ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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) When the Tana ...
1. ... forbids mixing fruit with fruit (i.e. grain with grain) - he is
referring to Reuven, who promised to sell Shimon crops that grew in a
specific field, forbidding him to add fruit from a different field, since it
might be inferior.
(b) The seller may however, mix 'hard' wine with the 'soft' wine that he
promised the purchaser - because it improves it.
2. ... takes for granted that 'Chadashim bi'Yeshanim' is forbidden, he
means - that the seller promised to sell old crops (which are superior,
inasmuch as they are drier [and therefore produce more flour] than new
(c) The Tana permits the sale of wine which became mixed with water, in a
store - provided he informs each purchaser who buys from him.
(d) But he is not permitted, under the same circumstances, to sell the
entire barrel to a merchant - because the intention of the latter is clearly
to cheat his customers.
(a) It is permitted to sell wine mixed with water even without informing the
purchaser - if it conforms with local custom.
(b) A merchant is permitted to buy corn from five producers and to place
them all in the same pile in order to sell them - because everyone knows
that it is the way of merchants to do this, making it the accepted practice.
(c) And the same applies to wine that he purchased from five wine-producers.
(d) It is however, forbidden to do that - if he previously informed the
public that most of his wine was top quality, conveying the impression that
he was not going to mix it.
(a) New grain might cost more than old - because some people want to let the
grain mature in their own granaries.
(b) This does not then mean that the seller will be allowed to add new crops
to the old ones that he promised to sell the purchaser - because seeing as
the purchaser wants old grain, it is evident that he does have that in mind.
(c) With regard to the Din of mixing hard wine with soft, our Mishnah stated
'be'Emes Amru', which Rebbi Elazar interprets to mean - that it is Halachah.
(d) The seller is not permitted to mix ...
1. ... soft (mild) wine with hard (strong) wine, or ...
2. ... old grain with new grain (see Hagahos ha'Gra).
(a) Rav Nachman confines the Mishnah's concession of mixing hard wine with
soft to when the barrels are still near the wine-press - because it is when
the wine is still effervescing that the hard wine effects the soft wine, but
(b) Nowadays however, it is permissible to do so even at a later stage -
because, Rav Papa explains, it has become common practice, and the buyer is
(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika disagrees. He establishes the Mishnah's ruling
like Rebbi Acha - who permits mixing wherever the result can be tasted prior
(a) Our Mishnah first forbids the seller to add dregs to the wine, then adds
that he may give him its dregs. We cannot resolve the seeming contradiction
by establishing the second statement when he informed the purchaser of what
he had done - because the Seifa ('Lo Yimkerenu ba'Chanus Ela-im-Kein ... ')
speaks in such a case, implying that the Reisha doesn't.
(b) Rav Yehudah therefore establishes the first statement by the dregs of
yesterday, and the second, by the dregs of today - by which he really means
to distinguish between the dregs from a different barrel of wine (which
spoil the wine to which they are added, even if both wines are from the same
day) and the dregs from the same wine, which don't (even if they are from
(c) And the reason that he said what he said is - because usually when we
speak of wine from two different days, we mean from two different barrels.
(d) We corroborate Rav Yehudah's answer from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah
says the same thing. When he speaks about 'ha'Shofeh Yayin', he means -
someone who gently pours wine from one barrel to another, to avoid the dregs
from pouring out together with the wine.
(a) When on one occasion, after diluting his wine, Rava found it to be
somewhat bland - he sold it to a merchant.
(b) Abaye queried him - from our Mishnah, which forbids selling diluted wine
to a merchant even after having informed him of what he had done.
(c) Rava dismissed Abaye's concern that the merchant might then add a little
wine to dispel Rava's trademark - on the grounds that, in that case, 'Ein
le'Davar Sof' (one should not even be permitted to sell him water, in case
he adds it to wine before selling it as undiluted wine). Clearly, our
concern is limited to the merchant selling the goods as they are under false
conditions, but not to what that he might do to them after purchase.
(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', and Rav
adds - that this is only permitted as long as the barrel is still in the
vicinity of the wine-press.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah prohibits a storekeeper from ...
1. ... distributing pop-corn and nuts to his young customers - because by
doing so, he lures potential customers away from other storekeepers.
(b) The Chachamim nevertheless permit ...
2. ... selling his goods at a reduced price - for precisely the same reason.
1. ... the distribution of pop-corn and nuts to one's young customers -
because he can say to his competitors 'I distribute popcorn and nuts; you
(c) Aba Shaul prohibits removing the chaff before selling the corn - because
this gives the goods an expensive look, causing the seller to hike his price
(way above the difference between corn with the chaff and corn without it.
2. ... the reduction of the price of one's goods, even going so far as to
say 'Zachur la'Tov' - because that will force others to lower their prices.
(d) The Chachamim nevertheless permit it - because people are willing to pay
the extra price to spare themselves the bother of having to clean the corn.
(e) The Chachamim concede to Aba Shaul however - that one may not clean only
the top layer of corn, causing potential purchasers to think that the entire
batch has been cleaned, when really, it has not.
(a) The Chachamim who permit the seller to remove the chaff from the corn
before selling it is - Rebbi Acha, who permits any improvement that is
visible to the eye. Here too, everyone can see the difference between corn
with chaff and corn without it (and if a purchaser still decides to pay the
high price of clean corn, it because he considers it worth his while to be
relieved of the bother of cleaning it.
(b) Our Mishnah forbids the seller to beautify a person, an animal or
vessels that he is selling. When the Tana speaks about selling a person, he
is referring to - an Eved.
(c) The Beraisa forbids the 'Shirvut' of an animal. 'Shirvut' might mean
feeding it with oat-water - which causes the hair to rise (like a Sharvit [a
(d) Ze'iri Amar Rav Kahana explains 'Shirvut' as - brushing the animal with
a hard brush, which has the same effect.
(e) The other two things that the Tana forbids regarding the meat of an
animal - are blowing up the stomach (giving it the appearance of being
larger than it really is) and soaking the flesh in water (giving it color
and making it look in better shape than it is really is).
(a) Various Amora'im permitted the seller to enhance the looks of their
wares prior to selling.
1. Shmuel permitted a seller to attach silk fringes to a cloak.
(b) We reconcile all of these with our Mishnah, which forbids beautifying
vessels prior to selling them - by establishing our Mishnah by old vessels
(because enhancing their looks to make them look new is cheating), whereas
the above cases are speaking about new ones (where he is merely
demonstrating their real value).
2. Rav Yehudah permitted him to rub colored clothes with oat-water (to bring
out the colors).
3. Rabah permitted him to beat a hemp garment with a hammer (to demonstrate
4. ... Rava permitted him to paint his arrows, as did Rav Papa bar Shmuel,
(a) Rava declined to purchase that 'black-haired and black-bearded' Cana'ani
who asked him to buy him - because, based on the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos
've'Yiheyu Aniyim B'nei Beischa', he preferred to employ poor Jews, so as to
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Zahav' *****
(b) And he must have been a Cana'ani, because after the Churban Beis
ha'Mikdash, when the Din of Yovel no longer applies, that of Eved Ivri does
not apply either.
(c) Rav Papa bar Shmuel did purchase him. When his new master asked him to
get him a drink of water - he washed off the dye from his hair, revealing
the fact that in reality, he was an old man.
(d) When Rav Papa bar Shmuel quoted the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Tzadik mi'Tzarah Nechlatz", he was referring to Rava.
2. ... ve'Yavo Acher Tachtav" he was referring to himself.
***** Perek Eizehu Neshech *****
(a) The Tana describes Neshech, which means bite (because it is as if the
creditor bites a chunk out of the debtor's property).
(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, he is now
permitted to give Shimon wheat to the value of thirty Dinrim (even if he did
not have wheat at the time of the sale) - provided the price is fixed at a
golden Dinar (twenty-five Dinrim) at the time of the sale.
(c) This is permitted - because since the price is fixed, the wheat is
easily obtainable, if not from Reuven, then from somebody else.
(d) What turns this case into 'Tarbis' is - if, when Shimon asks for his
wheat, Reuven, who has no wheat, transfers the loan of wheat into wine for
the same price as the wheat is currently worth (even if the price of wine is
already fixed) We will see later why.
(a) We refer to Neshech in our Mishnah as Ribis d'Oraysa, and Tarbis, as
Ribis de'Rabbanan. The basis of this difference - lies in the fact that the
case in the Seifa takes the form of a sale, and not a loan (whereas Ribis
d'Oraysa is confined specifically to loans).
(b) We extrapolate from the previous statement that the Tana clearly
considers Neshech and Tarbis to be one and the same thing. The problem with
that is - that the Torah presents them as two cases 'Neshech Kesef' and
(c) 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 him, a Danka can buy a hundred and twenty measures,
this is Neshech but not Tarbis - because on the one hand, Shimon pays more
measures than he borrowed, but on the other, at the end of the day, Reuven
receives the same Danka's-worth that he lent Shimon.
(d) We refute ...
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 - because on the one hand, Reuven
receives one thirtieth of a Zuz more than he lent Shimon, but on the other,
Shimon borrowed a hundred measures and that is hat he receives in return.
1. ... the first proposal on the grounds that - if we go after the time of
the loan, it is both Neshech and Tarbis; whereas if we go after the time of
payment, it is neither the one nor the other.
2. ... the second proposal on the grounds that - if we go after the time of
the loan, it is neither the one nor the other, whereas if we go after the
time of payment, it is both.
(a) In spite of our conclusion (that there is no such thing as Neshech
without Tarbis or Tarbis without Neshech), the Torah presents them both as
if they were two La'avin - because they are two La'avin (not two different
La'avin, but) one and the same La'av (and whoever contravenes the one,
contravenes the other).
(b) The Torah writes "Lo Sachich le'Achicha Neshech Kesef, Neshech Ochel".
We know that one also transgresses the La'av of Neshech by food - from the
Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sashich le'Achicha Neshech Ochel".
(c) If the La'av in Behar refers to the creditor, the La'av in Ki Seitzei
refers to - the debtor (because that is the implication of "Lo Sashich").
(d) The Pasuk in "Lo Sashich le'Achicha *Neshech* Kesef *Neshech* Ochel"
includes Ribis (see Tosfos) - because "Lo Sashich le'Achicha Kesef, Ochel"
already teaches us that Neshech applies to both money and food. So the two
"Neshech", which are now not needed for themselves ('Im Eino Inyan'), come
to teach us Ribis in both cases.