(a)What happened in Biram, when a Nochri was descending a palm-tree brandishing a Lulav? What did he do with the Lulav?
(b)What did Rav rule there?
(c)Rav Kahana and Rav Asi queried Rav from his own ruling, in connection with wine that is touched by a day-old Nochri (who certainly did not touch it intentionally). What did he rule there?
(d)What was his reply?
1)
(a)When a Nochri in Biram was descending a palm-tree brandishing a Lulav - he inadvertently touched some wine with the Lulav.
(b)Rav ruled there - that the wine could be sold to Nochrim.
(c)When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi queried Rav from his own ruling - forbidding wine that is touched by a day-old Nochri (who certainly did not touch it intentionally), he replied ...
(d)... that he only forbade drinking the wine, but not be'Hana'ah (as they had assumed).
2)
(a)Rav Shimi bar Chiya queried Rav from a Beraisa which discusses someone who purchases an Eved Cana'ani from a Nochri, who subsequently performs Milah but not Tevilah on the children of Shefachos who were born in his house. What is their joint status?
(b)Why does the Tana find it necessary to add the latter case?
(c)What forces us to say that the Shifchah herself did not Tovel?
2)
(a)Rav Shimi bar Chiya queried Rav from a Beraisa which discusses someone who purchases an Eved Cana'ani from a Nochri, who subsequently performed Milah but not Tevilah on the children of Shefachos who were born in is house - who are both Nochrim.
(b)The Tana finds it necessary to add the latter case, to teach us that - even though he grew up in the house of a Yisrael, he still requires Milah and Tevilah.
(c)We are forced to say that the Shifchah herself did not Tovel - because if she d, her children would automatically be Geirim, and would not require dTevilah.
3)
(a)The Beraisa cites two opinions whether the spittle of these Avadim and whatever they sat on in the street is Tamei or Tahor. What is the significance of the word 'ba'Shuk'(in the street)?
(b)Then what is the reason of the opinion that holds Tahor?
(c)What does the Tana then say about the wine that they touch?
(d)How does the Tana define 'Gedolim' and 'Ketanim'?
3)
(a)The Beraisa cites two opinions whether the spittle of these Avadim and whatever they sat on in the street is Tamei or Tahor. The significance of the word 'ba'Shuk'(in the street) is that - whereas the Tum'ah under discussion is only a Safek in their private domain, it is Vaday (due to the Takanas Chachamim that decreed Zivus on all Nochrim) in the street.
(b)The reason of the opinion that holds Tahor is - because Avadim who have had Milah but not Tevilah are rare, and we have a principle that whenever something is unusual, Chazal did not decree on it.
(c)The Tana then says that - whether the wine that they touch is Yayin Nesech or not, will depend on whether they are Gedolim or Ketanim.
(d)The Tana defines 'Gedolim' - as big enough to understand what it means to worship idols, and Ketanim' - as too small to understand it.
4)
(a)How do we query Rav from the Din of Ketanim in the Beraisa?
(b)We answer that the distinction between Gedolim and Ketanim pertains exclusively to the b'nei ha'Shefachos (for the reason that we explained earlier [but not to the first case of Avadim Cana'anim that one purchased]). Then how do we explain 've'Chein' (equating the two cases)?
(c)What problem do we have with this explanation according to the opinion that renders their spittle and what they sat on, Tahor?
4)
(a)We query Rav from the Din of Ketanim in the Beraisa - on the understanding that the distinction between Gedolim and Ketanim pertains to Avadim that one purchased from Nochrim as well as to the B'nei ha'Shefachos.
(b)We answer that in fact, it pertains exclusively to the b'nei ha'Shefachos (for the reason that we explained earlier), and 've'Chein' (equating the two cases) - pertains to 'Rokan u'Medrasan ba'Shuk, Tamei' (but not to 'Yeinan').
(c)The problem with this explanation according to the opinion that their spittle and what they sat on is Tahor is that - if by Avadim, these are Tahor, then it goes without saying that they are Tahor by b'nei Shefachos. So why did the Tana find it necessary to mention them (or it ought to have said 'Avadim she'Malu ve'Lo Tavlu, Rokan Tahor; B'nei Shefachos she'Malu ve'Lo Tavlu, Yeinam, Gedolim ... ').
5)
(a)So what does 've'Chein B'nei Shefachos' come to teach us according to them?
(b)What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought otherwise?
(c)This comes to preclude the opinion of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel. What does Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel say about Avadim whom one purchases from a Nochri, and who already made Milah and Tevilah?
(d)What time period does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi translate this into?
5)
(a)According to them, 've'Chein' comes (for the inference) to compare Avadim that one purchased from a Nochri to B'nei ha'Shefachos, there where they performed both Milah and Tevilah, to teach us that the former, like the latter, do not render Asur wine that they touch.
(b)Otherwise, we might have thought that, seeing as they were brought up as Nochrim and among Nochrim, we suspect them of making Yayin Nesech even after they have become Geirim.
(c)This comes to preclude the opinion of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who rules that Avadim whom one purchases from a Nochri, and who had already made Milah and Tevilah, continue to render the wine that they touch, Asur, until such time as Avodah-Zarah is no longer on their lips.
(d)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi translates this into a time period of - twelve months.
57b----------------------------------------57b
6)
(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman Amar Shnuel's previous ruling from the same Beraisa that we have just been discussing. What does the Tana say that by implication, poses a Kashya on Shmuel?
(b)How does Rav Nachman establish 'Malu ve'Lo Tavlu' to answer the Kashya?
(c)How does he then explain 've'Chein B'nei ha'Shefachos'?
(d)And how does he establish it according to the opinion that holds 'Tahor'? What does he mean when he says 'Avadim Dumya di'B'nei Shefachos'?
(e)Whose opinion does this come to preclude?
6)
(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman Amar Shnuel's previous ruling from the same Beraisa that we have just been discussing. When forbidding the Avadim's wine, the Tana specifically says - 'Malu ve'Lo Tavlu' - implying that in a case of Malu ve'Tavlu, the wine will be permitted (posing a Kashya on Shmuel).
(b)To answer the Kashya, Rav Nachman establishes 'Malu ve'Lo Tavlu' - by the B'nei ha'Shefachos (but the wine of Avadim that he purchased from Nochrim, is Asur even by Malu ve'Tavlu [see also Tosfos DH 'Tirg'ma', and 'Ha Kamashma-Lan').
(c)And he explains 've'Chein B'nei ha'Shefachos' - with reference to the Din of 'Rokan u'Medrasan'.
(d)According to the opinion that holds 'Tahor', he explains 've'Chein ... ' to mean 'Avadim Dumya di'B'nei Shefachos' - just as there, Gedolim render wine that they touch, Nesech, but not Ketanim, so too, do Avadim that one purchased from a Nochri, to preclude ...
(e)... the opinion of Rav, who holds that even a one-day old baby makes Yayin Nesech.
7)
(a)What happened when a certain Nochri asked a Jewish storekeeper whether he had any wine in stock, and he replied in the negative?
(b)How did the Yisrael react to that?
(c)What did Rava rule with regard to the wine in the barrel?
(d)Rav Huna bar Chin'na and Huna bar Rav Nachman (who were not in the same town at the time) disagreed. What happened next?
7)
(a)When a certain Nochri asked a Jewish storekeeper whether he had any wine in stock, and he replied in the negative - the Nochri placed his hand inside a bucket of wine, and asked whether that was not wine.
(b)The Yisrael reacted angrily - by picking up the bucket and emptying its contents into a barrel.
(c)Rava permitted selling the barrel of wine to a Nochri.
(d)Rav Huna bar Chin'na and Huna bar Rav Nachman (who were not in the same town at the time) disagreed. So - Rava's men blew Shofros to announce that the wine was permitted be'Hana'ah, and Rav Huna bar Chin'na and Rav Huna bar Nasan's men blew Shofros to announce that it was Asur.
