ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
Prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
1) click for question
(a) In a case where Reuven promised Shimon that if he decides to sell his field, he would sell it to him, and he then sold it to Levi ...
1. ... Rav Yosef ruled that the field belonged to Shimon - because when Reuven made the promise, Shimon immediately made a Kinyan on the field.
2. ... Abaye disagreed with Rav Yosef's ruling - because Reuven had not yet fixed the price.
(b) Abaye's source is - our Mishnah, which rules (in connection with Yayin Nesech) 'Madad ad she'Lo Pasak, Damav Asurin'.
(c) We query it however - on the grounds that maybe Yayin Nesech is different (i.e. specifically Yayin Nesech requires 'Pasak' as well as 'Madad', because of the Chumra of Yayin Nesech [even though in this particular case, it turns out to be a Kula]).
2) click for question
(a) We nevertheless confirm Abaye's opinion from Rav Huna who proves it from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if Shimon draws Reuven's fruit-laden donkey-drivers or workers into his domain, he does not acquire the fruit - even if he fixed the price.
(b) Shimon does not acquire the fruit by means of ...
1. ... Meshichah - because Meshichah does not acquire people (and therefore it does not acquire what they are carrying either).
2. ... his domain (which generally acquires on behalf of the owner) - until he unloads it from their backs and places it on the ground.
(c) The Tana rules in the Seifa that if Shimon first unloaded the donkey or the workers and then drew the fruit into his domain, assuming that he ...
1. ... fixed the price but did not measure them - he is not Koneh, and the same will apply if he ...
2. ... measured them but did not fix the price.
3) click for question
(a) In a similar case to the previous one, only where Reuven fixed the price with Shimon at a hundred Zuz, and subsequently sold it to Levi for a hundred and twenty, Rav Kahana ruled - that the field belongs to Shimon.
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov from N'har Pakud objected to Rav Kahana's ruling however, on the grounds - that Reuven never intended to sell it for less than the best price he could obtain for it, and that the higher offer forced him (and authorized him) to retract from the original sale ...
(c) ... and that is the Halachah.
4) click for question
(a) If Reuven agrees to sell Shimon his field 'according to the price assessed by three people', we validate the sale even if he then sold it to him for the price agreed upon by only two of the three people whom he subsequently chose - because his choice of the Lashon 'assessed' plus the mention of three people indicates a Beis-Din, by whom we go after the majority opinion.
(b) The Din would differ if he used the term 'like three people say' (rather than 'assessed') - because it no longer has connotations of a Beis-Din, in which case his specification requires all three to agree to the price ...
(c) ... and the same will apply if he stipulates 'according to the assessment of four people', and all the more so where he says 'like four people say'.
(d) If Reuven stipulates 'the price assessed by three people', and after three people assess it, Shimon demands that three other people (greater experts) assess it, Rav Papa upholds Shimon's claim. Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with him - because who's to say which three are the bigger experts?
5) click for question
(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where ...
1. ... Reuven takes the funnel which he used to pour into a a bottle belonging to a Nochri (which contained some Yayin Nesech [Tif'eres Yisrael]), and pours wine into a bottle belonging to a Yisrael, our Mishnah rules - that if there is an Ikeves (a lip that contains even a drop of wine from the previous use), the wine is forbidden.
2. ... a Nochri pours wine from a barrel belonging to a Yisrael into his own barrel - that the wine in the barrel from which he is pouring is permitted, whereas the wine in the barrel into which he is pouring is forbidden.
(b) We learned in a Mishnah in Taharos that a Nitzok and a Ketapres are not considered joined, either as regards Tum'ah or as regards Taharah. A ...
1. ... 'Nitzok' is - a stream of water flowing through the air.
2. ... 'Ketapres' is - a cascade of water flowing down a steep slope.
(c) When the Tana says 'Eino Nitzok le'Inyan ...
1. ... Tum'ah', he means - that (on the assumption that the water at the foot of either of them is detached), if it is touched by someone who is Tamei, the water that is at the top level remains Tahor.
2. ... Taharah', he means - that if the either of the two are flowing from a Mikveh of forty Sa'ah into a pool that contains less than forty Sa'ah, the water in the pool is not considered a Kasher Mikveh.
(d) The third case included by the Tana in this list is - 'Mashkeh Tofe'ach' - where the water in between two pools of water is moist, but is insufficient to wet the hand to the point that it will in turn, wet whatever it subsequently touches).
(e) If a Tamei person now touches that ground, the pool at either end remains Tahor.
6) click for question
(a) When Rav Huna ruled that all three are considered a Chibur regarding Yayin Nesech, Rav Nachman asked him for his source. Rav Nachman himself rejected the (obvious inference from the) Mishnah in Taharos ('ha'Nitzok ve'ha'Ketapres u'Mashkeh Tofe'ach ... ') as the source - because just as we can extrapolate from there 'Ha le'Inyan Yayin Nesech, Havi Chibur', so too, can we extrapolate from the Seifa ('ha'Ashboren Chibur le'Tum'ah u'le'Taharah'), 'Ha le'Inyan Yayin Nesech, Lo Havi Chibur' (in which case, we cannot infer anything at all from the Mishnah).
(b) An Ashboren is - a crack in the ground which is full of water.
(c) We try to present our Mishnah ('Im Yesh bo Ikeves Yayin, Asur') as Rav Huna's source - because it appears that the wine in the Ikeves became Yayin Nesech through 'Nitzok', whilst the Nochri was using the funnel to pour wine into a bottle which contained Yayin Nesech ('a proof that Nitzok Havi Chibur').
(d) We refute this suggestion however, by establishing our Mishnah like a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya 'she'Pachsaso Tzeluchiso', which means that he had filled the bottle to the extent that the level of wine reached the Ikeves in the funnel.
7) click for question
(a) We cannot extrapolate from Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa that Nitzok is not considered a Chibur - because it may well be that although the Tana of the Beraisa knew that 'she'Pachsaso Tzeluchiso' is considered a Chibur, he was not sure whether Nitzok is too.
(b) We infer from our Mishnah 'ha'Me'areh mi'K'li li'K'li, es she'Me'areh mimenu, Mutar' - 'Ha de'Beini Beini, Asur' ...
(c) ... an apparent proof - that Nitzok is a Chibur ...
(d) ... and the reason that the wine in the vessel from which he is pouring is not forbidden is - because the Tana is speaking where he stopped pouring before the wine touched the floor of the barrel.
8) click for question
(a) We reject the proof from the Reisha of our Mishnah however, by quoting the Seifa - 'es she'Ira le'Tocho Asur', from which we can infer, 'Ha de'Beini Beini, Shari' (which negates the inference from the Reisha).
(b) The Beraisa forbids the wine that is pouring from a barrel into the wine-pit.
(c) We negate the proof from here that Nitzok is a Chibur by Yayin Nesech - by establishing the person who was pouring as a Nochri (whose force [Kocho] the Chachamim forbade).
(d) Nevertheless, the wine in the barrel is not forbidden, too - because the Chachamim confined their decree to wine that has left the barrel.
(e) At the end of the day, Rav Huna has no concrete source for his ruling 'Nitzok Havi Chibur'. Still - the Halachah is like him, since nobody really argues with him.
9) click for question
(a) The reason that ...
1. ... Rav Chisda instructed the wine-pourers to throw the wine into the Nochri's barrel, rather than to pour it is - because he held 'Nitzok Havi Chibur', in which case, the wine that remained in the Yisrael's barrel would otherwise become forbidden.
2. ... Rava instructed the wine-pourers not to allow the Nochrim to help them pour the wine into a Yisrael's barrel - in case they forgot and left the barrel entirely in the Nochri's hands, in which case all the wine in the second barrel would become forbidden.
(b) 'Gishta u'bas Gishta' is where one places an empty barrel beside a full barrel of wine, and after cutting the ends of two bamboo canes diagonally (it is they that are called 'Gishta' and 'bas-Gishta') ...
(c) ... one joins them together in the shape of a 'vee', places one end in the full barrel and sucks at the other end. Then, when the wine begins to flow, one places the other end in the empty barrel, and the wine flows freely from one barrel to the other.
(d) In a case where a Nochri touched the wine that was pouring from the Gishta - Rava forbade all the wine in the Gishta.
(e) When Rav Papa (or Rav Ada bar Masna or Ravina) asked Rava whether his ruling was based on the principle 'Nitzok Havi Chibur', he replied - that this case was different, because all the wine was automatically flowing from the Gishta to the bas Gishta (and it is as if the Nochri had touched the wine in the full barrel).
10) click for question
(a) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman declared that 'K'nishk'nin' - a wine container to whose inside a number of tubes are attached vertically (like straws), protruding above the lip of the container, enabling a number people to drink simultaneously.
(b) By declaring it permitted, he meant - that one is permitted to drink from it at the same time as a Nochri ...
(c) ... provided he finishes drinking before the Nochri (becomes once the Nochri stops drinking, the wine that remains in the container becomes Yayin Nesech.
(d) When Rabah bar Rav Huna visited the Resh Galusa, he permitted them to drink from the 'K'nishk'nin' together with a Nochri. A second Lashon cites Rabah bar Rav Huna as having - actually drunk from K'nishk'nin together with a Nochri (see Tosfos DH 'Ika de'Amri').
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Avodah Zarah