The Beraisa rules that in a case where Reuven cheated Shimon ...

... less than a sixth - the sale is valid, and the money remains where it is.

... a sixth (according to Rebbi Nasan) - the sale is valid but Reuven must return the entire Ona'ah.

... more than a sixth - the sale is invalid.

We can extrapolate from here (from the latter two cases), that once one returns the part that the recipient is not Mochel, one returns the part that he is Mochel as well. Otherwise, they ought to return only the difference between less than a sixth and a sixth or less than a sixth and more than a sixth, respectively, thereby corroborating Rav Huna (according to the Lashon of 'Mamon').

We differentiate between Rav Huna and the Beraisa however - since in the case of the Beraisa, seeing as Shimon initially paid for an article that was worth what he paid for it, only as long as the discrepancy is less than a sixth, it is barely discernible and he is therefore Mochel, once it reaches as much as a sixth however, it becomes discernible, and he is no longer Mochel, and when it reaches more than a sixth, he negates the entire sale, as opposed to the case of Rav Huna, where the Rova Tinofes is anticipated, the Tana might well concede that Shimon accepts whatever is more than a Rova ha'Kav.

We query Rav Huna once again from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where Reuven hires Shimon to plant trees in his field. He must expect - ten trees per hundred to be infertile and to produce no fruit.

In a case where eleven out of a hundred trees turn out to be infertile - the Tana rules that it is not sufficient for Shimon to replace one tree; he must replace all eleven ...

... a proof for Rav Huna.

Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes the proof - because in Rav Huna's case, the Tana might hold that all Shimon wants, is the Se'ah of crops that he purchased, with a maximum of a Rova of Tinofes; whereas eleven missing fruit-trees is an entire field, in which case Reuven is not in fact Mochel at all.

We learned in our Mishnah 'Martef shel Yayin, Mekabel alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'. According to the Beraisa, if the seller stipulates 'Martef ...

... shel Yayin (S'tam) - he is obligated to give him wine that is all good quality.

... Zeh shel Yayin - he gives him wine that is sold in the store (validating the sale even if all the barrels turn out to be Kos'sos).

... Zeh' - the purchaser must accept whatever he receives (even if all the wine has turned sour (i.e. into vinegar).

According to our current understanding of the Beraisa, the case of Yayin S'tam is different than that of crops and figs, where the purchaser must expect ten 'bad' ones per hundred - because barrels of wine are a. more Chashuv than crops and fruit, and b. it is less frequent to find bad ones among them.

We reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa however - by adding to the Reisha of the latter (of Yayin S'tam) 'u'Mekabel alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'.

Another Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya learns 'ha'Mocher Chavis Yayin la'Chavero, Nosen lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh' (and not Yayin Koseis). In light of the previous Beraisa, the Chidush of this Beraisa is - the fact that although he only purchased one barrel (in which case we might have thought that he purchased the wine to drink immediately, and the wine need not therefore be such good quality) the wine must nevertheless be good quality wine.

We reconcile this with what we just learned (that by Yayin S'tam, the purchaser must accept one in ten Yayin Kos'sos) - by differentiating between someone who buys ten barrels (who has nine barrels of good wine), and someone who purchases only one (who expects that one barrel to be good).

We still have a problem based Tana de'bei Oshaya cited by Rav Z'vid. The Tana there reiterates the Din cited in the previous Beraisa with regard to Yayin S'tam, only he repeats the same Halachah with regard to 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' too (whereas in the previous Beraisa, the Tana held 'Mocher lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus') - and it is with regard to the latter case that he adds 'u'Mekabel alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah' (and not by Yayin S'tam, as we suggested).

When he concludes 've'Zehu Otzar she'Shenu be'Mishnaseinu', he means - that this is the case referred to by our Mishnah.

Consequently, we establish our Mishnah - in a case where the seller said 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher lach'.

To reconcile Rav Z'vid's Beraisa ('Martef Zeh shel Yayin, Nosen lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh, u'Mekabel alav ... Kos'sos') to reconcile it with the Beraisa that we learned earlier ('Nosen lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' [even if they are all Kos'sos])' we establish it - where the seller stated that he was selling him the wine 'le'Mikpah' (as a condiment, to make the food more tasty and to add to cooked dishes) ...

... which needs to be good wine that lasts for a long time.

In the first Beraisa, despite the fact that Shimon must accept as many Kos'sos as he receives, when Reuven stipulated 'shel Yayin' - he meant to preclude wine that has turned into vinegar.

If, in Rav Z'vid's Beraisa, Reuven stipulated 'Martef le'Mikpah', he must give Shimon good wine, even if it is customary to use vinegar for the purpose of 'Mikpah' - because had he meant to give him vinegar, he should not have mentioned 'Mikpah', since 'once wine becomes vinegar, it becomes more and more vinegary (so he should have called it 'Martef shel Chometz').

Rav Z'vid's Beraisa does not insert the case of 'Martef Zeh Ani Mocher lach' - because, having mentioned 'le'Mikpah', 'Martef Zeh' is no different than 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' (based on what we just explained).

The Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina regarding 'Martef shel Yayin' without mentioning 'shel Mikpah' is - whether the seller must still give the purchaser all good wine or whether the latter must accept Kos'sos.

The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Martef shel Yayin' without 'le'Mikpah' is equivalent to Martef S'tam with 'le'Mikpah' (since each case has one advantage and one disadvantage) or not.

Both Rav Acha and Ravina extrapolate their respective views from one of the two Beraisos currently under discussion, both of which state 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher lach, Nosen lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'. The ...

... one extrapolates from Rav Z'vid's Beraisa, which we established where Reuven stipulated that he is selling the wine 'le'Mikpah', that - had he not done so, Shimon would have to accept one in ten 'Kes'sos', and presumably, this extends to the Reisha ('Martef shel Yayin'), as well.

... other extrapolates from the earlier Beraisa, which we established where Reuven did not stipulate that he is selling the wine 'le'Mikpah' (yet he must give him Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh) - that presumably, this will extend to the Reisha (Martef shel Yayin), too.

The first opinion (which insists on 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) will interpret the Reisha of the first Beraisa - where he specifically stipulates 'le'Mikpah'.

The Tana switches (from case to case) in one Beraisa - in order to be able to discuss the entire gamut of possibilities (i.e. that sometimes the seller must supply all good wine, sometimes wine that is sold in the store and sometimes even vinegar).

Whereas the second opinion (which does not require 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) interprets the Reisha of Rav Z'vid's Beraisa - even where the seller did not stipulate 'le'Mikpah' (since we only needed to establish the Seifa by 'le'Mikpah' in order to resolve the discrepancy between the two Beraisos of 'Martef Zeh').

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' for wine that is sold in the store - that tastes like wine but smells like vinegar).

According to Rav Chisda - one recites 'Shehakol'.

We query Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa which regarding bread that has gone moldy, wine that has turned into vinegar and a dish that has changed its appearance (turned sour), rules that - one recites 'Shehakol'.

Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa by establishing the latter by 'Purtz'ma de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa' - poor-quality wine which is sold in the extremities of the city (by the crossroads), where there are a lot of customers looking for cheap wine. This wine is inferior even to 'Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus'.

Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'be'Pirtzufa - (wine that has changed its appearance) de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa'. 'Pirtzufa'.