ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 72
AVODAH ZARAH 72-76 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) In a case where Reuven promised Shimon that if he decided 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
Shimon made the promise, Reuven immediately made a Kinyan on the field.
(b) Abaye's source is - our Mishnah which rules (in connection with Yayin
Nesech) 'Madad ad she'Lo Pasak, Damav Asurin'.
2. ... Abaye disagreed with Rav Yosef's ruling - because Reuven had failed
to fix a price.
(c) We query Abaye's source - on the grounds that maybe Yayin Nesech is
different (i.e. that Yayin Nesech specifically 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]).
(a) We nevertheless confirm Abaye's opinion from Rav Huna who proves it from
a Beraisa. 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).
(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 ...
2. ... his Reshus - until he unloads it from their backs and places it on
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.
(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 belonged 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.
(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
(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
(d) If Reuven stipulated 'the price assessed by three people', and after
three people assessed 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
(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where ...
1. ... Reuven took the funnel which he had used to pour into a a bottle
belonging to a Nochri (which contained some Yayin Nesech [Tif'eres
Yisrael]), and poured 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.
(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 ...
2. ... a Nochri poured 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
1. ... 'Nitzok' is - a stream of water flowing through the air.
(c) When the Tana says 'Eino Nitzok le'Inyan ...
2. ... 'Ketapres' is - a cascade of water flowing down a steep slope.
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.
(d) The third case included by the Tana in this list is - 'Mashkeh Tofe'ach'
(when 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). If a Tamei person now touches that ground, the pool
at either end 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.
(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 (and
which is considered joined to pools of water at either end).
(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
(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.
(a) We cannot extrapolate from Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa that Nitzuk 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 Havi Chibur'.
(d) The wine in the vessel from which one is pouring however, is not
forbidden - because the Tana is speaking when he stopped pouring before the
wine touched the floor of the barrel.
(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
(c) We negate the proof from here that Nitzuk Havi 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
'Nitzuk Havi Chibur'. Still - the Halachah is like him, since nobody really
argues with him.
(a) The reason that ...
1. ... Rav Chisda instructed those 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.
(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'), 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
2. ... Rava instructed those 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.
(c) In a case where a Nochri touched the wine that was pouring from the
Gishta - Rava forbade all the wine in the Gishta.
(d) 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).
(a) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman declared that 'K'nishkenin' - 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) ... on condition that 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'nishkenin' together with a Nochri. A second Lashon cites
Rabah bar Rav Huna as having - actually drunk from K'nishkenin together with
a Nochri (see Tosfos DH 'Ika de'Amri').