Bava Metzia - Daf 73
- פרדיסא: advance payment for future wine of a vineyard at a reduced price
Amoraim dispute the halachah of פרדיסא – an advance payment for the future wine of a vineyard, before the grapes have ripened, at a reduced price. Rav forbids it, but Shmuel permits it. The Gemara explains that Rav holds that since the wine will later be worth much more, מתחזי כי אגר נטר ליה – it appears like “reward for waiting,” i.e., that the buyer received a discount for his advance payment for the wine. Shmuel holds: כיון דהוי ביה תיוהא – since [the crop] can be ruined (by poor weather), the reduced price is not perceived as ribbis, but for accepting the risk. Rav Simi bar Chiya said that Rav agrees to permit a case where the grape are harvested with oxen, דנפיש פסידייהו – because their potential loss is great, because the oxen’s feet are often injured by stumbling over the vines. He agrees that this reduction in price is because of the risk of significant loss.
- Advance payment at a reduced price, then selecting wine from among barrels which soured
Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: חזי מר רבנן דקא אכלי רביתא – Look, Master, how the Rabbis are consuming interest! They give money for wine in Tishrei, when it is sold at a reduced price because some of the wine turns sour before Teves, when the wine is received. Still, they specifically choose wine for themselves in Teves, and do not accept any vinegar!? Since it is common for wine to turn sour, it should be forbidden to demand wine in Teves, which seems to be a benefit for their advance payment.
Rav Ashi answered that when they originally gave money, it was for wine, not vinegar. מעיקרא דחמרא חמרא – Whatever is wine now in Teves, was wine from the beginning in Tishrei; דחלא חלא – whatever is now vinegar in Teves, was destined to become vinegar from the beginning, in Tishrei (i.e., the elements which caused it to sour were already present). ההיא שעתא הוא דקמבחרי – Therefore, it was at that time (Tishrei) that they chose it. Although those barrels could not be identified at the time, the buyer initially only agreed to purchase wine which was free from elements which would later cause it to sour.
- An agent’s liability for failing to purchase wine while its price is low
Rav Chama said that if someone gave money to an agent to purchase wine for him during the season when the price was low, and the agent was negligent and did not buy it for him, the agent must provide him wine according to the low price of the port of Zolshafat (a major market where wine was cheap during the production season). Rav Zevid said this ruling was only issued where the agent was instructed to purchase יין סתם – unspecified wine, which was within his ability to obtain. But if he was sent to purchase יין זה – this specific wine, he is not liable: מי יימר דמזבני ליה ניהליה – for who is to say that [the seller] would have sold it to him? Rav Ashi disagrees, and even exempts an agent who was told to buy יין סתם, because it is an אסמכתא, which is not binding. Rav Ashi is challenged from a Mishnah, which teaches that if a sharecropper commits that if he leaves the owner’s field fallow and does not work it, he will compensate the loss with the best of his property, the commitment is binding!? The Gemara answers: התם בידו – there, it is in his hand to work the field, whereas הכא לאו בידו – here, it is not entirely in his hand to purchase wine, whose sellers may not agree to sell to him.
