(a)Which three things does one need to separate from the wine that one buys from the Kutim?
(b)Why does the Tana need to come on to Bereirah at all? Why can the purchaser not simply separate Terumah and Ma'aser immediately?
(c)How does the purchaser deal with the Ma'aser Sheni that it contains?
(d)What does Rebbi Meir hold?
(a)If one buys wine from the Kutim - one needs to separate Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon (from which one will later separate Terumas Ma'aser) and Ma'aser Sheni.
(b)The Beraisa (of 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin') speaks when he has no vessels into which to pour out the Ma'asros - which explains why the Tana has to come on to Bereirah, in order to designate them.
(c)The Ma'aser Sheni that he designates must be redeemed on a coin that he sets aside for this purpose.
(d)Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Yesh Bereirah' - permits one to do this.
(a)Ula prefers to disregard Ayo in view of our Mishnah. How then, does he resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah, who is quoted together with Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon, who forbid drinking the wine on Shabbos without having separated the Ma'asros first?
(a)Ula, who prefers to disregard Ayo in face of our Mishnah - quotes the opinions in the Beraisa of 'Haloke'ach Yayin' in pairs: Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah permit drinking before having Ma'asered, and Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon forbid it'. In this way, Rebbi Yehudah is consistent with his opinion in our Mishnah i.e. 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(a)Rebbi Yossi forbids drinking the wine without separating the Ma'asros first, suggesting that he holds 'Ein Bereirah'. How does this seemingly contradict his own opinion in the Mishnah in Kinin, with regard to two women who brought two pairs of birds for their respective Korbanos? What does he rule there, that seems to clash with his opinion here?
(b)Rabah answers that the Mishnah in Kinin speaks when the women made a prior condition. What then, is the Chidush? Is that not obvious?
(a)Rebbi Yossi rules - that if two women purchased the four birds for their Korban Leidah together, or who gave the money for their birds to the Kohen, then the Kohen is permitted to sacrifice whichever birds he likes as Olos and whichever he likes as Chata'os. This suggests that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Yesh Bereirah', clashing with his opinion in the Beraisa of 'Haloke'ach Yayin'.
(b)The Chidush of Rebbi Yossi, according to Rabah, in whose opinion the Mishnah in Kinin speaks when the women made a prior condition (see Tosfos DH 'ke'she'Hisnu') - is that if the women did not specifically designate the birds when they originally picked them, then it is only the Kohen who can subsequently designate them for their respective roles, when he sacrifices them, and that this cannot be done verbally, on the part of either the owner or the Kohen (thereby corroborating Rav Chisda, who issues this ruling independently).
(a)If a Chaver buys two bundles of vegetables, one for himself, and one on behalf of an Am ha'Aretz - according to the Chachamim in the Beraisa, he is obligated to Ma'aser the Am ha'Aretz's bundle, before giving it him. Why?
(b)What does Rebbi Yossi hold?
(c)How will we reconcile Rebbi Yossi here with what he wrote earlier with regard to buying wine from the Kutim (where he is of the opinion 'Ein Bereirah)?
(a)If a Chaver buys two bundles of vegetables, one for himself, and one on behalf of an Am ha'Aretz - according to the Chachamim in the Beraisa, he is obligated to Ma'aser the bundle of the Am ha'Aretz, before giving it to him - because they hold 'Ein Bereirah'. And since it is possible that the bundle that he later gives to the Am ha'Aretz is his (the Chaver's) own (which he is now selling to him in exchange for the other bundle, which belongs to the Am ha'Aretz), he is obligated to Ma'aser it, because a Chaver is forbidden to sell un'Ma'asered fruit to an Am ha'Aretz.
(b)Rebbi Yossi holds - that the Chaver is permitted to give the bundle to the Am ha'Aretz without taking Ma'asros, because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(c)In order to reconcile Rebbi Yossi here with his opinion by 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin', where he holds 'Ein Bereirah' - the Gemara switches the opinions of Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan (in the case currently under discussion): Rebbi Yossi rules 'Tzarich le'Aser', and the Chachamim, 'Ein Tzarich le'Aser'.
(a)And how do we reconcile Rebbi Yossi who holds by 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin' 'Ein Bereirah', with the Beraisa, where he says that if someone redeems his Ma'aser Sheni on the coin that comes to hand, and then takes out a coin, the Ma'aser is duly redeemed?
(b)What forces the Gemara to switch Rebbi Yossi's opinion in two Beraisos, to conform with his opinion of 'Ein Bereirah' (by the one Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim')? Would it not be more logical to switch his opinion in the Beraisa of 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin, to conform with his opinion in the two Beraisos (where he holds 'Yesh Bereirah')?
(a)Since we have just established that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Ein Bereirah' - we have no choice but to amend the Beraisa (where he says that if someone redeems his Ma'aser Sheni on the coin that comes to hand, and then takes out a coin, the Ma'aser is duly redeemed), to make it read that the Ma'aser Sheni is not redeemed.
(b)The Gemara is forced to switch Rebbi Yossi's opinion in the Beraisa of Ma'aser Sheni (in spite of the fact that this also entails switching it in the previous Beraisa - of Agudas Yerek) - because of the Seifa of the Beraisa, which says that Rebbi Yossi concedes that if he said 'Ma'aser she'Yesh Li be'Soch Beisi Yehei Mechulal al Sela Chadashah she'Ta'aleh be'Yadi min ha'Kis (and there was only one new coin in the purse) she'Chilal'. This clearly implies that in the Reisha, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Lo Chilal' - because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(a)Rava asked Rav Nachman as to who could possibly be the author of the Beraisa which writes that, if someone places an Eruv for one of five people, the Eruv is only valid if he picks the one he decides upon before Bein Hashemashos, but not if he picks him after that. What bothers Rava? Why can the author not be one of the Tana'im mentioned earlier in the Sugya who hold 'Ein Bereirah'?
(b)Why did Rav Nachman not answer that the Tana concerned is Tana de'Bei Ayo?
(c)'Tana'i Shakalt Me'alma!' Rav Yosef exclaimed, and he quoted a Beraisa with regard to someone who places an Eruv for all the Shabasos of the year. What is the case, and what do the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon (who could be the author of the above-mentioned Beraisa) say there?
(a)Eruv is different than all the other cases of Bereirah quoted above - inasmuch as it is purely mi'de'Rabbanan, as we already mentioned earlier, and that is what prompts Rava to ask who the Tana could possibly be, who holds even by Eruv 'Ein Bereirah'; whereas all the Tana'im mentioned earlier refer to cases which are d'Oraysa (Tevel, Ma'aser Sheni etc.).
(b)Rav Nachman did not answer that the Tana concerned is Tana de'Bei Ayo - because he was unaware of the Beraisa that quotes Ayo.
(c)The Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon say - that if someone places his Eruv for all the Shabbasos of the year, with the express intention of deciding each week whether he will make use of the Eruv or not, then as long as he decides before nightfall that he wishes to use the Eruv, it becomes valid, but not if reaches his decision after nightfall - because they hold 'Ein Bereirah' (even by Eruv).
(a)Rebbi Shimon holds in the previous case that his Eruv is valid, even on the weeks that he decides to use it only after Bein Hashemashos. How does Rav Yosef reconcile this with Rebbi Shimon himself, whom we quoted earlier (in the Beraisa of 'Haloke'ach Yayin') as holding 'Ein Bereirah?
(b)Why does Rav Yosef not answer that Eruv is different, because it is only mid'Rabanan?
(a)Rav Yosef reconciles Rebbi Shimon's opinion with the Rebbi Shimon whom we quoted earlier (in the Beraisa of 'Haloke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim') as holding 'Ein Bereirah - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Shimon (who will now hold that the Eruv is not an Eruv, and the Rabbanan, who hold that it is.
(b)Rav Yosef did not answer that Eruv is different, because it is de'Rabbanan - since, in his opinion, those who hold 'Yesh Bereirah', hold like that even by Bereirah d'Oraysa, whereas those who disagree, hold 'Ein Bereirah', even by Bereirah de'Rabbanan.
(a)According to Rava, Rebbi Shimon really holds 'Yesh Bereirah' (as we saw in 7a). And as for his ruling in the Beraisa of 'Haloke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim': 'Sha'ani Hasam, de'Ba'inan Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin'. What does this mean? How does this explain Rebbi Shimon's opinion there?
(b)What problem does Abaye have with Rava's answer, from the Mishnah in Terumos, where Rebbi Shimon says 'Terumas ha'K'ri ha'Zeh u'Ma'asrosav Besocho ... Rebbi Shimon Omer, Kara Hashem'?
(c)How does Rava deal with Abaye's Kashya?
(a)When Rava, explaining Rebbi Shimon, requires 'she'Shireha Nikarin' - he means that Rebbi Shimon requires that one takes one's Ma'asros before drinking the wine, in order to fulfill the condition of 'Shireha Nikarin', that when one has separated the Terumah, the remainder of the produce is immediately distinguishable (which is not the case by 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin', since there, when he declares the remaining wine Terumas Ma'aser etc, it is not distinguishable.
(b)According to Rava, asks Abaye, why does the Beraisa say 'Terumas ha'Kri ha'Zeh u'Ma'asrosav Besocho ... Rebbi Shimon Omer, Kara Hashem'? - There too, at the time when he declares the Ma'asros, there is no distinction between them and the crops that remain, until such time as he actually separates them?
(c)Rava answers - that here too, it is 'Shireha Nikarin' - since he specifically said Besocho, and the outer section of the crops, is definitely distinguishable from the middle, which is the section that he declared to be Ma'aser.
(a)What final reason does the Gemaraa quote from another Beraisa, to explain Rebbi Shimon's ruling by 'Haloke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim'?
(b)Since Rebbi Shimon holds of 'Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin', why did he present the Chachamim with the reason of 'She'ma Yibaka ha'Nod'?
(a)The Gemara finally quotes from another Beraisa - that Rebbi Shimon's reason (for prohibiting Ma'asering the wine that he purchased from the Kutim in advance, is not because he holds 'Ein Bereirah', but out of concern that, after he has declared the various Ma'asros on the wine in the jar, the jar may just break, with the result, that all the wine that one drank is Tevel (retroactively) - since it now transpires, that what he separated is retroactively not valid.
(b)Although Rebbi Shimon himself holds of 'Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin' (which is sufficient reason to forbid drinking the wine without first separating the Ma'asros), he nevertheless presented Rebbi Meir with the reason of 'perhaps the jar will break open', as if to say: even though you disagree with the principle of 'Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin', won't you at least admit to the suspicion that the jar might break open?