1)

(a)Rava now queries Rav Huna (who holds that the receptacles of the purchaser will acquire for him in the seller's domain) from a Beraisa which states that, if the purchaser pulled his ass-drivers or laborers into his house carrying the goods that he intends to purchase, unless both 'Medidah' (measuring and placing in the purchaser's domain) and 'Pisuk' (fixing the price) have been performed, he does not acquire the goods, and both parties are entitled to retract. Why can they retract even if ...

1. ... Pisuk was performed but not Medidah?

2. ... Medidah was performed but not Pisuk?

(b)If either the purchaser or the seller unload the vessels that contain the goods and bring them into the purchaser's domain, on what condition will the sale be valid?

(c)Will it make any difference whether they fixed the price before the goods have been unloaded or afterwards?

(d)On what grounds does he acquire them (which kind of Kinyan takes effect)?

1)

(a)Rava now queries Rav Huna (who holds that the receptacles of the seller cannot acquire for the purchaser in the purchaser's domain) from a Beraisa which states that, if the purchaser pulled his ass-drivers or laborers into his house carrying the goods that he intends to purchase, unless both 'Medidah' (measuring and placing in the purchaser's domain) and 'Pisuk' (fixing the price) have been performed, he does not acquire the goods, and both parties are entitled to retract. They can retract even if ...

1. ... Pisuk was performed but not Medidah - because no Kinyan has taken place (since Meshichah is only effective when the goods are either moved along the ground from the domain of the seller to the domain of the purchaser, or placed in his domain.

2. ... Medidah was performed but not Pisuk - because the purchaser is not Somech Da'as (he does not rely on the transaction) before the price is fixed.

(b)If either the purchaser or the seller unload the vessels that contain the goods and bring them into the purchaser's domain, the sale will be valid - from the moment the price is fixed ...

(c)... irrespective of whether they fixed the price before the goods have unloaded or afterwards ...

(d)... because his Chatzer acquires them.

2)

(a)Some commentaries explain that the purchaser acquires the goods once the price has been fixed as we explained (not because of Kinyan Chatzer, but) because of Kinyan Meshichah, assuming the purchaser pulled the goods into his domain after he fixed the price with the seller. How will the case then differ? When must the Pisuk have taken place?

(b)On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

2)

(a)Some commentaries explain that the purchaser acquires the goods once the price has been fixed as we explained (not because of Kinyan Chatzer, but) because of Kinyan Meshicah, assuming the purchaser pulled the goods into his domain after he fixed the price with the seller. We reject this explanation however - in which case the Pisuk musyt have taken place before he pulled the goods into his domain.

(b)We reject this explanation however, because if the Tana is talking about Kinyan Meshichah (and not Kinyan Chatzer), then the proof that we are currently bringing (concerning the vessels of the seller in the domain of the purchaser is no longer valid).

3)

(a)What do we now learn from the Beraisa regarding the purchaser acquiring in his domain goods that are still in the sacks belonging to the seller?

(b)What can we extrapolate from there regarding his acquiring them in the seller's domain if they are placed into his vessels?

(c)How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna?

3)

(a)We now learn from the Beraisa - that the purchaser's domain acquires the goods even though they are still in the sacks belonging to the seller (i.e. the seller's sacks do not prevent the purchaser's domain from purchasing on his behalf ...

(b)... how much more so will the seller's domain prevent the purchaser's sacks from acquiring them on his behalf ...

(c)... a Kashya on Rav Huna - who holds that they do.

4)

(a)Why did Rava object, when, to answer the Kashya, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interpreted 'Pirkan' to mean that the seller unloaded his sacks before emptying them on to the purchaser's domain?

(b)How does Mar bar Rav Ashi answer the Kashya, by establishing the Beraisa by bundles of garlic?

(c)How did Ravina explain to Huna b'rei de'Mar Zutra the need to fix the price, despite the fact that the seller has already unloaded them and placed them on the ground for the purchaser to acquire?

(d)Ravina asked Rav Ashi about an apparent discrepancy between Rav Huna's ruling and a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who rule 'Keilav shel Adam Koneh lo be'Chol Makom' (which can only come to include even the domain of the seller). What did Rav Ashi reply?

4)

(a)When, to answer the Kashya, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interpreted 'Pirkan' to mean that the seller unloaded his sacks before emptying them on to the purchaser's domain, Rava objected, on the grounds that - the word 'Pirkan' does not imply this.

(b)When Mar bar Rav Ashi answered the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by bundles of garlic, he meant that - they were not placed in sacks to begin with.

(c)Ravina explained to Huna b'rei de'Mar Zutra the need to fix the price, despite the fact that the seller has already unloaded them and placed them on the ground for the purchaser to acquire - because otherwise, the purchaser will not rely on the sale, as we explained in the Mishnah.

(d)In reply to Ravina's Kashya presenting an apparent discrepancy between Rav Huna's ruling and a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who rule 'Keilav shel Adam Koneh lo be'Chol Makom' (which can only come to include even the domain of the seller), Rav Ashi replied that - this latter statement refers to a case where the owner specifically told him to go and acquire the goods (which is akin to lending him the location). His first statement on the other hand, speaks S'tam, where the owner said nothing.

5)

(a)According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, how does one acquire ...

1. ... Karka?

2. ... Metaltelin?

(b)How does Rav Chisda (according to the text in Sura, and Rav Kahana or Rava, as recorded in Pumbedisa) qualify the latter ruling? In which case will one not acquire the Metaltelin, according to him?

5)

(a)According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, one acquires ...

1. ... Karka with - Kesef, Sh'tar or Chazakah.

2. ... Metaltelin with - Meshichah.

(b)Rav Chisda (according to the text in Sura, and Rav Kahana or Rava, as recorded in Pumbedisa) qualifies the latter ruling - by restricting it to articles that are too heavy to pick up, because those that are not, can only be acquired with Hagbahah, and not with Meshichah (as we already learned).

6)

(a)If Reuven picks up Shimon's purse on Shabbos and walks out into the street with it, he is liable to pay. What does the Beraisa say in a case where he draggs the purse into the street?

(b)Why the difference?

(c)How can he acquire with Meshichah in the R'shus ha'Rabim?

(d)How does Rav Ada bar Ahavah query Rav Chisda from this Beraisa?

6)

(a)If Reuven picks up Shimon's purse on Shabbos and walks out into the street with it, he is liable to pay. The Beraisa rules however - that if he drags it into the street, he is Patur from paying ...

(b)... because, whereas in the first case, he became a Ganav before he broke Shabbos, in the latter case, the two occurred simultaneously (and he is Patur because of the principle 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih' [the stricter punishment absolves him from receiving the more lenient one]).

(c)He acquires with Meshichah even in the R'shus ha'Rabim - because the Tana is speaking either where he placed his hand below three Tefachim from the ground (though it is unclear what this has to do with our Sugya [see Tosfos DH 've'Ha']), or that R'shus ha'Rabim here refers to a Simta (the side of the street), which acquires according to Rebbi Eliezer (see Sugya in Kesuvos 31a).

(d)Rav Ada bar Ahavah queries Rav Chisda (Rav Kahana) from this Beraisa - which implies that one acquires a purse with Meshichah (even though it is possible to acquire it by Hagbahah.

7)

(a)On what grounds did Rav Ada bar Ahavah object when Abaye answered that the Tana is speaking where the Ganav is pulling the purse by a string?

(b)So what did Abaye really mean?

(c)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explain the Beraisa that we discussed earlier, which specifically states 'bi'Reshus Mocher Lo Kanah ad she'Yagbihenah O ad she'Yotzi'enah me'Reshuso', implying that an object that can be acquired with Hagbahah, can also be acquired with Meshichah?

7)

(a)When Abaye replied that the Tana is speaking where the Ganav is pulling the purse by a string, Rav Ada bar Ahavah objected on the grounds - that this was precisely what he was asking, since he too was speaking in such a case (in other words he did not answer anything).

(b)What Abaye really meant was - that the purse was too large (and heavy) to be picked up, and had to be pulled by a string.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that when the Beraisa that we discussed earlier states 'bi'Reshus Mocher Lo Kanah ad she'Yagbihenah O ad she'Yotzi'enah me'Reshuso' - it is referring (not to an object which can be acquired either with Hagbahah or with Meshichah, but) - either to a small object that is subject to Hagbahah, or to a large one, that is not (respectively).

86b----------------------------------------86b

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Peiros la'Chavero, Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kani'. How do we reconcile this ruling with Rav Chisda?

(b)Why does the Seifa say about somebody who purchases flax? How does he acquire it?

(c)How do we initially explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(d)Why might even Rav, who validates a minimal Meshichah by a ship, concede in this case that flax will need to be moved its full length in order to acquire it?

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Mocher Peiros la'Chavero, Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kani'. To reconcile this ruling with Rav Chisda - by establishing the case by large heavy bundles of fruit that are too heavy to pick up.

(b)The Seifa rules that if someone purchases flax - he must move it from one place to another.

(c)Initially, we explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa in connection with - a minimal Meshichah (less than the length of the fruit), which will suffice by fruit (which is very short), but not by flax (which is long).

(d)Even Rav, who validates a minimal Meshichah by a ship, might concede in this case, that flax will need to be moved its full length in order to acquire it - because, whereas the ship which begins to move, will continue on its course (due to the movement of the water), the flax will remain wherever it is placed.

9)

(a)How do we explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa, after establishing the Reisha by large (heavy) bundles, in order to conform with Rav Chisda? Why is this not possible by flax?

(b)How does Rabeinu Chananel explain 'Sha'ani Pishtan, de'Mishtamit'? What makes the flax slip?

(c)According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, a large animal is acquired through Mesirah, and a small one, in the opinion of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, through Hagbahah. What do the Chachamim say about acquiring a small animal?

(d)How will Rav Chisda explain the Chachamim's opinion, seeing as it is possible to acquire a small animal with Hagbahah?

(e)How does Rabeinu Chananel interpret 'Sha'ani Beheimah de'Sarcha'

9)

(a)After establishing the Reisha by large (heavy) bundles, in order to conform with Rav Chisda, we explain that - this is not possible by flax, because large bundles, which tend to slip, are difficult to handle (and therefore require Hagbahah).

(b)According to Rabeinu Chananel - it is pulling them along (the Meshichah) that causes them to slip.

(c)According to the Mishnah in Kidushin, a large animal is acquired through Mesirah, and a small one, in the opinion of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, through Hagbahah. The Chachamim maintain - that one acquires a small animal with Meshichah.

(d)According to Rav Chisda, the Chachamim permit Meshichah, in spite of the fact that it is possible to acquire a small animal with Hagbahah - because, for practical reasons (based on the fact that it tends to stick its claws in the ground and refuse to be picked up), it is customary to move it by means of Meshichah rather than Hagbahah.

(e)Rabeinu Chananel interprets 'Sha'ani Beheimah de'Sarcha' to mean - that an animal is different because it scratches.

10)

(a)Rav and Shmuel both rule that if Reuven sells Shimon a Kur of wheat for thirty Sela, Shimon can retract right up to the time that the last grain has been measured. What if the wheat is being measured in Shimon's receptacles and in his field, and he already made a Meshichah on twenty-nine Sa'ah?

(b)Then how will we establish our Mishnah 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kanah'?

(c)Under which circumstances do Rav and Shmuel specifically state that Shimon cannot retract? What would Reuven have had to add to his contract to achieve that?

10)

(a)Rav and Shmuel both rule that if Reuven sells Shimon a Kur of wheat for thirty Sela, Shimon can retract right up to the time that the last grain has been measured - even if the wheat is being measured in Shimon's receptacles and in his field, and he already made a Meshichah on twenty-nine Sa'ah.

(b)Our Mishnah 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kanah' must therefore speak - where the purchaser acquired the whole bundle in one go.

(c)Rav and Shmuel specifically state that Shimon cannot retract in a case where Reuven added to his contract - 'Sa'ah be'Sela', in which case he will acquire each Sa'ah as it is measured.

11)

(a)We learned earlier in the Beraisa 'Im Haysah ha'Midah shel Achad meihen, Rishon Rishon Kanah'. How do we know that the Tana is speaking even if the current measure is not full?

(b)What is then the Kashya on Rav and Shmuel? Why is there even more reason to acquire in the first of their two cases than there is in the case in the Beraisa?

11)

(a)We learned earlier in the Beraisa 'Im Haysah ha'Midah shel Achad meihen, Rishon Rishon Kanah'. We know that the Tana is speaking even if the current measure is not full - because that is the distinction the Tana draws between the Reisha (where the vessel is borrowed and where it does not acquire until it is full) and the Seifa (where it belongs to one of them and where it acquires whether it is full or not).

(b)The Kashya on Rav and Shmuel then is - that if in the case in the Beraisa, the purchaser acquires the Sa'ah measure, even though it is not yet full, then in the first of Rav and Shmuel's two cases, where the twenty-ninth Sa'ah is full, he certainly ought to acquire it, in which case the purchaser ought not to be able to retract.

12)

(a)We answer the Kashya by quoting Rav Kahana. What did Rav Kahana say about the Hin measure in the Beis Hamikdash?

(b)What did the markings signify?

(c)If the Beraisa too, speaks where the Kur measure had thirty markings on it, determining the sale of each Sa'ah in the Seifa (where the measure belongs to the seller or the purchaser), then why does the purchaser not also acquire the number of Sa'in indicated by the markings, in the Reisha (where the measure is a borrowed one)?

12)

(a)We answer the Kashya by quoting Rav Kahana, who said - that there were protruding markings on the Hin measure in the Beis Hamikdash ...

(b)... to signify the respective drink-offerings of the lamb (half a Hin [six Lugin] for a bull, a third for a ram [four Lugin] and a quarter of a Hin for a lamb [three Lugin]).

(c)Even though the Beraisa too, speaks where the Kur measure had thirty protruding markings on it, determining the sale of each Sa'ah in the Seifa (where the measure belongs to the seller or the purchaser), the purchaser does not acquire the number of Sa'in indicated by the markings in the Reisha (where the measure is a borrowed one) - because the owner of the vessel lent it to the seller for the duration of the sale, and to the purchaser for after the sale (so what difference will the markings make?)

13)

(a)Why can the Kashya on Rav and Shmuel not be from the Seifa de'Seifa 'bi'Reshus Loke'ach Keivan she'Kibel alav Mocher, Kanah Loke'ach', as some commentaries suggest?

(b)Why would the answer not fit either?

13)

(a)The Kashya on Rav and Shmuel cannot be from the Seifa de'Seifa 'bi'Reshus Loke'ach Keivan she'Kibel alav Mocher, Kanah Loke'ach', as some commentaries suggest - because there the Tana is speaking where he acquires all the produce (and not bit by bit, which is the basis of the Kashya), and because in that case, we should have asked from our Mishnah 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad, Kanah'.

(b)Neither would the answer fit - because the markings only affect the Kinyan there where the purchaser acquires the goods bit by bit, but not where he acquires them all in one go.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF