Previous Daf

AVODAH ZARAH 71

Ask A Question

1)   click for question
(a) If a Nochri employer sends his Jewish laborers a barrel of Yayin Nesech in lieu of payment, they are permitted to demand money instead - because a. the wine is not yet theirs, and b. the employer owes them money and not wine.
(b) Consequently, our Mishnah permits it - as long as they have not yet acquired it.

2)   click for question
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav discusses a case where a Yisrael asks a Nochri to pay 'M'nas ha'Melech' - (a royal tax on produce and animals) on his behalf.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits him to repay the Nochri, even if he paid the tax with Yayin Nesech - because he had the option of paying in cash (or other goods), and the choice to pay in wine was the Nochri's.
(c) The Beraisa - forbids asking a Nochri to take his place to placate the 'Otzer' (an officer who demands money from the people), in the knowledge that he will pay him with Yayin Nesech.
(d) 'Otzar' might also mean - a tax on wine and oil to replenish the royal wineries and oil stores.
(e) We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, by citing the Seifa of the Beraisa - which permits asking the same Nochri to save him from the Otzar, implying that the Nochri has the option of paying him money or other goods (where again, the decision to pay in Yayin Nesech is the Nochri's).

3)   click for question
(a) In a case where a Yisrael sells wine to a Nochri, our Mishnah permits the money - provided the fixing of the price precedes the pouring out of the wine, but not where the pouring of the wne preceded the fixing of the price...
(b) ... because then the wine will become Yayin Nesech before the obligation to pay occurs, in which case the money will be payment for Yayin Nesech (as we will explain later).

4)   click for question
(a) Assuming that 'Pardashni' means 'a gift', Ameimar proves that Meshichah acquires from Pardashni which the Nochrim would send each other - since the Nochrim would never retract from a gift (even though no payment of money had taken place).
(b) 'Pardashni' might also mean - a sample of wheat, which the seller would send to the purchaser to test the quality of the Kur of wheat for which they had already fixed a price.
(c) Rav Ashi refutes Ameimar's proof. In his opinion, Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri, and the reason that the Nochrim did not retract by Pardashni is - because of their pride.
(d) Meshichah is not Koneh by a Nochri - money is.

5)   click for question
(a) Rav Ashi bases his opinion on a ruling of Rav, who advised the wine-sellers - to take payment from their Nochri clients before pouring out the wine.
(b) Alternatively (assuming that the purchaser had no money with him), he advised them to lend them the money, and accept it as payment prior to pouring out the wine.
(c) All this was necessary - because otherwise, the wine would become Yayin Nesech (the moment the Nochri touched it [which he usually did after the Meshichah]), before he actually acquired the wine, and the money would then be 'D'mei Yayin Nesech'.

6)   click for question
(a) Rav Ashi extrapolated from Rav's instructions to the wine-salesmen that Meshichah does not acquire - because if it did, then when the Nochri touched the wine, it would have been his own wine that he was making Nesech, and the payment would be for the wine before it became Yayin Nesech.
(b) Ameimar (who holds that it does) will learn that the vessels into which the wine was poured belonged to the Nochrim - in which case the wine would have become Asur immediately at the same time as he acquired it (because all wine in the vessel of a Nochri is Yayin Nesech).
(c) We query this too however, on the grounds - that whereas the Nochri acquires the wine as soon as it enters the air of the barrel, it will not become Nesech until it reaches the floor of the vessel. Consequently, what the Nochri owes the Yisrael will not then be D'mei Yayin Nesech, and ought to be permitted even if the vessel belongs to the Nochri.

7)   click for question
(a) from the fact that wine does in fact becomes forbidden as soon as it enters the air of the barrel - that 'Nitzok Chibur'.
(b) The problem with this is - that it is a She'eilah in Bava Metzi'a, which the current proposal would then resolve.
(c) We refute the suggestion - by establishing the case where the Nochri's barrel was lying on the ground (and was not being held by the owner whilst the wine was being poured), in which case even the wine on the floor of the barrel is not Asur either.

8)   click for question
(a) Based on the ownership of the barrels, we still think that the Nochri ought to acquire the wine even before touching it (in which case, it ought not to be considered D'mei Yayin Nesech) - because his vessels ought to acquire the wine on his behalf.
(b) From the fact that they don't we try to prove - that the vessels of the purchaser cannot acquire on his behalf if they are lying in the sellers domain.
(c) We conclude however, that they do, and the money is considered D'mei Yayin Nesech because of Akeves Yayin on the Nochri's small jars. ' Akeves Yayin' is a narrow lip, which holds a few drops of wine, which are certainly Yayin Nesech.

9)   click for question
(a) We just explained that Rav forbade the wine-merchants to accept any of the money because of D'mei Yayin Nesech, even though only the few drops in the Akeves were actually Asur. We suggest that this does not conform with the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules that - if Yayin Nesech falls into a wine-pit, it may be sold to a Nochri, who deducts only the value of the Yayin Nesech.
(b) Establishing Rav's ruling not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel poses a problem however - due to the principle that whenever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel states an opinion in a Mishnah, it is Halachah.
(c) We solve the problem, by stressing that the author of the ruling in question is Rav, who will rule later - that the Halachah is indeed like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a barrel of Yayin Nesech that got mixed up with good wine, but not with regard to Yayin Nesech that fell into a wine-pit (which is equivalent to Rav's case here).

10)   click for question
(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who purchased broken pieces of silver from a Nochri, and finds among them an Avodas-Kochavim. In a case where he acquired them (with Meshichah) before having paid, the Tana rules - that he may return them.
(b) Abaye refutes the proof from there (against Ameimar) that Meshichah is not Koneh - by ascribing that ruling to the fact that it is a Mekach Ta'us. Rava queries Abaye's answer, from the Seifa of the Beraisa. In a case where the Nochri paid before acquiring them, the Tana rules - that the Yisrael must take the Hana'ah and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach.
(c) According to Rava therefore, it is a false sale in the Seifa no less than in the Reisha. Nevertheless, the Chachamim forbade the pieces in the Seifa - because when the Nochri returns the money in exchange for the pieces of silver, it looks as if he is selling the Avodah-Zarah back to the Nochri.
(d) Abaye and Rava answer Kashyos on Ameimar, who was much younger than them - because Ameimar himself was citing the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan (with which they could well have been familiar), and not his own (indeed, in Bechoros, Abaye and Rava give the same answer directly with reference to Rebbi Yochanan).

11)   click for question
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Yeino le'Akum, Pasak ad she'Lo Madad, Damav Mutarim'. Mar Keshisha b'rei de'Rav Chisda proved from here that Meshichah acquires - because if it didn't, why would the money be permitted?
(b) When Rav Ashi refuted Mar Keshisha's proof by establishing the Mishnah where the Nochri paid the Yisrael in advance - he asked him, in that case, why in the Seifa, the Tana rules 'Madad ad she'Lo Pasak, Damav Asurim'?
(c) Mar Keshisha 'threw the Kashya back' at Rav Ashi - by pointing out to him that even if one were to ascribe the ruling in the Reisha to 'Meshichah Koneh' (like he just did) - the question would remain why the money is then forbidden.
(d) We therefore conclude that, even if we hold ...
1. ... 'Meshichah Koneh' - he will not be Koneh in the Seifa, because the purchaser does not rely on the Kinyan as long as the price had not been fixed, and the same reason will apply even if we hold ...
2. ... 'Meshichah is not Koneh' (in spite of the fact that the Nochri paid him in advance), because he is afraid that the seller will ask him for more.

12)   click for question
(a) Besides that a Nochri who steals something that is worth less than a P'rutah is Chayav Misah is Chayav Misah, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan also rules - that he is not obligated to return it ('ve'Lo Nitan Leheishavon').
(b) Ravina proves from here - that Meshichah is Koneh, because otherwise, why would he be Chayav Misah?
(c) Rav Ashi counters that he is Chayav for causing a Yisrael suffering, and 've'Lo Nitan le'Heishavon' means - that the obligation of returning the article does not apply to a Nochri, even if it is worth more than a P'rutah (seeing as he did not acquire it in the first place) ...
(d) ... and Rebbi Yochanan referred to less than a Shaveh P'rutah - to teach us that even there he is Chayav Misah.

13)   click for question
(a) Rebbi Yochanan then says that if a second Nochri comes and steals the article from the first one - he too, is Chayav Misah ...
(b) ... a final proof that a Nochri must acquire with Meshichah, because otherwise, seeing as the second Nochri does not cause the Yisrael to suffer, why should he be Chayav Misah?

Next Daf