Our Mishnah rules that if Reuven sells Shimon wine and it turns sour - he is not liable.

The Tana considers the sale cancelled however - if the seller's wine is known to turn sour.

If Reuven promises to sell Shimon spiced wine, he must provide him with his purchase before Shavu'os - because even spiced wine will be adversely affected by the heat of the summer season (Tekufas Tamuz), which begins shortly after Shavu'os.

If he promised him ...

... Yayin Yashan - he must provide him with last year's wine.

... Yayin Meyushan - then he must provide him with wine from the year before last ...

... and it must last until Succos (three complete years, as we will learn later).

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina qualifies the Reisha of our Mishnah - by establishing the case where the wine is placed in the purchaser's barrels (for the sale to be valid), because it was probably his vessels that caused the wine to turn sour.

We query this however, on the grounds that even if the wine would have been in the seller's barrels, the purchaser could not have blamed the seller - because he should have used up the wine immediately, and not kept it for so long.

To answer the Kashya, we establish the Mishnah where Reuven stipulated when he sold the wine - that he was selling it to him le'Mikpah (which is expected to last longer, as we learned earlier), which is why the sale would have been negated had the wine been in the seller's barrels.

He would be liable however, if the wine was in his barrels, even though it turned sour only after he sold it - because wine that turns sour must have been poor-quality wine to begin with (as we learned above in the Sugya of Yayin Koseis).

Rav, who learned above that for the first three days following the sale, the wine remains in the seller's domain, will establish our Mishnah (which absolves the seller from responsibility) - either where the wine is in Shimon's barrels (even within three days), or where it is in barrels belonging to Reuven, but after three days.

The problem with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina establishing the Reisha of our Mishnah by the vessels of the purchaser is - that, in order to do so, he must also establish it where the seller sold it 'le'Mikpah'. The Kashya is why the Mishnah cannot be speaking by Yayin S'tam, and in the vessels of the seller?

Rava justifies Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation, by pointing to the Seifa ('ve'Im Yadu'a she'Yeino Machmitz, Harei Zeh Mekach Ta'us') - which can only be the case if we assume that he sold the wine le'Mikpah. Otherwise, Reuven can counter that Shimon should have used up the wine sooner.

By wine that is not sold 'le'Mikpah' and in the barrel of the seller, we would blame the purchaser for not drinking the wine sooner, even if the majority of people tended to leave wine for longer periods - because, as we have already learned, we follow the opinion of Shmuel, who holds 'Ein Holchin be'Mamon achar ha'Rov'.

Even according to Rav, who does go after the Rov in money-matters, we cannot go after the Rov to hold Reuven responsible even if he did not sell the wine le'Mikpah - because this Rov is non-existent, since some people buy wine to drink immediately, whereas others buy it to drink over a long period.

Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He learns from the Pasuk in Chavakuk "ve'Af ki ha'Yayin Boged, Gever Yahir ... " - that when wine turns sour, it is due to the Mazel of the current owner (i.e. his conceit), meaning that the wine turns out to be not what he thought it was, just as he made himself out to be what he was not).

Consequently - Reuven is Patur from reimbursing Shimon, even though he stipulated 'le'Mikpah', and even if the wine was in his (Reuven's) barrels.

Rav Mari learns from the above Pasuk (" ... Gever Yahir ve'Lo Yinaveh") that - someone who is conceited will even be despised by his own wife.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Lo Yinaveh" "el Nevei Kodshecha" - that someone who is conceited will not be allowed to enter the confines of the Shechinah.

'Kol ha'Misga'eh be'Talis shel Talmid-Chacham, ve'Eino Talmid-Chacham' - - refers to someone who puts on airs as if he is a Talmid-Chacham by wearing clothes that are exceedingly modest in the style of a Talmid-Chacham (as we learned in 'Chezkas ha'Batim'), even though he is not a Talmid-Chacham.

In a case where Reuven gives Shimon the store-keeper a barrel of wine to sell for a small profit, and the wine turns sour after he has sold a third or half of the barrel - Rava absolves Shimon from all responsibility ...

... since he is no more than Reuven's Shali'ach (seeing as he is neither joint-owner of the wine, nor does the barrel belong to him).

He will however, be liable to pay, if he changes the tap of the barrel (since this may have caused the wine to turn sour), or even if he doesn't - should he delay selling the barrel until after market day.

If Shimon receives a barrel of wine (to sell and share the profits) from Reuven, and a price-change occurs or the barrel is stolen or lost - then Reuven and Shimon share the gains and losses equally.

In a case where Reuven instructs Shimon to sell the barrel in Davel Shafat (or Zulsh'fat), and the price drops before he arrived there however, Rava rules - that Reuven must bear the entire loss (seeing as Shimon did not have a mandate to sell it earlier anyway [any more than he would have had, had the price risen in his town before he arrived in Davel Shafat.

They asked what the Din will be if under the same circumstances, the wine turns sour before Shimon arrives in Davel Shafat. Rav Hillel citing Rav Kahana, answered Rav Ashi by quoting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who rules - that as long as the wine is in the barrels of the seller, he must take responsibility for the wine (provided that the purchaser could not be expected to dispose of the wine immediately [as is the case here]).

Consequently, Rav Hillel ruled that, if the wine became vinegar, either they share the loss, not like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina; or that Reuven must bear the entire loss, like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.

We rule like the first Lashon (which in fact, concurs with Rav Chiya bar Yosef, who places the responsibility on the shoulders of the owner or owners) - - based on Shmuel, who rules like the latter, and with whom Rav Yosef concurs (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).

If Reuven sells Shimon land to build a room to accommodate his son after his marriage, the minimum dimensions that Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah obligates him to provide is - four by six Amos.

The same applies to a father-in-law for his widowed daughter. It is ...

... the father who accommodates his son after his wedding (and not the father-in-law) - because due to the closeness that exists between a man and his mother-in-law, it is incorrect for him to live with his parents-in-law (for fear that he might develop an illicit relationship with her), as ben Sira taught.

... the father-in-law who needs to provide accommodation for his widowed daughter after her husband's death - for the same reason, because until now she and her husband were living with his parents.

Rebbi Yishmael describes a room that measures four by six Amos as - a stable (and unfit to live in).

If Reuven contracts Shimon to build him a room, or sells him land to build himself one, if the latter stipulated ...

... a stable, he will be obligated to build a room of - four by six Amos.

... a small room, he will be obligated to build a room of - six by eight Amos.

... a large room - eight by ten Amos.

... a T'raklin (a dwelling for princes) - ten by ten Amos.

The height that each of the above must be is - half of the sum of the length and the breadth (five, seven, nine and ten Amos respectively).

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel brings a proof for this from the Heichal (of the Beis-Hamikdash), which was - forty Amos long, twenty Amos wide and thirty Amos high.

What ben Sira found that was lighter (more detrimental) than ...

... bran was - a man living in his mother-in-law's house.

... a man living in his mother-in-law's house was - one guest inviting another guest.

... one guest inviting another guest was - someone who replies to a question before the questioner has finished the question.

He uses the word 'lighter', because he began with ben Sira's opening phrase - that he weighed on a scales.

If the author of the Mishnah 'ha'Rotzeh La'asos Refes Bakar, Boneh Arba Amos al Sheish' is Rebbi Yishmael, the explanation is obvious. Assuming the author to be Rebbi Akiva however, what the Tana is saying is - that even though these are the dimensions of a stable, people sometimes make their residences the size of stables.

The difference between the two explanations is that - should the author be Rebbi Yishmael, Rebbi Akiva will argue with him in this regard too, inasmuch as, according to him, a stable will then be smaller than four by six Amos.

We interpret T'raklin in our Mishnah as 'Kuvsah bei Vardi'. The full name of 'Kubah', after which this room is named, is 'Kubah shel Zonos' (a brothel).

This princely room is called by such a name - because, like a brothel, it contained many windows. They also used to adorn it with roses, hence the title 'bei Vardi' (Note that the word 'Kubah' also means a cube, and the dimensions of the T'raklin were ten by ten by ten Amos).

We learned in a Beraisa that if a contractor undertakes to build someone a Kantir, he is obligated to build him a 'Tarbatz Apadni' - a large courtyard, similar to those which princes used to build beside their palaces.

The significance of 'Tarbatz' is - because they would constantly sprinkle water to settle the dust (which is what 'Tarbatz' really means).

Some explain 'Re'ayah le'Davar' followed by the proof from the Heichal cited in our Mishnah in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we explained it above. Others however, establish 'Re'ayah le'Davar' as a proof by the Chachamim. However, before they were able to explain what they meant - Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer interjected with 'ke'Binyan ha'Heichal' He was querying the Chachamim's proof (which he knew was from the Heichal), on the grounds that one cannot compare other buildings to the Heichal, due to its prominence.

The problem with the first interpretation, which otherwise seems to be the obvious one - is the fact that the Tana places the words 'Re'ayah le'Davar' before 'Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer', instead of afterwards, as one would have expected.

Acherim in a Beraisa gives the height of a room as 'the beams' - which is the equivalent to its width (because the beams are generally placed along its width).

One possible reason that Acherim equates the height with the length of the beams, rather than with the width of the room, is because 'Beisa me'Ila'i Ravach' which means that - for strength, they tended to build houses wider at the bottom and narrower at the top. Consequently, the measurement of the beam was correspondingly less than the width of the house (which would have been measured at the base).

The second reason is - because the width of the house might exclude the width of the walls (which housed the windows), whereas the beams, which run between the two outer extremities of the two walls, include it.

When Rebbi Chanina went to town, they asked him an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in Melachim. One Pasuk gives the dimensions of the Heichal together with the D'vir as we quoted them earlier, including a height of thirty Amos - the second Pasuk gives it as twenty.

Rebbi Chanina resolved the discrepancy - by establishing the second Pasuk by the height of the D'vir above the edge of the Keruvim (and not from the floor).

The Pasuk gives the height of the D'vir as twenty Amos, measured from above the Keruvim, and not the real height of thirty Amos from the floor - to teach us that the lower ten Amos contained nothing (as if the Keruvim and the Aron were not there, as we shall now see), just as the top twenty Amos really did.