field owner accepts upon himself that there may be ten deficient trees per every hundred trees planted, as he is aware that not every tree planted will necessarily flourish. If the number of deficient trees is more than this, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to replace all of those trees, and not only the number of trees above the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讬转专 诪讻讗谉 讻讘讗 诇讬讟注 诪转讞诇讛 讚诪讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: There is no proof from this case, because any time there are more than this number of deficient trees, the overall area that contains the deficient trees is of a size equivalent to a whole field. Therefore, the contractor is comparable to one who comes to plant a whole field from the outset, who has not fulfilled his remit if he plants only a few trees; rather, he must plant the entire area. But in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the impurities never constitute an independent unit; consequently, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities that is above the acceptable limit.

诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 住转诐 拽砖讬讗 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 拽砖讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, one accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the sale? If one said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, with-out specification of which cellar he meant, it is difficult, as the Gemara will soon explain. And if he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult.

讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转 诪专转祝 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讜 讞讜诪抓 讛讙讬注讜

The Gemara elaborates: If he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita: If one said to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, i.e., the buyer does not have to accept any quantity of souring wine. If he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he may give him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of the quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour. If he said: I am selling to you this particular cellar, without mentioning the word: Wine, then even if everything he gives him is wine that had turned into vinegar, it has come to the buyer and the sale is valid. The mishna鈥檚 ruling that the buyer must accept that up to ten percent of the wine might be souring does not accord with any of the rulings of the baraita.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 住转诐 讜转谞讬 讘专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna concerns a case when he said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, without specification of which cellar he was selling. And emend the baraita and teach the following qualification in the first clause of the baraita: And the buyer accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased.

讜讘住转诐 诪讬 诪拽讘诇 讜讛讗 转讗谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 诇讞讘专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 砖讗谞讬 讞讘讬转 讚讻讜诇讗 讞讚 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges this addition: But if he sold the buyer a wine cellar without specification of which one he was selling, does the buyer accept upon himself any souring wine at all? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: One who sells a barrel of wine to another must give him wine that is all of good quality? The Gemara answers: A barrel is different, because the wine inside is all one body of wine of the same quality.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara once again challenges the addition: But didn鈥檛 Rav Zevid teach a baraita of the school of Rabbi Oshaya: If one says to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality? Similarly, if he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten souring barrels per hundred barrels.

讜讝讛讜 讗讜爪专 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜

Rav Zevid concludes: And this is the case of the storeroom, i.e., the cellar, that the Sages taught in the mishna. It is clear from this baraita both that it contradicts the suggested addition to the previous baraita, and that the mishna concerns a case where one specified which wine cellar he was selling.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛

Rather, as indicated by the baraita, the mishna also concerns a case where one says to the buyer: I am selling you this particular cellar, and because he specified a particular cellar the buyer accepts upon himself the possibility that up to ten barrels per hundred might be sour.

拽砖讬讗 讝讛 讝讛

Having retracted the addition to the first baraita, the Gemara asks: If so, it is difficult to reconcile the first baraita, which rules that if the seller specified that he was selling this cellar, he must provide wine that is all of good quality, with the second baraita, that of Rav Zevid, which rules with regard to the same case, in which the seller specified he was selling this cellar, that the buyer accepts that up to ten barrels per hundred may contain souring wine.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the buyer said to him that he needs the wine for cooking, and therefore he requires good-quality wine, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he needs the wine for cooking. The Gemara elaborates: The second baraita, taught by Rav Zevid, is referring to a case where the buyer said that he needs the wine for cooking, whereas the first baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he requires it for cooking.

讛诇讻讱 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转

The Gemara concludes: Therefore, the halakha is that if one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten barrels of souring wine in each hundred barrels purchased. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讘诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, what is the halakha? Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about this. One says: The buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred, and the other one says: The buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽讘诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚拽转谞讬 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara explains their reasoning. The one who says that the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred infers this though a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. The Gemara explains the inference: The only reason that he must provide him with wine that is all of good quality is that the buyer said to him that he needed it for cooking. By inference, where the buyer does not say to him: I need it for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛

And the one who says that the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine infers this through a precise reading of the first baraita, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where he did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, and even so, the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讚讬讬拽 诪讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 拽砖讬讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇 讜诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: But then, according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, the first baraita poses a difficulty. The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If one says: I am selling to you a cellar of wine, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. By inference, where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred. And if one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then one may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the first baraita, the baraita of Rav Zevid poses a difficulty, as we interpreted it as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. And this opinion inferred that if the buyer did not say to him: I need it for cooking, then the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讜讛讗讬 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 讝讛 讗讝讛

The Gemara answers: The same is true according to both baraitot, that even where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer need not accept ten barrels of souring wine. And there is no proof from the fact that we interpreted the baraita as referring to a case where he said to him: I need it for cooking, since we did so only due to the difficulty of the contradiction between the ruling of the first baraita in the case where the seller specified that he was selling this cellar and the ruling of the baraita of Rav Zevid in the same case where the seller specified he was selling this cellar. Due to that difficulty, the entire baraita was interpreted as referring to a case where the buyer said: I need the wine for cooking, despite the fact that in the case where he did not mention a specific cellar it makes no difference whether or not he said so.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讙讘讬 讞诪专讗 讚讗拽专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 Apropos wine that is sold in the shops, the Gemara considers additional halakhot pertaining to such wine: Rav Yehuda says: Over wine of the same quality as that which is sold in the shops, one recites the standard blessing for wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. Despite the fact that such wine is not of the highest quality, it is still regarded as wine. And Rav 岣sda said: Over wine that has formed a film as it begins to sour, why do I need to recite the blessing for wine? Since it has begun to sour, it is no longer regarded as wine. Instead, one should recite the generic blessing recited over foods of lower importance: By Whose word all things came to be.

诪讬转讬讘讬 注诇 讛驻转 砖注驻砖讛 讜注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖讛拽专讬诐 讜注诇 转讘砖讬诇 砖注讘专讛 爪讜专转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. It is taught in a baraita: Over bread that has become moldy, and over wine that has formed a film, and over a cooked dish that has spoiled, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Since these foods have partially spoiled, it is inappropriate to recite the specific blessings designated for such foods in their fresh state.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘驻讜专爪诪讗 讚诪讬讝讚讘谉 讗拽专谞转讗

Rav Zevid said: Rav Yehuda concedes that one does not recite the blessing of: Who creates fruit of the vine, on wine made from grape seeds that is sold on the street corners. It is to such significantly inferior wine that the baraita refers. Wine sold in the shops still has the taste and appearance of wine, so one should recite the standard blessing for wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专 讻诪讗谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This is the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and this is the opinion of Rav 岣sda. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Yosef said to him: I know a baraita from which it is possible to derive the halakha.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 95

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 95

讛转诐 讛谉 讞住专 讛谉 讬转讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讜 专讘讬注 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讬转专 诪专讘讬注 讞砖讬讘

There, in the case of the sale of land, the reason the buyer may keep the extra land when it is less than the acceptable limit is that the seller said to him: I am selling you this piece of land whether it is slightly less or slightly more than a beit kor, i.e., he agrees to accept a small deviation from the stated area. But while an extra quarterkav area per beit se鈥檃 is not significant, and therefore the seller is willing to forgo it, more than a quarterkav area per beit se鈥檃 is significant, and the seller is not willing to forgo any of it. Consequently, all of the extra land must be returned. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepts this possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities is greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

讚讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讘转砖注转 拽讘讬谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗专注讗 讞砖讬讘转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讗 讜讛讚专讗

The Gemara explains why more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land is significant: The reason is that since all those extra areas of land are fit to combine together to form an area in which one could sow nine kav of seed, the extra land is a significant plot of land in its own right, and therefore it must all be returned. The land that was sold was stated to be a beit kor, which is thirty beit se鈥檃. If the area of the extra land was of a proportion somewhat more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land, then thirty such areas would collectively be about equal to an area required to sow nine kav.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: The halakha of price exploitation is that if the disparity is less than one-sixth of the value of the merchandise, the merchandise is acquired immediately and the sum of the exploitation need not be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, then the transaction is nullified. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the entire sum of the exploitation.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讚专 注讚 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚讘注讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讻讜诇讛 诪讛讚专

The Gemara explains the proof: Why, in the case where the disparity is precisely one-sixth, is the entire sum of the exploitation returned? Instead, let him return only a small amount of the exploitation until the difference is less than one-sixth. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the fact that he must return the entire sum that when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 砖转讜转 讬讚讬注讛 讜诇讗 诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讬转专 诪砖转讜转 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讘讟诇 诪拽讞

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of exploitation, the seller initially said to the buyer that he would sell the merchandise for a sum equal to its value. Any price difference should be unacceptable. But a disparity of less than one-sixth is not recognizable in a sale worth one hundred dinars, and a person will forgo it. By contrast, a disparity of one-sixth is considered significant, and a person will not forgo it. Consequently, the entire sum of the exploitation must be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, it is a mistaken transaction and the transaction is nullified. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepted that possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities was greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘专讜 诇讬讟注 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 讘讜专讬讜转 诇诪讗讛 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: When one receives a field from another under a contract to plant trees in it, then this field owner accepts upon himself that there may be ten deficient trees per every hundred trees planted, as he is aware that not every tree planted will necessarily flourish. If the number of deficient trees is more than this, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to replace all of those trees, and not only the number of trees above the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讬转专 诪讻讗谉 讻讘讗 诇讬讟注 诪转讞诇讛 讚诪讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: There is no proof from this case, because any time there are more than this number of deficient trees, the overall area that contains the deficient trees is of a size equivalent to a whole field. Therefore, the contractor is comparable to one who comes to plant a whole field from the outset, who has not fulfilled his remit if he plants only a few trees; rather, he must plant the entire area. But in the case of Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling, the impurities never constitute an independent unit; consequently, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities that is above the acceptable limit.

诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 住转诐 拽砖讬讗 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 拽砖讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, one accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the sale? If one said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, with-out specification of which cellar he meant, it is difficult, as the Gemara will soon explain. And if he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult.

讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转 诪专转祝 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讜 讞讜诪抓 讛讙讬注讜

The Gemara elaborates: If he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita: If one said to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, i.e., the buyer does not have to accept any quantity of souring wine. If he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he may give him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of the quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour. If he said: I am selling to you this particular cellar, without mentioning the word: Wine, then even if everything he gives him is wine that had turned into vinegar, it has come to the buyer and the sale is valid. The mishna鈥檚 ruling that the buyer must accept that up to ten percent of the wine might be souring does not accord with any of the rulings of the baraita.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 住转诐 讜转谞讬 讘专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna concerns a case when he said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, without specification of which cellar he was selling. And emend the baraita and teach the following qualification in the first clause of the baraita: And the buyer accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased.

讜讘住转诐 诪讬 诪拽讘诇 讜讛讗 转讗谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 诇讞讘专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 砖讗谞讬 讞讘讬转 讚讻讜诇讗 讞讚 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges this addition: But if he sold the buyer a wine cellar without specification of which one he was selling, does the buyer accept upon himself any souring wine at all? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: One who sells a barrel of wine to another must give him wine that is all of good quality? The Gemara answers: A barrel is different, because the wine inside is all one body of wine of the same quality.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara once again challenges the addition: But didn鈥檛 Rav Zevid teach a baraita of the school of Rabbi Oshaya: If one says to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality? Similarly, if he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten souring barrels per hundred barrels.

讜讝讛讜 讗讜爪专 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜

Rav Zevid concludes: And this is the case of the storeroom, i.e., the cellar, that the Sages taught in the mishna. It is clear from this baraita both that it contradicts the suggested addition to the previous baraita, and that the mishna concerns a case where one specified which wine cellar he was selling.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛

Rather, as indicated by the baraita, the mishna also concerns a case where one says to the buyer: I am selling you this particular cellar, and because he specified a particular cellar the buyer accepts upon himself the possibility that up to ten barrels per hundred might be sour.

拽砖讬讗 讝讛 讝讛

Having retracted the addition to the first baraita, the Gemara asks: If so, it is difficult to reconcile the first baraita, which rules that if the seller specified that he was selling this cellar, he must provide wine that is all of good quality, with the second baraita, that of Rav Zevid, which rules with regard to the same case, in which the seller specified he was selling this cellar, that the buyer accepts that up to ten barrels per hundred may contain souring wine.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the buyer said to him that he needs the wine for cooking, and therefore he requires good-quality wine, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he needs the wine for cooking. The Gemara elaborates: The second baraita, taught by Rav Zevid, is referring to a case where the buyer said that he needs the wine for cooking, whereas the first baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he requires it for cooking.

讛诇讻讱 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛 诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转

The Gemara concludes: Therefore, the halakha is that if one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten barrels of souring wine in each hundred barrels purchased. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讘诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, what is the halakha? Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about this. One says: The buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred, and the other one says: The buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽讘诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚拽转谞讬 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara explains their reasoning. The one who says that the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred infers this though a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. The Gemara explains the inference: The only reason that he must provide him with wine that is all of good quality is that the buyer said to him that he needed it for cooking. By inference, where the buyer does not say to him: I need it for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 砖讻讜诇讜 讬驻讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛

And the one who says that the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine infers this through a precise reading of the first baraita, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where he did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, and even so, the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讚讬讬拽 诪讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 拽砖讬讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇 讜诪专转祝 讝讛 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: But then, according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, the first baraita poses a difficulty. The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If one says: I am selling to you a cellar of wine, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. By inference, where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred. And if one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then one may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the first baraita, the baraita of Rav Zevid poses a difficulty, as we interpreted it as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. And this opinion inferred that if the buyer did not say to him: I need it for cooking, then the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讜讛讗讬 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪拽驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 讝讛 讗讝讛

The Gemara answers: The same is true according to both baraitot, that even where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer need not accept ten barrels of souring wine. And there is no proof from the fact that we interpreted the baraita as referring to a case where he said to him: I need it for cooking, since we did so only due to the difficulty of the contradiction between the ruling of the first baraita in the case where the seller specified that he was selling this cellar and the ruling of the baraita of Rav Zevid in the same case where the seller specified he was selling this cellar. Due to that difficulty, the entire baraita was interpreted as referring to a case where the buyer said: I need the wine for cooking, despite the fact that in the case where he did not mention a specific cellar it makes no difference whether or not he said so.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讬谉 讛谞诪讻专 讘讞谞讜转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讙讘讬 讞诪专讗 讚讗拽专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 Apropos wine that is sold in the shops, the Gemara considers additional halakhot pertaining to such wine: Rav Yehuda says: Over wine of the same quality as that which is sold in the shops, one recites the standard blessing for wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. Despite the fact that such wine is not of the highest quality, it is still regarded as wine. And Rav 岣sda said: Over wine that has formed a film as it begins to sour, why do I need to recite the blessing for wine? Since it has begun to sour, it is no longer regarded as wine. Instead, one should recite the generic blessing recited over foods of lower importance: By Whose word all things came to be.

诪讬转讬讘讬 注诇 讛驻转 砖注驻砖讛 讜注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖讛拽专讬诐 讜注诇 转讘砖讬诇 砖注讘专讛 爪讜专转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. It is taught in a baraita: Over bread that has become moldy, and over wine that has formed a film, and over a cooked dish that has spoiled, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Since these foods have partially spoiled, it is inappropriate to recite the specific blessings designated for such foods in their fresh state.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘驻讜专爪诪讗 讚诪讬讝讚讘谉 讗拽专谞转讗

Rav Zevid said: Rav Yehuda concedes that one does not recite the blessing of: Who creates fruit of the vine, on wine made from grape seeds that is sold on the street corners. It is to such significantly inferior wine that the baraita refers. Wine sold in the shops still has the taste and appearance of wine, so one should recite the standard blessing for wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专 讻诪讗谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This is the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and this is the opinion of Rav 岣sda. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Yosef said to him: I know a baraita from which it is possible to derive the halakha.

Scroll To Top