# dafyomi

lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, the enactments of the oath and Ziburis 
          apply to minor and adult orphans.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>COLLECTING FROM PROPERTY GIVEN FOR A GIFT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not collect from Meshubadim if there is 
          Bnei Chorin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami):</font></b> Is a gift considered 
          Meshubadim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the enactment was lest buyers lose, if a creditor 
               collects land given for a gift, the receiver did not 
               lose, so no enactment was made;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, do we say that surely the receiver benefited the 
               giver, so if he loses the gift, this is like a loss?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda - Beraisa):</font></b> If a 
          Shechiv Mera (one who fears lest he die from his illness) 
          said 'give 200 Zuz to Reuven, 300 to Shimon, and 400 to 
          Levi', precedence of document does not give precedence 
          for collection;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if a loan document is collected from the 
               estate, it is collected from all of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'give 200 Zuz to Reuven, and after him to 
               Shimon, and after him to Levi', precedence of 
               document gives precedence for collection;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if a loan document is collected from the 
               estate, it is collected from the last recipient. If 
               he did not receive enough to pay it, the rest is 
               collected from the previous recipient...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Even if the first recipient received Beinonis, and 
               the last received Ziburis, the loan is collected 
               from the Ziburis (for this was the borrower's last 
               Bnei Chorin).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This shows that the enactment was made also 
                    regarding recipients of gifts!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> No. The case is, Reuven, Shimon and Levi 
          did not get gifts. They were creditors being paid up!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says 'give'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It means 'give the money that I owe.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The creditor with the earliest document 
               should be paid first! (When the Shechiv Mera 
               specified an order, why do we follow his order?)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the creditors have no 
               documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> Precedence of document gives 
               precedence...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This refers to whoever is mentioned first in 
               the document detailing the command of the Shechiv 
               Mera.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> Really, a creditor takes Beinonis no matter 
          who received it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa discusses taking from the last one, for 
               he always suffers the loss (whenever a recipient or 
               buyer loses land, he is compensated by latter 
               recipients).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #3:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses when all lands are 
          the same quality. (If they were not, the creditor would 
          receive Beinonis, even if it the last recipient did not 
          have it!)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WE DO NOT COLLECT PEROS FROM MESHUBADIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not collect for Peros (from Meshubadim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> The obligation to pay for the Peros was 
          never written in a document.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Aba):</font></b> It is as if food of a widow and 
               daughters is written (it is a Tanai of every 
               Kesuvah), yet the Mishnah says that they do not 
               collect from Meshubadim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ula):</font></b> It was enacted that they are 
               considered written only regarding collecting from 
               Bnei Chorin, but not regarding Meshubadim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Zeira asked the same question of Rav Asi (who 
               holds like Ula), and received the same answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina):</font></b> The obligation to pay for the 
          Peros has no limit.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT MAY BE COLLECTED FROM MESHUBADIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Chanina also require that the debt be 
          written (to be collected from Meshubadim), or is it 
          sufficient that it has a limit?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We can learn from the following. A case occurred 
          in which a man died and left two daughters and a son. The 
          first daughter took Parnasah (a 10th of the estate for a 
          dowry). The son died before the second took Parnasah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The second daughter forfeits her 
               claim to Parnasah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Chanina):</font></b> Parnasah may be collected 
               from Meshubadim, unlike food for the daughters. How 
               can you say that she does not receive Parnasah?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Parnasah is limited, but it is not written, and 
                    R. Chanina says that it may be collected from 
                    Meshubadim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> People hear about Parnasah, therefore it is as 
          if it is written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach - Mishnah):</font></b> (When Leah 
          married Reuven, she stipulated that he feed her daughter 
          Dinah (from a previous marriage) for five years; she made 
          the same Tanai when she married David). If Reuven and 
          David died, their own daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin 
          (of their fathers). Dinah is fed from even Meshubadim, 
          for she is like a creditor (even though the debt was not 
          written)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, formal acquisitions were made to 
          obligate Reuven and David. (Rashi - presumably, these 
          were written; Tosfos - this is as good as being written.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, acquisitions should also enable their 
          own daughters to eat from Meshubadim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, acquisitions were only made for 
          Dinah, not for their own daughters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Tana pick such a case, that 
          acquisitions were made only for Dinah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Dinah was alive when Leah got married, so an 
          acquisition helps for her. The husbands' own daughters 
          were not alive at the time, so acquisitions would not 
          help for them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Why must we say that the husbands' daughter 
          were not yet alive? Perhaps they were previously married 
          to Leah, and have daughters from the previous marriage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, since a Tanai of Beis Din (the 
          enactment of Kesuvah) obligates feeding their own 
          daughters, an acquisition does not help for them. There 
          is no Tanai of Beis Din for Dinah, so an acquisition 
          helps for her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Why should a Tanai of Beis Din weaken the 
          power of acquisition for the daughters?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather since a Tanai of Beis Din obligates 
          feeding their own daughters, we do not allow them to take 
          Meshubadim, because we are concerned lest their fathers 
          left money for them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Nasan):</font></b> When do we say that 
          consumed Peros and improvements to stolen land may not be 
          collected from Meshubadim? This is when the land was 
          bought before the Peros and improvements;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Peros and improvements came first, they may 
               be collected from land sold later! (Rashi - they are 
               neither written nor limited. We challenge all the 
               Amora'im! Tosfos - they are only limited, but not 
               written. We challenge Ula, and show that R. Chanina 
               must hold that it suffices to be limited.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not collect consumed Peros, 
               improvements to stolen land, or food for the widow 
               and daughters from Meshubadim, because they are not 
               written. This is an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, even without an enactment we do not 
               collect these from Meshubadim, for they are 
               unlimited! (Rashi; Tosfos - the enactment for Tikun 
               ha'Olam is not because they are not written, rather, 
               because they are unlimited!)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES ONE WHO FINDS AN AVEIDAH SWEAR?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who finds an Aveidah does not swear...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> If Reuven claims that he lost two wallets 
          tied together, and that Shimon found them, and Shimon 
          says that he only found one , Shimon must swear;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If Reuven claims that he lost two oxen tied together and 
          that Shimon found them, and Shimon says that he only 
          found one , Shimon need not swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the cases?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Wallets do not come untied by themselves, but 
          oxen do.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Rashi - (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> If Reuven claims that 
          he lost two oxen tied together and that Shimon found 
          them, and Shimon admits to finding them, but claims that 
          he returned one of them, Shimon must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Tosfos - Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven claims 
          that he lost two oxen tied together and that Shimon found 
          them, and Shimon says that he only found one , Shimon 
          need not swear;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven claims that he lost two wallets tied 
               together and that Shimon found them, and Shimon says 
               that he only found one , Shimon must swear. (end of 
               Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Doesn't R. Yitzchak agree that an enactment for 
          Tikun ha'Olam exempts the finder of an Aveidah from 
          swearing?!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) COLLECTING 'PEROS' FROM 'NECHASIM MESHUBADIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah (48b) states, 'Ein Motzi'in l'Achilas Peros... mi'Nechasim Meshubadim.' When a person purchases a field with Achrayus (a guarantee from the seller) and discovers that the field was stolen, the purchaser may collect the value of the field from other fields that the seller owned, which other buyers (Lekuchos) have already bought from him ('Nechasim Meshubadim'). However, he may not collect the value of the Peros (the fruit that his labor on the field produced) from the Lekuchos.
</p><p>
Ula (50b) explains that the reason he may not collect the value of the Peros is that the value of the Peros was not written in the original Shtar (they are not 'Kesuvim') in which the Achrayus was stipulated, since there were no Peros at that time. Since Achrayus for the Peros was not written in the original Shtar, there was no way for the Lekuchos to know about it and to be forewarned. Rebbi Chanina explains that the reason the purchaser may not collect the value of the Peros from the Nechasim Meshubadim is that there is no limit to the value of the Peros (they are not 'Ketzuvin'); one cannot know how much the value of the Peros will be, and therefore that value may not be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim because of 'Tikun ha'Olam.'
</p><p>
The Gemara asks whether Rebbi Chanina means that there must be <i>two</i> conditions, and not just one, in order to collect from Lekuchos. Does Rebbi Chanina intend to add to what Ula says, that besides the fact that the Achrayus of the Peros was not written in the original Shtar, it is not known how much the value of the Peros will be, or does he argue with Ula and say that it does not make a difference whether or not the Peros were written in the original Shtar; Achrayus takes effect on anything that has a set amount (even when not written in the Shtar)? <b>RASHI</b> explains that according to the second possibility, even an unwritten loan (Milveh Al Peh) should be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim since it has a set amount (i.e. the amount of the loan).
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Nasan says that when a thief sells a field with Achrayus <i>after</i> some Peros had already grown in the field, those Peros <i>are</i> included in the Achrayus of the sale and the second buyer (of another field of the seller) will be obligated to pay for the value of the Peros that were in the field at the time of the first buyer's purchase. He is exempt only from paying for Peros that grew in the field <i>after</i> the first buyer purchased the field (for example, in a case where the field was found to be stolen only long after the second buyer bought the second piece of property).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that this Beraisa poses a question on both the opinion of Rebbi Chanina and on the opinion of Ula, because Rebbi Nasan permits one to collect the value of the Peros, with Achrayus, in certain circumstances -- when the Peros were there before the second buyer bought the second field from the thief, while both Rebbi Chanina and Ula maintain that Peros are <i>never</i> collected from the Lekuchos (either because they are not 'Kesuvim' or because they are not 'Ketzuvin'). Rebbi Nasan permits collecting Peros from the Lekuchos even though the Achrayus for the Peros was not written in the original Shtar (as there were no Peros in the field at the time the Shtar was written) and even though the Peros have no set amount, since at the time the Shtar was written no one knows how much the value of the Peros will be.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Rebbi Nasan's ruling is a Machlokes Tana'im ('Tena'i Hi'). The Gemara quotes a different Beraisa in which the Tana Kama explicitly states that Peros may not be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim because of 'Tikun ha'Olam,' since the Achrayus for the Peros is not written in the original Shtar. Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa disagrees and says that this is not a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam,' but rather the reason why Peros may not be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim is that the Peros have no set amount.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that Rebbi Yosi means that it is such an obvious fact that Peros cannot be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim because they have no set amount (they are not 'Ketzuvin') that it is not even necessary for the Rabanan to make a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam' to prevent their collection. Even without a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam,' the person who bought the field with Achrayus cannot collect the value of the Peros since the Lekuchos could not have been expected to be cautious and to avoid buying the field, as they had no idea how much the value of the Achrayus would be (i.e. how much Peros the field would produce).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH O, DH Alma, and DH v'Chi) asks a number of very strong questions on Rashi's explanation. 
</p><p>
1. Why does the Gemara say that Rebbi Nasan's opinion is a Machlokes Tana'im? According to Rashi's explanation, Rebbi Nasan agrees with <i>neither</i> reason of the Tana'im (that Peros are not written in the original Shtar, or that Peros have no set amount). He requires neither 'Kesuvim' or 'Ketzuvin'; he says that one may collect the Peros from the Lekuchos even when the Peros were not written in the original Shtar and even when there is no set limit to the amount of Peros. Accordingly, Rebbi Nasan agrees with <i>neither</i> of the opinions expressed in the Beraisa cited afterwards. The Tana Kama in the Beraisa clearly maintains that the value of the Peros must be written in the Shtar in order to collect from the Lekuchos. Rebbi Yosi, who argues with the Tana Kama, says that it depends on whether the Peros are 'Ketzuvin' or not; there must be a set amount in order to be able to collect from the Lekuchos.
</p><p>
The phrase 'Tena'i Hi' usually means that the opinion under discussion is one of two opinions in a Beraisa or Mishnah which the Gemara will now cite. If the Gemara means to say not that Rebbi Nasan's view is the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im, but that the views of Ula and Rebbi Chanina are represented by Tana'im in another Beraisa, the Gemara should say instead, 'Inhu d'Amri k'Hani Tena'i' -- 'they say like the Tana'im.' In fact, since the Gemara seems to say that Ula and Rebbi Chanina are arguing about the same point as the Tana'im in the second Beraisa, the Gemara should have said the usual expression for such a situation: 'k'Tena'i,' that is, their argument is the same as an argument among Tana'im. Why does the Gemara say 'Tena'i Hi'?
</p><p>
2. How is Rebbi Chanina's view consistent with the second Tana (Rebbi Yosi) in the second Beraisa? Although Rebbi Yosi says, 'Mipnei she'Ein Ketzuvin,' he maintains that this is <i>not</i> related in any way to a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam.' He says that since the value of Peros is not a set amount, it is not necessary to make a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam' in order to prevent their collection from the Lekuchos. Rebbi Chanina, however, clearly says that the Mishnah -- which states that Peros may not be collected from the Lekuchos 'because of Tikun ha'Olam' -- means that the Peros are not a set amount. Accordingly, Rebbi Chanina does <i>not</i> share the opinion of Rebbi Yosi. The Gemara should say that the Beraisa of Rebbi Yosi <i>contradicts</i> the view of Rebbi Chanina and it should say, 'Tiyuvta d'Rebbi Chanina.'
</p><p>
3. Why does Rashi even suggest that Rebbi Chanina might be saying that one may collect a Milveh Al Peh, which has a set amount and is 'Katzuv,' from Nechasim Meshubadim? The Mishnah in Bava Basra (175a) explicitly states that a Milveh Al Peh may <i>not</i> be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, and this is the universally accepted opinion. (The logic behind this ruling is that since no Shtar was written, word of the loan does not spread and thus the Lekuchos were unaware that they needed to be cautious about buying the land). Why, then, does Rashi say that according to Rebbi Chanina, the Mishnah maintains that a Milveh Al Peh <i>may</i> be collected from Lekuchos, and that the only reason why the Peros may not be collected from Lekuchos is that they have no set amount? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> Perhaps these questions answer each other. <b>RASHI</b> maintains that there are two different types of 'Nechasim she'Einam Ketzuvin,' items with values that have no set limit. The first type is items with values that are not known at the time the Shtar was written (such as Peros, whose value was not known at the time of the purchase of the land, since there were no Peros at the time of the purchase), or at the time that the loan was granted. This is the type of 'Einam Ketzuvin' which Rebbi Chanina discusses. There is a second type of 'Ketzuvin,' however, and this is the type which Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yosi discuss: when the value of the Peros was not known at the time the <i>Lekuchos</i> purchased the <i>second field</i> from the seller. That is, if the second buyer, who purchased a field from the one who sold a field with Achrayus to the first buyer, purchased the field before there were any Peros on the first field that was sold to the first buyer, certainly it is impossible for the second buyer to be obligated to pay for the Achrayus of the first field since he had no idea how much Peros would grow on the field. This is a second type of 'Einam Ketzuvin.'
</p><p>
The first type of 'Einam Ketzuvin' is an item for which, theoretically, there could be Achrayus and the Lekuchos could be obligated to pay, but because of 'Tikun ha'Olam' the Rabanan did not apply this Chiyuv and obligate the Lekuchos, because at the time that the Achrayus was originally stated the amount of the Achrayus was unknown. In contrast, the second type of 'Einam Ketzuvin' is when the amount is unknown at the time that the second Lekuchos purchased their field (i.e. at the time of the purchase of the field from which the Peros will be collected). In such a case it certainly is not possible to collect the Achrayus from the Lekuchos, and the reason is not related at all to 'Tikun ha'Olam.' This is the case which Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yosi discuss.
</p><p>
According to this approach, all of the questions on Rashi may be answered. The first question that Tosfos asks is that Rebbi Yosi in the second Beraisa does not seem express the same view as Rebbi Nasan, because he seems to follow the logic of 'Mipnei she'Einam Ketzuvin' and that the ability to collect Peros from Lekuchos definitely depends on whether the Peros have a set amount or not. Rebbi Nasan, in contrast, maintains (according to Rashi) that the ability to collect Peros from Lekuchos is unrelated to whether they have a set amount or not. This is no longer a question; when Rebbi Yosi says that the Peros must have a set amount in order to collect them from the Nechasim Meshubadim, he means that their value must be 'Katzuv' at the time of the purchase of the <i>second</i> field by the <i>second</i> buyer. Rebbi Nasan agrees with this; their value certainly must be 'Katzuv' by that point in time in order to collect from the Lekuchos. When Rashi writes that Rebbi Nasan says that it does not depend on whether or not the value of the item is 'Katzuv,' he means that it does not depend on whether or not the value is known at the time of the purchase of the <i>first</i> field, at the time that the field was sold with Achrayus, in contradistinction to the opinion of Rebbi Chanina (who requires that the value of the Peros be known at the time of the purchase of the first field in order to collect it from Lekuchos). Rebbi Nasan certainly does not agree with the opinion of Rebbi Chanina, and neither does Rebbi Yosi. This is why the Gemara says that Rebbi Nasan's opinion is a Machlokes Tana'im ('Tena'i Hi'); Rebbi Nasan follows the view of Rebbi Yosi.
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Chanina say that the reason of 'Einam Ketzuvin' is related to 'Tikun ha'Olam,' when Rebbi Yosi says that the reason of 'Einam Ketzuvin' is not related to 'Tikun ha'Olam' but rather 'Einam Ketzuvin' is a stronger reason than a Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam' and is unrelated to 'Tikun ha'Olam'? The answer is that Rebbi Yosi is not discussing the same 'Einam Ketzuvin' that Rebbi Chanina discusses! The 'Einam Ketzuvin' which Rebbi Yosi discusses indeed is unrelated to 'Tikun ha'Olam'; it is obvious that the value of the item of the Achrayus must have been established at the time the <i>second</i> Lekuchos purchased their field, because, otherwise, how can Beis Din force them to pay for whatever grows <i>after</i> their purchase? In contrast, the reason of 'Einam Ketzuvin' of Rebbi Chanina certainly <i>is</i> related to 'Tikun ha'Olam'; since there was no set amount at the time of the purchase of the first field, although a known amount of fruits grew afterwards <i>before</i> the second Lekuchos bought <i>their</i> field, nevertheless the Rabanan instituted that the Lekuchos do not have to pay for that Achrayus because of 'Tikun ha'Olam.'
</p><p>
It is now clear that the second Beraisa does not contradict the opinion of Rebbi Chanina at all. Rebbi Chanina and Ula certainly argue with Rebbi Yosi and follow the Tana Kama of that Beraisa. Ula says exactly like the Tana Kama, that the 'Tikun ha'Olam' is because the Peros are not <i>written</i> in the Shtar. As far as Rebbi Chanina is concerned, the Gemara answers its original inquiry and concludes that Rebbi Chanina requires both 'Kesuvim' and 'Ketzuvin,' meaning that in addition to the fact that the Peros must be written in the Shtar, there also must be an established, known value for the Achrayus at the time the Shtar is written, at which time word goes out about the Shibud on the land. Without both conditions, the Rabanan would not obligate the Lekuchos to be responsible for the Achrayus if there is no set amount and it could end up being a very large amount. Rebbi Chanina says that in addition to the reason given by the Tana Kama in the Beraisa (the reason of 'Mipnei she'Einam Kesuvim'), it is logical to suggest that the Rabanan's Takanah of 'Tikun ha'Olam' was also 'Mipnei she'Einam <i>Ketzuvin</i>' because it is not known how much the value of the Peros (or Shevach) will be, as it could end up being an astronomical sum.
</p><p>
This also answers the third question. Why does Rashi suggest that according to Rebbi Chanina there is a possibility that a Milveh Al Peh can be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, when an explicit Mishnah states that a Milveh Al Peh cannot be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim? The answer is that Rashi suggests only that a Milveh Al Peh which is <i>Katzuv</i> (a Milveh Al Peh whose amount is known at the time of the loan) can be collected from the Meshubadim. Such a loan should be collected from Meshubadim according to Rebbi Chanina. Rashi means that it is obvious that even if a Milveh Al Peh can be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim (according to Rebbi Chanina), only a Milveh Al Peh which is executed in front of two witnesses may be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, because Rebbi Chanina maintains that two witnesses will spread the word about the loan even though it is not written in a Shtar. What, though, does the Mishnah in Bava Basra mean when it says that a Milveh Al Peh cannot be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim?
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Bava Basra means that a Milveh Al Peh <i>which has no set limit</i> cannot be collected from Meshubadim. An example of a Milveh Al Peh with no set limit is a case of an uncapped credit facility, whereby a person says to his friend in front of witnesses, 'I want to borrow money from you. Right now I will borrow 100 Zuz, but I will continue to borrow from you later, and any additional amount that I continue to borrow from you shall make my property Meshubad, and you may collect your loan to me from that property.' Later, when the witnesses are no longer present, the borrower continues to borrow more money from the lender. This is a case of a Milveh Al Peh that is not 'Katzuv,' that has no set amount. In such a case, even if the borrower admits in front of witnesses that he owes the lender a large sum of money and that he borrowed more money prior to date on which the Lekuchos purchased the field from him (and therefore at the time of the purchase, the Lekuchos knew that there was a large Shibud on his property), nevertheless Rebbi Chanina rules that the lender may <i>not</i> collect from Nechasim Meshubadim because the Rabanan did not allow a person to create a Shibud which is potentially unlimited at the time that of its creation. Witnesses who spread the word about the loan at the time the Shibud is created spread only the word for the specific amount that they saw. Any future amount will be difficult to determine, and therefore the Shibud that was created cannot apply to the property for any amount that was not known at the time the Shibud was created. 
</p><p>
This is the intent of the Mishnah in Bava Basra, according to the way Rashi explains the Gemara here. The Mishnah says that a Milveh <i>b'Shtar</i> can be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, because the Shtar already has an amount written in it upon which the witnesses signed. When the Mishnah there discusses a Milveh Al Peh, it refers to any loan in which the full amount of the loan is not yet known when the witnesses observe the loan, because the borrower stipulated that he will continue to borrow more money from the lender. Since there is no set amount stipulated, such a loan cannot be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, because at the time of the creation of the Shibud the actual value of the Shibud is not known.
</p><p>
The Gemara here concludes that Rebbi Chanina requires both 'Kesuvim' and Ketzuvin.' Consequently, no Milveh Al Peh can be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim, even according to Rebbi Chanina.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yitzchak holds like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> Sometimes one 
               swears due to his own claim. If Reuven says 
               'Shimon's father deposited one Maneh by me, and I 
               returned half', he must swear;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he is like one who returns an 
               Aveidah; he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Doesn't R. Eliezer ben Yakov exempt one who 
          returns an Aveidah? (Surely he is believed, Migo (since) 
          he could have denied finding anything!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> The case is, Shimon, a minor, claims 
          that Reuven owes the full Maneh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The claim of a minor means nothing!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not swear to counter the claim 
                    of a deaf person, lunatic or minor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rav meant, Shimon is an adult, but in his 
               father's affairs he is (ignorant) like a minor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does R. Eliezer ben Yakov 
                    say that Reuven swears due to his own claim? He 
                    swears due to Shimon's claim!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is Shimon's claim, but Reuven's 
                    admission.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Every case of the oath (of Modeh 
                    b'Miktzas) is due to his own (partial) 
                    admission!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question k:1):</font></b> 
               Really, Shimon is a minor. R. Eliezer ben Yakov and 
               Chachamim argue about Rabah's teaching);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (to Question k:2:i):</font></b> 
               R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that Reuven swears due to 
               what Chachamim call Reuven's own claim. They argue 
               about Rabah's teaching);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> The Torah required one who makes a 
                    partial admission to swear, because one is not 
                    brazen enough to lie and deny his creditor's 
                    claim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Really, he would like to deny the whole claim, 
                    but he lacks the audacity to do so to his 
                    creditor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  Since he lacks the audacity, he would prefer 
                    to admit to the entire claim. He is not doing 
                    this, because he cannot pay the whole claim 
                    now. He is stalling until he can pay it all.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b>  The Torah imposes an oath on him so he will 
                    admit to the whole claim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that likewise, one cannot 
               be brazen to deny the claim of his creditor's son. 
               Therefore, he is not like one who returns an 
               Aveidah. (Rather, he must swear.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that one cannot be brazen to deny his 
               creditor's claim, but he can be brazen against his 
               creditor's son;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since he could have denied the whole claim, but 
                    did not, he is like one who returns an Aveidah 
                    (and need not swear).
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT DO GUARDIANS DO FOR ORPHANS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If orphans asked Reuven to handle their 
          affairs, or their father had appointed him to be a 
          guardian, Reuven must tithe their Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A guardian appointed by their father must swear (that he 
          did not benefit from the estate). One appointed by Beis 
          Din need not swear;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Aba Sha'ul says, one appointed by their father need 
               not swear, but one appointed by Beis Din must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Contradiction - Beraisa):</font></b> 'You (can tithe)', 
          but partners, sharecroppers, guardians, and one who does 
          not own the Peros cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A guardian can tithe Peros that the 
          orphans need to eat now. He cannot tithe Peros they do 
          not need now.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A guardian can tithe Peros the orphans 
          need to eat now. He cannot tithe Peros they do not need 
          now;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  He can sell the following on behalf of the orphans, but 
          only for their current needs:</font></b> animals, slaves, houses, 
          fields, vineyards, Peros, wine, oil, and flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  He buys for them the four species (Lulav...), a Sukah, 
          Tzitzis, and every Mitzvah that has a limit;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This comes to include a Shofar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  He buys for them a Sefer Torah, Tefilin, Mezuzos and 
          everything that has a limit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This comes to include a Megilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  We do not pledge their money for Tzedakah, nor to redeem 
          captives, nor for anything without a limit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This includes (that we don't use their money for) 
               consoling mourners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Guardians may not claim for them in Beis Din for their 
          detriment or benefit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Why can't they claim for their benefit?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, if they claimed intending to 
               benefit the orphans, if the verdict hurts the 
               orphans, it is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Guardians cannot sell lands that are far away to redeem 
          nearby property, nor sell bad property to redeem good 
          property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the property they redeem will be 
               flooded (and it will turn out that this was 
               detrimental for the orphans).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  They may not sell fields to buy slaves, but they may sell 
          slaves to buy fields;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they may not sell slaves to 
          buy fields, lest the purchase be contested.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  They may not set slaves free, but they may sell the 
          slaves to others who will set them free;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, the slave may pay his own value to redeem 
          himself. This is like selling the slave to himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  The guardian must make a calculation with the orphans 
          when they grow up (and swear that he has not kept any of 
          their money);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he need not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Beis Din does not appoint women, slaves or minors to be 
          guardians. The father can appoint one of them to be a 
          guardian.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>PROTESTING AGAINST GUARDIANS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A guardian in R. Meir's area was selling land to buy 
          slaves. R. Meir did not allow this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir saw in a dream that Hash-m wanted to deplete 
               the estate. He did not change his position, for we 
               do not act based on dreams.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Satan instigated quarrels between two certain people 
          every Erev Shabbos. R. Meir visited them three 
          consecutive weeks on Erev Shabbos, and they made Shlomo.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir heard the Satan lament that he was deposed 
               from that house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A guardian in R. Yehoshua ben Levi's area was selling 
          land to buy cattle. R. Yehoshua did not protest, for he 
          holds like R. Yosi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> The basis of a house is the 
               wife; the basis of a field is the ox.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Some orphans relied on a certain woman to conduct their 
          affairs. She sold their cow, and their relatives came 
          before Rav Nachman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches that if orphans 
               rely on one to handle their affairs, he is like a 
               guardian.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The relatives:</font></b> The cow went up in value!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> That is the buyer's gain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The relatives:</font></b> The orphans did not yet receive the 
               money!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> If so, Rav Chanilai bar Idi's law 
               applies.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanilai):</font></b> Orphans are like Hekdesh: 
                    acquisitions are done with them through money. 
                    (Therefore, the cow was not sold yet.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Ravna Ukva was an orphan. Buyers were Moshech his wine 
          (they picked it up, or brought it to their premises) when 
          the price was four. The price rose to six.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Rav Chanilai's law applies. Since they 
               did not give the money, the acquisition is not 
               valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If a buyer was Moshech Peros of orphans, and the price 
          went up, Rav Chanilai's law applies (the sale is 
          invalid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the price went down, a commoner should not have 
               greater power than Hekdesh (i.e. the orphans, who 
               are like Hekdesh. Just like one who buys from a 
               commoner cannot retract after Meshichah, one who 
               buys from orphans cannot retract after Meshichah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If a guardian was Moshech Peros to buy them for orphans 
          and the price went up, a commoner should not have greater 
          power than Hekdesh (a commoner acquires through 
          Meshichah, and owes the value at that moment. The same 
          applies to orphans.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If the price went down, seemingly, Rav Chanilai's law 
          should apply (and the sale is invalid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> No, this would be 
          bad for the orphans;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sometimes orphans need to buy Peros, but do not have 
               money. If the law is that the sale is invalid if the 
               price goes down, no one will sell to them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  If orphans gave money to buy Peros, and the price went 
          down, a commoner should not have greater power than 
          Hekdesh (if a commoner gave money but did not yet do 
          Meshichah, he could retract. Also the orphans can 
          retract).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  If the price went up, seemingly, Rav Chanilai's law 
          should apply (the sale is valid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> No, this would be 
          bad for the orphans;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ABILITY OF AN 'APOTROPOS' TO SEPARATE TERUMAH FOR 'YESOMIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that an Apotropos appointed to oversee the property of Yesomim is obligated to separate Ma'aser from their produce. The Gemara questions the Mishnah's ruling from a Beraisa which states that the verse which discusses Terumah says 'Atem' ('you') (Bamidbar 18:28). This verse teaches that only the owner of the field may separate Terumah, excluding an Apotropos from separating Terumah for Yesomim. Rav Chisda answers that when the Mishnah permits an Apotropos to separate Terumah, it permits him only to separate it for the purpose of feeding the fruit to the Yesomim now but not to store the fruit away for use later or to use for making a profit. 
</p><p>
The question remains, however, that if the verse says that an Apotropos may not separate Terumah from the produce of the Yesomim because he is not the owner, what difference does it make whether he separates the Terumah to enable the Yesomim to eat the fruit now or for another purpose? In either case, he should not be allowed to separate Terumah.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that the Apotropos indeed has no right to separate Terumah from the produce of the Yesomim. The reason why he may separate Terumah is 'Tikun ha'Olam.' The Rabanan, through their power of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker,' removed the fruit of the Yesomim from their possession and gave it to the Apotropos in order for him to separate Terumah from the fruit. They made this enactment for the sake of 'Tikun ha'Olam,' so that Yesomim will have food available to eat. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that when it is clearly beneficial for the Yesomim (such as in order to enable them to eat), the Apotropos may separate Terumah through the principle of <i>Zechiyah</i> ('Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav'). That is, since it is a benefit to the Yesomim to have Terumah separated from their fruit in order to be able to eat it, the Apotropos may provide them with this benefit. However, the Apotropos may not separate Terumah for the Yesomim in order to store away the fruits, because doing so provides no clear Zechus for the Yesomim (and the Apotropos was not appointed as the Yesomim's Shali'ach to do so because the Yesomim are Ketanim and are unable to appoint a Shali'ach).
</p><p>
The Ramban clearly understands that Zechiyah does not work through Shelichus. (That is, the fact that the act benefits the recipient shows clearly that the person who performs the act does so in the capacity of a Shali'ach on behalf of the recipient, as Rashi explains earlier (9b).) Rather, the Ramban maintains that the reason Zechiyah works is through a different mechanism altogether, as the <b>RAN</b> in Kidushin (42a) and others explain. Zechiyah is a unique mechanism by which one can make something take effect for somebody else, without utilizing the mechanism of Shelichus. The principle of Zechiyah states that if this act is beneficial for someone, the Torah allows another person to make the benefit take effect without asking the recipient and without having to be his Shali'ach. Hence, when the Torah says 'Atem' and excludes an Apotropos, it does not mean 'you' and not one who is <i>Zocheh</i> on behalf of the Yesomim, but rather one <i>can</i> be Zocheh (when it is a real Zechiyah, such as in order to provide them with food to eat) on behalf of Yesomim who are unable to appoint a Shali'ach.
</p><p>
This approach, however, seems to conflict with the principle set forth by the <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b>, who writes that one cannot sell another Jew's Chametz before Pesach using the concept of Zechiyah, saying that it is beneficial for the Jew not to own Chametz during Pesach and to avoid transgressing the Aveirah of owning Chametz during Pesach, because Zechiyah works only to <i>give</i> something to someone and <i>not</i> to <i>remove</i> something from his possession. According to this principle, why does the Ramban write that an Apotropos may separate Terumah from the produce of Yesomim through Zechiyah, when that Zechiyah involves taking the Terumah fruits out of the possession of the Yesomim?
</p><p>
The answer is that the separation of Terumah does not involve giving something away. Rather, there was always some portion of fruits owned by Kohanim (i.e. Terumah) mixed in with the fruits (Tevel) of the Yesomim. By separating Terumah from the fruits, one merely shows that these fruits are (and always were) the property of the Kohanim while the rest are the fruits of the Yesomim. Hence, one is not taking away anything from the Yesomim that belonged to them until now (see <b>RAN</b> in Nedarim 12a).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that mid'Oraisa an Apotropos is really much more than a stranger appointed to oversee the Yesomim's property. He is actually a Shali'ach for the Yesomim. Although the Yesomim cannot appoint a Shali'ach, the Apotropos is appointed by Beis Din to take care of the Yesomim and thus he is empowered like a hand of the Yesomim themselves. Therefore, whatever he does is fully binding, whether it is beneficial or detrimental for them. Although the Yesomim cannot appoint a Shali'ach themselves, they can have an Apotropos who acts in the capacity of an extension of them. 
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that the Beraisa which says that an Apotropos cannot separate Terumah for Yesomim is only an Asmachta. It is an Asmachta mid'Rabanan for the Halachah that the Rabanan instituted when they said that an Apotropos cannot separate Terumah in order to store away the remaining fruits. 
</p><p>
The <b>SHACH</b> cited by the Ketzos ha'Choshen (CM 243:7), the <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>, and the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> here understand the Rashba's intention differently. They understand that the Rashba means to explain like the Ramban, who says that an Apotropos may separate Terumah for the Yesomim through the mechanism of Zechiyah. Consequently, they ask strong questions on the Rashba's explanation. However, the <b>CHIDUSHEI REBBI SHMUEL</b> (Bava Basra 131b) points out that the intention of the Rashba is not that the Apotropos is able to separate Terumah through the principle of Zechiyah, but, as explained above, the Apotropos is like a hand of the Yesomim, and thus he can effect a Zechus or a Chovah for them. He cites an example for this from the words of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (cited by the <b>ROSH</b> to Bava Metzia 10a) who explains that an Apotropos is not considered to be 'Tofes l'Ba'al Chov' when he takes money on behalf of the Yesomim from someone who owes a debt to the Yesomim, but rather he is like a hand of the Yesomim themselves.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'MY WIFE, MY HOME'</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rebbi Yosi teaches that a wife is called 'Bayis.' In numerous places metaphors of 'building' are used with regard to marriage. What is the meaning behind this metaphor?
</p><p>
(a) When Boaz married Ruth, the people who witnessed the wedding blessed Boaz that Hash-m should make Ruth 'like Rachel and like Leah, who together <i>built</i> the house of Yisrael...' (Ruth 4:11).
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara in Kesuvos (8a) lists the Birchos Chasanim, the special blessings recited for seven days after a wedding. In the blessing of 'Asher Yatzar,' we say that Hash-m 'formed Adam in His image... and He established for him from his own flesh an everlasting structure,' a reference to Chavah. Rashi explains that Chavah is called a 'Binyan,' structure, based on the verse, '<i>va'Yiven</i>... Es ha'Tzela' (Bereishis 2:22). The Gemara in Berachos (61a) teaches that the Torah calls Chavah a 'structure' because of the unique physiological composition of a woman's body which enables her to carry a child. (See also Rashi to Shemos 19:3, who writes that ''<i>Beis</i> Yakov' -- the <i>house</i> of Yakov -- refers to the woman.')
</p><p>
(b) The nature of a woman as a 'Binyan' manifests itself only after she is married, when the man has the opportunity to serve as the 'builder' and the woman has the opportunity to become 'built.' 
</p><p>
<b>HA'RAV DOVID COHEN</b> shlit'a points out that these 'constructive' roles of man and woman are alluded to in their Hebrew titles. 
</p><p>
A male child is called a 'Ben,' and a female child is called a 'Bas.' An adult male is called an 'Ish,' and an adult female is called an 'Ishah.' The Chachamim point out that what differentiates 'Ish' from 'Ishah' is that the word 'Ish' contains the letter Yud and 'Ishah' contains the letter Heh (Sotah 17a). When the male child, the 'Ben,' marries a woman, he acquires the Heh of the 'Ishah,' which makes him a 'Boneh' (spelled Beis-Nun-Heh). He is involved in building the Binyan. When the female child, the 'Bas,' marries a man, she acquires the Yud of the 'Ish,' and she becomes the Binyan or 'Bayis' (Beis-Yud-Tav), the foundation of the home.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi may have called his wife 'Bayis' in order to remind himself of his responsibility towards her. It is only through his bond to her that his wife becomes 'built' into a proper 'Bayis.'
</p><p>
In a certain sense, the same may be said to explain why Rebbi Yosi called his ox his 'field.' The ox's potential to bring a person his livelihood must be developed by its owner, who invests his time and resources into plowing with it and caring for it. To remind himself of this, Rebbi Yosi called his ox his 'field.'
</p><p>
(c) The house that is built by a man and his wife is not just a physical one. It is a dwelling place for the Shechinah, for the Divine Presence of Hash-m. The Gemara in Sotah (ibid.) teaches that when there is peace between a man and his wife, the Shechinah dwells in their midst. The letter Yud of the word 'Ish' and the letter Heh of the word 'Ishah' come together and form the name of Hash-m to symbolize that the Divine Presence rests upon them (see Rashi to Bereishis 30:16). Their home becomes a 'Mikdash Me'at,' a miniature reproduction of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Sotah continues that if there is no peace between a man and his wife, Chas v'Shalom, the letters of the name of Hash-m -- the Yud and Heh -- depart from the 'Ish' and 'Ishah,' leaving two flames -- 'Esh' -- which destroy each other. It seems that even when there <i>is</i> peace between them, fire also plays an important role. Hashem's presence is compared to an 'all-consuming fire' (Devarim 4:24; see Sotah 14a). For this reason, smoke and fire always mark the place upon which the Divine Presence rests, as on Mount Sinai and in the pillar of flame that escorted the Jewish people out of Mitzrayim. Zecharyah (2:9) relates that when Hash-m will return to Zion, He will be 'as a protective wall of fire surrounding it,' when He will rest His Divine Presence inside it.
</p><p>
The peaceful union of man and wife creates a dwelling place for the protective fire that denotes Hashem's Presence. This, in turn, alludes to the fire of the Torah, which leads a person along the way of Hash-m and protects Him from all harm (see Sotah 21a). 'One who is without a wife is without Torah' (Yevamos 63a), and one who is <i>with</i> a wife is equipped to construct a house built on the foundations of Torah study and observance. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the law is that the sale is valid, if there is a 
               fire where the Peros are (in the seller's premises), 
               the seller will not exert himself to save it, since 
               it will be the loss of the orphans. (This is the 
               reason why Chachamim decreed that money does not 
               acquire movable objects.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  If a buyer paid money for Peros of orphans, and the price 
          went up, a commoner should not have greater power than 
          Hekdesh. (One who buys from a commoner does not acquire 
          until Meshichah. The same applies here.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  If the price went down, seemingly, Rav Chanilai's law 
          should apply (the sale is valid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> No, this would be 
          bad for the orphans.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sometimes, orphans need money. If the law is that 
               the buyer cannot retract if the price goes down, no 
               one will pay them before receiving the Peros!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rav Kahana and I signed a document selling 
          the land of an orphan to pay his head-tax, even though it 
          was not announced that his land was being sold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Chachamim of Neharde'a taught, that for 
               head-tax, food and burial, we sell property of 
               orphans without announcement.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  Amram Tzava'ah was a guardian. The orphans' relatives 
          came in front of Rav Nachman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The relatives:</font></b> The guardian is using their money to 
               dress nicely!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> This causes people to heed his words 
               (it is good for the orphans).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The relatives:</font></b> He is eating and drinking nicely. It 
               must be from their money, for he is not established 
               to be wealthy!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Perhaps he found money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The relatives:</font></b> He is causing a loss to their 
               property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Bring witnesses to testify about this, 
               and I will remove him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> We remove a guardian who causes a 
                    loss to the property.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (D'Vei R. Shilo):</font></b> We do not remove him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  The Halachah is, we remove him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH GUARDIANS MUST SWEAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A guardian appointed by the orphans' father 
          must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had the guardian not benefited from the father, 
          he would not have agreed to be a guardian. He will not 
          refuse just because he must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A guardian appointed by Beis Din need not 
          swear.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He is merely helping Beis Din. If he would need to 
               swear, he would refuse to be a guardian.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Aba Sha'ul):</font></b> The law is the opposite in both 
          cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> A guardian appointed by Beis Din gets a 
          reputation for reliability. He would not refrain due to 
          the need to swear, so we impose an oath on him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 2:</font></b> A guardian appointed by the father need 
          not swear. He accepts merely to help his friend. If he 
          would need to swear, he would refuse to be a guardian.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanan bar Ami):</font></b> The Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> Both must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava - Beraisa):</font></b> A guardian 
          appointed by the father must swear, for he is paid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Avahu):</font></b> He is not paid! Rather, he is like 
          one who is paid.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>UNNOTICEABLE DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven was Metamei Shimon's Peros, or mixed 
          them with Terumah, or was Menasech (this will be 
          explained) b'Shogeg, he is exempt. If he was Mezid, he 
          must pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav):</font></b> The case of Menasech is understood 
          simply. He poured wine for a libation to idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> No, he mixed Shimon's wine with Yayin Nesech 
          (wine that was offered to idolatry).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Shmuel explain like Rav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel holds that in such a case, Reuven would be 
          exempt (since at the time he damages, he is Chayav Misah 
          (liable to death) for serving idolatry).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav holds like R. Yirmeyah, who says that Reuven 
               acquired (responsibility for) Shimon's wine when he 
               picked it up. He is not Chayav Misah until he pours 
               it to the idolatry.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>UNNOTICEABLE DAMAGE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Rav explain like Shmuel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mixing wine is just like mixing Peros with 
          Terumah. The Mishnah would not teach this case twice.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel holds that we can not derive one fine from 
               another. Each must be taught by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav holds that we can derive fines from one 
          another. Why must the Mishnah teach these three cases?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn mixing Terumah with Chulin from 
          being Metamei:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If (the case is) he was Metamei Terumah, he renders 
               it totally inedible. We could not learn to mixing 
               Terumah and Chulin (the mixture is permitted to a 
               Kohen);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he was Metamei Chulin, perhaps we were more 
               stringent there, because it is forbidden to be 
               Metamei Chulin in Eretz Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We could not learn the fine for being Metamei from 
               that for mixing Terumah and Chulin, for the latter 
               is more common;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> From these two fines, we could not learn about 
               Menasech. One might have thought that he is exempt 
               because he is Chayav Misah. The Mishnah teaches that 
               this is not so, for R. Yirmeyah's reason.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avin's father):</font></b> At first, they taught about 
          (liability of) one who was Metamei or Menasech (another's 
          Peros or wine, b'Mezid). Later, they taught about even 
          one who mixes with Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must all these cases be taught?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One is not Chayav Misah for being Metamei, so we 
          could not learn to Menasech (one might have thought that 
          he is exempt from paying because he is Chayav Misah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We could not learn from Menasech, which renders the 
               wine worthless, to being Metamei, in which case the 
               Peros retains some value;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We could not learn from these two cases, in which 
               there is a large loss (it cannot be eaten), to the 
               case of mixing Terumah and Chulin, which causes only 
               a small loss.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES THE TORAH OBLIGATE PAYMENT FOR UNNOTICEABLE DAMAGE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chizkiyah):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one is obligated whether he 
          caused unnoticeable damage b'Shogeg or b'Mezid. The Torah 
          considers it damage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It was a Rabbinical enactment to exempt one who 
               damaged b'Shogeg, in order that he will tell the 
               victim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the same enactment should apply to one 
          who damaged b'Mezid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If he damaged b'Mezid, surely he will tell him. 
          His whole purpose was to cause him a loss!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one is exempt whether he 
          caused unnoticeable damage b'Shogeg or b'Mezid. The Torah 
          does not consider it to be damage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It was a Rabbinical enactment to obligate one who 
               damaged b'Mezid, to deter people from being Metamei 
               each other's Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mefagel (intended to eat or 
          offer a Korban in a forbidden time or place, which 
          disqualifies the Korban) b'Mezid, he must pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This is an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam. (The 
          following questions are against Chazakah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If unnoticeable damage is considered damage, 
          the Beraisa should teach that b'Shogeg he is exempt, due 
          to an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is what the Beraisa means! If he was Mezid, 
          he is liable. If he was Shogeg, he is exempt. This is an 
          enactment for Tikun ha'Olam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa):</font></b> If one used Mei Chatas 
          (water on which ashes of the red heifer were put) or a 
          Parah Adumah itself (thereby disqualifying them), he is 
          exempt b'Yedei Adam (Beis Din does not make him pay), but 
          he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim (at the hands of Heaven).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If unnoticeable damage is considered damage, he 
               should be liable b'Yedei Adam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> The case is, he brought a Parah 
          Adumah into the pen so it should nurse and thresh, or 
          used the water. (It is disqualified only due to his 
          intent. Beis Din cannot make someone pay for damage due 
          to intent.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava taught that if one used Mei Chatas to 
          weigh something, the water is still valid!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) UNRECOGNIZABLE INDIRECT DAMAGE </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (52b) states that one who <i>accidentally</i> defiles his friend's Tahor fruits, mixes his friend's Chulin with Terumah so that a non-Kohen may not eat it, or makes his friend's wine into Yayin Nesech, is exempt from liability for the damages. If he did so <i>willfully</i>, he is obligated to pay for the damages.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a dispute between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan with regard to the reasoning of the Mishnah. Chizkiyah maintains that according to Torah law, one is obligated to pay for 'Hezek she'Eino Nikar' -- 'damage that is not recognizable,' whether he caused the damage accidentally or willfully. The only reason why the Mishnah exempts him from liability when he causes such damage accidentally is to encourage him to reveal the item's true status to the owner without having to worry that he will have to pay. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that mid'Oraisa one is never obligated to pay for damage that is not recognizable. However, the Rabanan decreed that one who willfully causes such damage should pay in order to deter a person from damaging the property of another in this way.
</p><p>
Rebbi Elazar questions Chizkiyah's opinion from a Beraisa. The Beraisa states that if a person performs work with Mei Chatas (the water used in the Taharah process with the ashes of the Parah Adumah) or with the Parah Adumah itself, he is exempt from liability in the laws of Beis Din, but in the laws of Shamayim he is held accountable. (The Torah (Bamidbar 19:2, 9) states that doing work with the Mei Chatas or Parah Adumah renders them unfit for use.) Rebbi Elazar asks that according to Chizkiyah who says that one is liable for such damage according to Torah law, why is he exempt from liability in the laws of Beis Din when he renders the Mei Chatas or Parah Adumah unfit for use? (The <b>MAHARSHA</b> addresses why the Gemara does not ask the same question from the Beraisa on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.)
</p><p>
Rebbi Elazar answers his own question by asserting that the Beraisa refers to a case in which a person placed the young Parah Adumah calf into its pen so that it should suckle from its mother <i>and</i> thresh the produce together with the other animals. Since the only reason why the calf becomes unfit is that the person's intent was that it should also thresh, it is impossible to make him pay because of his thought alone, for his thought certainly is only a 'Gerama' -- 'indirect damage.' Similarly, the Gemara concludes that the Mei Chatas becomes invalid because of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' (he neglected to keep in his mind at all times that he was guarding the water in order that it be fit to be used as Mei Chatas; see Rashi DH Masnisin). Since the damage depends on his thoughts (or lack thereof), it is deemed indirect damage for which he is not held accountable in Beis Din.
</p><p>
The Gemara here apparently contradicts the Gemara in Bava Kama (98a). The Gemara there states that one who picks up his friend's coin and throws it into the sea must pay for the loss of the coin. The Gemara there understands that when one picks up an object with intent to damage it, he acquires the status of a thief and becomes obligated to return the stolen object. Accordingly, the one who throws the coin into the sea is now obligated to return the object, even though the damage occurred only through 'Gerama' (the coin is not actually damaged but is merely inaccessible). In the case of the Gemara here, the person does an action which causes damage -- he prods the calf into the pen or picks up the water and puts it on a scale. According to the Gemara in Bava Kama, he should be obligated to pay in this case since his action with intent to damage should give him the status of a thief who is obligated to return the object. How are these two Gemaras to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Bava Kama 2:13) suggests that the Beraisa here refers to a case in which the person had a 'Hesech ha'Da'as' at the moment he lifted up the Mei Chatas. Since the water became invalid at the same time that he picked it up, it is considered as though he picked up Mei Chatas that was already unfit. The damage is deemed to have been done <i>before</i> he picked up the Mei Chatas, and thus it is like he stole water unfit to be Mei Chatas. Accordingly, he may return water that is unfit to be Mei Chatas. Similarly, in the case of the Parah Adumah, the calf is considered to have threshed before he had in mind that it should do so. (See the Chazon Ish who offers other answers at length.) 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Bava Kama 41) answers based on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> (53b, DH Gazlan), who discusses the circumstances under which a thief is entitled to claim, 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' (he returns the stolen object to the owner and claims that it is sufficient compensation), according to the opinion of Chizkiyah who says that one is not liable to pay for unrecognizable damage. When a thief steals fruit and some of it rots in his possession, he may return the fruit in its present state to the owner and say, 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha.' This is because the fruit is still extant and has undergone no 'Shinuy' (significant change). In contrast, in a case in which a thief returns a stolen coin that has gone out of circulation, or he returns stolen Chametz after Pesach, the stolen object has become valueless. In such a case the thief may not claim, 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha.'
</p><p>
Accordingly, the case of the Gemara in Bava Kama is unrelated to the case of the Gemara here. The Parah Adumah and Mei Chatas have value aside from their usefulness for the Taharah process. The Parah Adumah is a calf which has added value when it is eligible for use for the Taharah process, and the Mei Chatas is a jug of water which has added value when it is eligible for use for the Taharah process. Rendering them unfit for use for the Taharah process is not a significant enough change because it does not take away their inherent worth (as a calf or as water). The Kehilos Yakov suggests that this is similar to the case in which a thief steals fruit and only <i>some</i> of the fruit rots, in which the claim of 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' is still applicable. Accordingly, in the cases of the Gemara here, one still may claim 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' and thereby fulfill his obligation to return the object. In the case in Bava Kama, the thief cannot claim 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' simply because he does not have the coin which he stole. (See also <b>AYELES HA'SHACHAR</b> to Bava Kama 98a.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rava discusses weighing something against the 
          water (e.g. on the other side of a balance scale). R. 
          Elazar discusses when the water itself was used (e.g. 
          meat was 'weighed' by placing it in a full Kli of water 
          and measuring how much spilled out).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If an action was done with the water itself, 
          if unnoticeable damage is considered damage, he should be 
          liable b'Yedei Adam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> In both cases, he weighed against the water. 
          The water is disqualified only if he took his mind off of 
          guarding it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa - Mishnah):</font></b> In the following cases, a 
          thief may return the stolen object and need not 
          compensate for the loss:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He stole a coin, and it became disqualified; he 
               stole Terumah, and it became Teme'ah; he stole 
               Chametz, and Pesach came (forbidding benefit from 
               it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If unnoticeable damage is considered damage, since 
               he is a thief, he should need to compensate for the 
               loss!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Chizkiyah is refuted. (Really, we will shows that Tana'im 
          argue about this. The Gemara says that he is refuted 
          because the Halachah does not follow him.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FINING UNINTENTIONAL DUE TO INTENTIONAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about unnoticeable damage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If Reuven made Shimon's Peros 
               Tamei, or mixed Shimon's Peros with Terumah, or was 
               Menasech, whether he did this b'Mezid or not, he 
               must pay;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if he did this b'Shogeg, he is 
               exempt. If he was Mezid, he must pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Meir holds that unnoticeable damage 
               is considered damage, and R. Yehudah holds that it 
               is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, all hold that 
          unnoticeable damage is not considered damage. R. Meir 
          holds that we fine one who damaged b'Shogeg due to one 
          who damages b'Mezid (lest one say that he was Shogeg). R. 
          Yehudah does not make such a fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> R. Meir and R. Yehudah both hold just the 
          opposite!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one cooked on Shabbos 
               b'Shogeg, he may eat it. If he was Mezid, he may not 
               eat it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, he may eat it 
               after Shabbos. If he was Mezid, he may never eat it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, if he was Shogeg, after 
               Shabbos others may eat it, but he may not. If he was 
               Mezid, even others may never eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (part 1):</font></b> R. Meir does not contradict himself. He 
          fines Shogeg due to Mezid regarding mid'Rabanan Isurim, 
          but not regarding Torah Isurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Menasech is a Torah Isur, and R. Meir 
               fines!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This is an exception. He fines it due to the 
               severity of idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (part 2):</font></b> R. Yehudah does not contradict himself. 
          He fines Shogeg due to Mezid regarding mid'Oraisan 
          Isurim, but not regarding mid'Rabanan Isurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Menasech is mid'Oraisa, and R. Yehudah 
               does not fine!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This is an exception. He need not fine it, 
               because people refrain from this anyway because of 
               the severity of idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Elsewhere, R. Meir fines Shogeg due to 
          Mezid regarding mid'Oraisa laws (and R. Yehudah does 
          not)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one planted on Shabbos 
               b'Shogeg, he may let it grow. If he was Mezid, he 
               must uproot it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he planted in Shemitah, whether he was 
                    Shogeg or Mezid he must uproot it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if he planted in Shemitah b'Shogeg, 
               he may let it grow. If he was Mezid, he must uproot 
               it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he planted on Shabbos, whether he was Shogeg 
                    or Mezid, he must uproot it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question:</font></b> In that Beraisa itself, R. Meir (and R. 
          Yehudah) are inconsistent. Shabbos and Shemitah are both 
          mid'Oraisa!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (for R. Meir - Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> One who 
          planted in Shemitah must uproot it, because Yisre'elim 
          count the years of Shemitah. (When people see him redeem 
          the fruit (it has Kedushas Revai) in the fourth year, 
          they will know that the tree was planted in Shemitah, and 
          they will assume that this is permitted);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is no such concern regarding Shabbos, so he 
               may let the tree grow.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FINING UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSERS OF TORAH LAWS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (for R. Meir):</font></b> Yisre'elim are suspected to 
          transgress Shemitah, but not to transgress Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why is the second answer needed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that sometimes the 
               30th day before Shemitah is Shabbos, and people will 
               remember that a tree was planted on that day (so 
               that the 30 days will be considered the first of the 
               three years of Orlah, in which the fruits are 
               forbidden). The Beraisa teaches that Yisrael are not 
               suspected to transgress Shabbos, so we are not 
               concerned for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for R. Yehudah):</font></b> In R. Yehudah's area, people 
          were very stringent about Shemitah (so we are not 
          concerned lest they transgress).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man in R. Yehudah's area was insulted. He retorted 
               by saying 'at least I don't eat (forbidden) Peros of 
               Shemitah like you do!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If a non-Kohen ate Tamei Terumah 
          (b'Shogeg), he pays an equal quantity of Tahor Chulin (it 
          becomes Terumah). If he paid with Tamei Chulin:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sumchus cites R. Meir to say that if this was 
               Shogeg, it is valid payment. If he was Mezid, it is 
               not valid payment;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in either case, it is payment (it 
               becomes Terumah), but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> (According to R. Meir) when he gave Tamei 
               Chulin b'Mezid, why is it invalid? He ate something 
               totally unfit for the Kohen, and paid something 
               (Rashi - he thought would be; Tosfos - at the time 
               was Chulin, and) permitted for the Kohen to eat when 
               he is Tamei!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated. It should 
               say as follows. If he ate Tamei Terumah, he pays 
               back Chulin. It may be Tahor or Tamei. If he ate 
               Tahor Terumah, he pays back Tahor Chulin;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he paid Tamei Chulin, Sumchus cites R. Meir 
                    to say that if this was Shogeg, it is valid 
                    payment. If he was Mezid, it is not payment;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Chachamim say, in either case it is payment, 
                    but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Culmination of question - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika):</font></b> 
               R. Meir holds that we do not fine Shogeg due to 
               Mezid, and Chachamim say that we do!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There the man intended to fulfill his Mitzvah to 
          pay. R. Meir does not fine one who was engaged in a 
          Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If blood of a Korban became Tamei and 
          was thrown on the Mizbe'ach, if it was b'Shogeg, the 
          Korban may be eaten. If it was b'Mezid, the Korban is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There the man intended to get atonement. It is 
          improper to fine him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one tithed food on Shabbos 
          b'Shogeg, the food may be eaten. If he was Mezid, it is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There the man intended to make his food 
          permissible. It is improper to fine him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one immersed Kelim on Shabbos 
          b'Shogeg, he may use them. If he was Mezid, he may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There the man intended to be Metaher his Kelim. 
          It is not fitting to fine him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FINING UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSERS OF RABBINIC LAWS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Elsewhere, R. Yehudah fines about 
          mid'Rabanan laws!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS AN AM HA'ARETZ SUSPECTED OF VIOLATING THE LAWS OF SHEVI'IS?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that although people are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah, they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbos. The Gemara clearly does not mean that a known, observant Jew who is scrupulous in his performance of the Mitzvos is not careful with the laws of Shemitah. Rather, the Gemara means that people who are not always careful about Mitzvos, such as Amei ha'Aaretz, are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah but not the laws of Shabbos.
</p><p>
The Rishonim note that the Mishnah in Demai (3:5) apparently contradicts the supposition that Amei ha'Aretz are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah. The Mishnah there states that when one gives an innkeeper his tithed produce to watch, he must separate Ma'aser again when he receives it back from the innkeeper because the innkeeper is suspected of replacing his food with food that was not tithed. The Mishnah there does not suspect the innkeeper of violating the laws of Shemitah.
</p><p>
How is this contradiction to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> in Chulin (6a) quotes <b>RABEINU SHMUEL</b> of <b>RAMERUPT</b> who answers that the case in the Mishnah in Demai takes place in the fourth or fifth year of Shemitah when no produce of Shemitah is left, and thus the Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah.
</p><p>
(b) The Ramban quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that the suspicion with regard to Shemitah applies only to an 'Am ha'Aretz Chashud,' a 'suspected ignoramus' who is already suspected of violating such laws. An ordinary 'Am ha'Aretz,' in contrast, is generally careful about Shemitah. The Ramban agrees with the answer of Rabeinu Tam. (The <b>RASHBA</b> in Chulin also cites this answer in the name of the Ramban.)
</p><p>
(c) The Ramban quotes the <b>RA'AVAD</b> who answers the contradiction based on the words of the Gemara here. The Gemara states that in the area of Rebbi Yehudah the people took the laws of Shemitah very seriously. Accordingly, Rebbi Yehudah maintained that an ordinary Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah. However, other Tana'im indeed maintain that an ordinary Am ha'Aretz is suspected of violating Shemitah. Any Mishnah (such as the Mishnah in Demai) which says (or implies) that an Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah is in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. (Y. Montrose) 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah):</font></b> (There was a 
               mixture of forbidden Parech nuts, i.e. an esteemed 
               species, with permitted nuts. Whole Parech nuts are 
               never Batel in a mixture.) The nuts fell and broke. 
               Whether this was Shogeg or Mezid, the mixture is 
               still forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if they fell b'Shogeg, 
               the nuts can become Batel (in the proper amount of 
               permitted nuts). If they fell b'Mezid, they are not 
               Batel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Mid'Oraisa, any minority is Batel. Mid'Rabanan, a 
               minority of important things is not Batel, and R. 
               Yehudah fines!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, he fines lest the person scheme to make 
          them fall so they will become Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> There, R. Yosi fines one who was Mezid. 
          Elsewhere, he does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one has a tree of Orlah or Kilai 
               ha'Kerem (a forbidden crossbreed in a vineyard), and 
               cannot remember which tree this is, he may not 
               harvest his trees. (A tree cannot become Batel, but 
               the Peros can. Normally, Kil'ai ha'Kerem is evident! 
               Perhaps a sapling grew b'Isur in a vineyard and was 
               replanted among similar trees. Alternatively, a vine 
               was growing next to a tree in an orchard, forbade 
               the tree, and the vine was removed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he harvested the trees, and he knows that there 
               are more than 200 times as much permitted Peros as 
               forbidden Peros, the latter are Batel, provided that 
               he did not intend for this;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, even if he intended for this, the 
               forbidden Peros are Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava and Ravin):</font></b> Normally, one would be careful 
          not to allow one tree to forbid all his trees, and he 
          would clearly designate the forbidden tree. This case is 
          rare, so R. Yosi makes no fine.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS ONE WITNESS BELIEVED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mefagel (disqualified a Korban 
          through intent to eat or offer some of it outside the 
          allowed time or place) b'Mezid, he must pay for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven was working with Shimon's 
          Taharos (Tahor food or Kelim) and he told Shimon that 
          they became Tamei, he is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies if he was offering Shimon's Korban 
               and he told him that it became Pigul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he tells him 'your food or Korban that I worked with 
          on a previous day became Tamei or Pigul', he is not 
          believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is he believed only in the Reisha?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He is believed only when it is b'Yado 
          (he could make it Tamei or Pigul) at the time he tells 
          him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Reuven is not believed when he did not 
          tell Shimon the first time he saw him (after, according 
          to Reuven, it became Tamei).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> If Levi told David 'the Peros that we were 
          working with the other day became Tamei', letter of the 
          law he is not believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan citing R. Yosi):</font></b> The Torah 
          believes him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Where does the Torah say this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna):</font></b> We learn from the 
          Chata'os offered in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur. 
          (Tosfos - we know that every Korban can become 
          disqualified due to Pigul through any of its four Avodos 
          with the blood.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How could we know that they became Pigul 
               (through throwing the blood)? 'No (other) man will 
               be in the Ohel Mo'ed (when the Kohen Gadol offers 
               these)'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We must say that the Kohen Gadol is 
               believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps from outside we heard him say that he 
          sprinkles with intent to burn the Chelev on the Mizbe'ach 
          after the allowed time!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We would not know that he said this when he 
          sprinkled. Perhaps he said this after sprinkling!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps someone saw the Kohen Gadol through an 
          opening in the wall of the Heichal (and knows that he 
          said this while sprinkling)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult. (Chasam Sofer DH Kohen - if one 
          witness were not believed, they would have needed to 
          build an opening. The Gemara initially assumed that no 
          opening was built, and later challenged this.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS A SCRIBE BELIEVED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A scribe said 'the Sefer Torah that I wrote for Ploni is 
          Pasul because I wrote the occurrences of Hashem's name Lo 
          Lishmah (without intent).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Ami:</font></b> Who has the Sefer Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The scribe:</font></b> Ploni has it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Ami:</font></b> You forfeit your wages through your admission, 
          but you are not believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> Granted, he is not paid for 
          writing those names, but he should get paid for writing 
          the rest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> Since the names are not Lishmah, the 
          Sefer Torah is worthless.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't he overwrite the names with intention 
          to sanctify them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Ami holds like Chachamim who argue with R. 
          Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> In a place where Hashem's 
               name must be written, a scribe mistakenly thought 
               that he needs to write 'Yehudah.' He omitted the 
               'Daled' (it turns out that he wrote Hashem's name 
               without intent). He overwrites the letters with 
               intention to make them Kodesh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, this is not a nice writing of 
               Hashem's name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> R. Ami could even hold like R. Yehudah. R. 
          Yehudah permits overwriting His name once, but not every 
          place it occurs, for such a Sefer appears spotted. 
          (Chasam Sofer - R. Yirmeyah thought that he can overwrite 
          the names Lishmah. Even though this will not permit it 
          for Kri'as ha'Torah b'Tzibur, it may be used to teach 
          children. R. Ami answered that even then, it must be 
          buried.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  A scribe said 'the Sefer Torah that I wrote for Ploni is 
          Pasul because I did not tan the hide for the parchments 
          Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Avahu:</font></b> Who has the Sefer Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The scribe:</font></b> Ploni has it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Avahu:</font></b> Since you are believed to forfeit your wages, 
          you are also believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different than R. Ami's case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, one can say that the scribe really wrote 
          it Lishmah, but he thought that he could disqualify the 
          Sefer and still receive most of his wages, like R. 
          Yirmeyah thought. Here, the scribe knows that he forfeits 
          his entire wage. Presumably, he is telling the truth! 
          (Even in this case, the scribe would receive the value of 
          a Chumash that one may learn from, but this is very small 
          compared to the value of a Kosher Sefer Torah.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) REBBI YEHUDAH'S OPINION IN THE CASE OF 'MIN B'MINO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (53b) states that Rebbi Yehudah did not penalize a person who accidentally transgressed a rabbinic prohibition. However, Rebbi Yehudah <i>did</i> penalize a person who accidentally transgressed a Torah law; Rebbi Yehudah prohibited him from benefiting from the outcome of his transgression in order that he not come to transgress a Torah law willfully.
</p><p>
The Gemara poses a contradiction to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from his own ruling in a Beraisa. The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah who rules that forbidden fruits which become mixed with permitted ones and then become crushed there render the entire mixture forbidden, whether they become crushed by accident or on purpose. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Naflu) explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which certain choice nuts, 'Egozei Perech,' of Orlah fall into a batch of similar nuts that are not Orlah. The forbidden nuts render the entire mixture forbidden even if only one forbidden nut falls into a thousand or more permitted nuts. Why are the forbidden nuts not Batel when they are outnumbered by permitted nuts? Bitul does not apply because of the significance of Egozei Perech.
</p><p>
This law applies only when the nuts fell into the mixture and then were crushed. If, however, the nuts of Orlah were crushed before they became mixed with the permitted nuts, they lose their importance because they are no longer whole and thus they become Batel.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Lo Ya'alu) explains that the prohibition of the mixture of Egozei Perech of Orlah with many permitted Egozei Perech is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, since the permitted nuts are the majority, the forbidden nuts are Batel (based on the verse, 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' (Shemos 23:2)).
</p><p>
This Beraisa clearly shows that Rebbi Yehudah <i>does</i> impose a penalty (he forbids the mixture) in the case of one who accidentally transgresses a rabbinic prohibition.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. The Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yehudah understands that according to Torah law, in this case the forbidden Egozei Perech are Batel in a majority of permitted nuts. However, this is not Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. Rebbi Yehudah's position, as expressed in a number of places (see, for example, Chulin 98b), is that 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel': when a forbidden item becomes mixed with a permitted item of the same species, even one forbidden item prohibits an unlimited number of permitted items due to the mixture. Why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa contradicts his own opinion with regard to penalizing one who transgresses a rabbinic prohibition?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers in the name of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel' applies only in the case of a mixture of liquids. However, in the case of a mixture of solids Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the forbidden item is Batel b'Rov (according to Torah law).
</p><p>
Indeed, the Gemara in Chulin (98b) states that Rebbi Yehudah's source that 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel' is the verse, 'And he shall take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat and place it all around, on the corners of the Mizbe'ach' (Vayikra 16:18). Rashi in Chulin (DH v'Lakach) explains that everyone knows that a slaughtered cow produces more blood than a slaughtered goat, and yet the Torah still specifies that the mixture of the blood of the two animals contains the 'blood of a goat.' This teaches that 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel' applies only to two of the same types of <i>liquid</i> which become mixed with each other. In such a case, the forbidden liquid does not lose its identity and is not Batel, even when it is mixed with a majority of permitted liquid.
</p><p>
This answer is also suggested by <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, as cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> in Zevachim (73a, DH Rebbi Yehudah). Although Tosfos writes that Rabeinu Tam later retracted this answer, Tosfos upholds it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> cites others who answer that when Rebbi Yehudah expresses the view 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel,' he is not expressing his own opinion but rather that of his teacher. Rebbi Yehudah's own opinion is that Bitul indeed applies for 'Min b'Mino.' This is consistent with his opinion here that one forbidden Egoz Perech is Batel in a mixture with two permitted Egozim.
</p><p>
This second answer of the Ritva is also mentioned by the <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b>, as cited by Tosfos in Zevachim (ibid.), and the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> there. Indeed, the Gemara in Zevachim (79a) records an opinion (that of Abaye) that only Rebbi Yehudah's teacher rules 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel,' but not Rebbi Yehudah himself. However, Tosfos there in Zevachim points out that this is more of a refutation than a proof, because Rava seemingly argues with Abaye on this point in the Gemara (79a). Since the Halachah always follows the view of Rava over Abaye (see Bava Metzia 22b), the Gemara's conclusion should be that Rebbi Yehudah <i>does</i> rule that 'Min b'Mino Lo Batel.' (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TESTIMONIES OF R. YOCHANAN BEN GUDGADA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yochanan ben Gudgada testified to the 
          following laws:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a man was Mekadesh his deaf daughter (when she 
               was a minor or Na'arah), her husband can divorce 
               her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If an (orphaned) minor girl is married to a Kohen, 
               she may eat Terumah. If she dies, he inherits her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If a man stole a beam and built it into a building, 
               he may return its value to the owner. This is an 
               enactment to help people repent;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> If one was Makdish a stolen animal to be a Korban 
               Chatas, and this was not publicly known, it atones. 
               This is an enactment for the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rava):</font></b> We may infer from R. Yochanan's 
          testimony that if a man told witnesses that he is going 
          to divorce his wife, and he told her to take a loan 
          document (and gave a Get to her), she is divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a woman without understanding can be 
               divorced, also a healthy woman can be divorced 
               without her knowledge.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that since he told 
               her that he gives to her a loan document, he shows 
               that he is not divorcing her.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rava teaches that this is not so. If so, he 
                    would have told the witnesses that he is not 
                    divorcing her.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  He deceived her because he was embarrassed to 
                    say that he is divorcing her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> An (orphaned) minor girl (married to a Kohen 
          may eat Terumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We did not say so about a deaf wife of a Kohen. 
          What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree, lest a deaf wife of a deaf 
          Kohen eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why shouldn't she eat? A deaf person is exempt 
          from all Mitzvos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree, lest a healthy wife of a deaf 
          Kohen eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why shouldn't she eat Terumah mid'Rabanan? 
          (Mid'Rabanan, she is a Kohen's wife!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree, lest she eat Terumah 
          mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a stolen beam was built into a building...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If Reuven stole a beam and built 
          it into a building, he must dissemble the building to 
          return the beam;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, he need only pay its value. This is an 
          enactment to help people repent.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A STOLEN CHATAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A stolen Chatas...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew that it was 
          stolen, it does not atone, because the thief does not 
          acquire through the despair of the owner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did Chachamim enact that if it was not 
               publicly known, it atones?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This was lest Kohanim be sad (that they ate 
               a Pasul Korban).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mishnah):</font></b> This is an enactment for the 
               Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ula):</font></b> If the Kohanim would be sad, they 
               would not offer Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew 
          that it was stolen, it atones, because the thief acquired 
          through the despair of the owner. (The thief owes only 
          its value to the owner.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO IS COMMANDED TO RETURN A STOLEN ARTICLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah records the testimony of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgeda with regard to several Halachos. One of the Halachos involves a case in which a person stole a beam and built it into his house. The Halachah is that he may fulfill his obligation to return the stolen object by returning its monetary value. Although according to Torah law he should be required to demolish his house and remove the beam and return it to the owner, in order to encourage him to repent the Rabanan decreed that he may return its monetary value. This enactment is called 'Takanas ha'Shavim' -- 'the enactment for those who repent.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Ta'anis (16a) discusses the mass repentance of the people of Ninveh. It quotes the verse, 'And they repented, each person from his evil way, and from the Chamas (violent seizure) in their hands' (Yonah 3:8). Shmuel explains that repentance from the 'Chamas in their hands' describes how residents of Ninveh who had stolen beams and built them into their homes repented by demolishing their homes in order to return the beams to their owners. The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> asks that according to the Mishnah here, the people of Ninveh did nothing out of the ordinary for which the verse should praise them. The letter of the law requires that the thief return the beam itself. The 'Takanas ha'Shavim' was instituted by the Rabanan only for Jews who wish to repent; they instituted no such leniency for Nochrim. Why does the verse praise the people of Ninveh for repenting in this manner?
</p><p>
Moreover, what does Shmuel see in the verse in Yonah that alludes to this form of repentance?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that Shmuel infers from the verse's use of the two phrases, 'from his evil way' and 'from the Chamas,' that the verse refers to two related 'evil ways,' one of which it defines as 'Chamas.' The Chasam Sofer prefaces his analysis of these two phrases with the words of the <b>RAMBAN</b>. The Ramban writes that before the Rabanan established the 'Takanas ha'Shavim,' one who stole a beam, repented, and paid the owner the value of the beam but kept the beam itself did not have the status of a 'Gazlan' ('thief') but rather a 'Chamsan,' one who transgresses the prohibition against 'Chamas.' The Gemara in Bava Kama (62a) teaches that the difference between 'Gezel' (stealing) and 'Chamas' is that a Gazlan forcibly takes the object without paying money, while a Chamsan compensates the owner for the object he forcibly seizes.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the verse in Yonah may be understood as follows. 'Evil ways' describes how, in Ninveh, even the <i>victim</i> of a theft acted wrongly. The victim would insist that the thief return his beam to him and he did not accept monetary compensation. The verse relates that the people of Ninveh corrected their bad character traits and would forego the right to 'the letter of the law' that the thief knock down his building in order to repent. When the verse says that they repented 'from the Chamas in their hands,' it means that the thieves themselves volunteered to return the actual beams in order to avoid any possible transgression of 'Chamas,' even though the victims requested only monetary compensation.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Gitin) cites the Gemara in Eruvin (62a) which states that a Nochri who steals is liable for the death penalty, even if the object's value is less than a Perutah. Moreover, he is not able to avoid punishment by returning the stolen object. <b>RASHI</b> there (DH Lo Nitan l'Hishavon) writes that the verse, 'He shall return the item which he stole' (Vayikra 5:23), applies only to Jews, not to Nochrim. Nochrim have no obligation to return a stolen object, and thus doing so does not exempt them from punishment. <b>TOSFOS</b> there (DH Ben Noach) mentions another possible reason for why a Nochri is exempt from returning an object he stole. Since a Nochri is punished with death for stealing, he is exempt from returning the stolen object because of the principle of 'Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei' (when a person is liable for two punishments at one time, such as Misah and a monetary payment, he receives only the 'larger,' more severe punishment (in this case, death)). According to the view of Rav in Sanhedrin (72a), the principal of 'Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei' applies even when the stolen object is still intact.
</p><p>
Rav Elyashiv explains that according to the letter of the law, the people of Ninveh were exempt from returning stolen objects even if those objects were present and intact. As Nochrim, they were not bound by the Mitzvah to return stolen objects. Nevertheless, a Nochri thief would not actually acquire the object he stole, since one cannot acquire an object if the owner does not willingly transfer its ownership. Although the owner of the beam was entitled to demolish the thief's house to retrieve his beam, the owner normally did not go through so much trouble just to retrieve one beam. The merit of the penitent thieves of Ninveh was that they voluntarily demolished their houses in order to return the stolen beams to the original owners (some of whom did not even know that their stolen beams were part of the thieves' houses). (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did Chachamim enact that if it was 
               publicly known, it does not atone?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This is lest people say that the Mizbe'ach 
               consumes (and accepts) stolen animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah specified 
          a Chatas (Kohanim eat it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav Yehudah, why did the Mishnah 
          specify a Chatas? The same applies to an Olah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a bigger Chidush to teach about a Chatas;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> An Olah is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach. Only 
               the blood and Chelev of a Chatas go on the 
               Mizbe'ach, and the rest is eaten by Kohanim. Still, 
               Chachamim decreed lest people say that the Mizbe'ach 
               consumes stolen animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was not publicly known that a 
          Chatas was stolen, it atones. This is an enactment on 
          behalf of the Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Ula. According to Rav Yehudah, the 
               enactment is the opposite (that if it was known that 
               it was stolen, it does not atone)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the Mishnah means that if it was not 
          publicly known, it brings atonement, but if it was known, 
          it does not atone. This is an enactment for the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven stole an animal, was 
          Makdish it, and slaughtered it or sold it, he pays double 
          the value (the standard fine for theft), but not the four 
          or five-fold penalty for selling or slaughtering a stolen 
          animal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If he slaughtered outside the Mikdash in 
               such a case, he is Chayav Kares (for slaughtering a 
               Korban outside the Mikdash).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a thief does not acquire through despair, why is 
               he Chayav Kares? His Hekdesh was invalid! (It is not 
               a Korban.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Shizbi):</font></b> He is Chayav Kares mid'Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rabanan laughed at this. There is no Kares 
               mid'Rabanan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Do not laugh at the words of a great man! He 
               means that the thief is Chayav Kares through the 
               words of Chachamim. They said that the animal 
               belongs to him, in order that he will get Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> When Chachamim said that the animal is 
          his, is this from when he stole it, or from when he made 
          it a Korban?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This determines who owns the shearings and offspring 
               in the interim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, it belongs to the thief only 
          from when he was Makdish it, lest he profit from his sin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>BUYING LAND FROM ONE WHO DOES NOT OWN IT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There was no Sikrikon (extortionist) in 
          Yehudah when Titus was waging war. After the war, there 
          was.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The law is, if Reuven bought land from a Sikrikon 
               who took it from Shimon, and afterwards Reuven 
               bought the land from Shimon, (even) the (latter) 
               sale is null;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven bought land from Shimon, and then from the 
               Sikrikon who previously took it from Shimon, the 
               (former) sale is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Levi buys land from Yehudah (on which there is a lien 
          to pay the Kesuvah of Yehudah's wife) and later buys it 
          from Yehudah's wife, the latter sale is null;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If Levi buys it from Yehudah's wife, and later buys it 
          from Yehudah, the sales are valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Initially the law of Sikrikon was as said above. Later, 
          it was enacted that when Reuven buys from a Sikrikon, he 
          pays a quarter of the price to Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only when Shimon could not have redeemed his 
               own land. If he could have, Shimon has first rights 
               of redemption.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rebbi set up a Beis Din. They voted and ruled that if the 
          land was by the Sikrikon for 12 months, anyone may buy 
          it, but he must pay Shimon a quarter of the price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gemara - Question:</font></b> It is unreasonable that there was no 
          Sikrikon during the war, but after the war there was!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> We did not apply the law of 
          Sikrikon until after the war.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Asi):</font></b> There were three decrees (of Romi). First, 
               they decreed that anyone who does not kill 
               (Yisre'elim) will be killed. Then, they decreed that 
               anyone who kills will receive four Zuz. Then, they 
               decreed that anyone who kills will be killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> During the first two decrees, Yisre'elim were being 
               killing rampantly, so amidst coercion, they decided 
               absolutely to give their land (to spare their 
               lives). During the last decree, one who was coerced 
               said that he gives his land, but he intended to 
               retrieve it in court afterwards.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW THE CHURBAN CAME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Happy is the one who is always afraid; 
          one who hardens his heart will fall in evil' - 
          Yerushalayim was destroyed through the enmity between 
          Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Tur Malka was destroyed due to a 
          rooster and a hen. Beitar was destroyed due to a carriage 
          wheel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Yerushalayim was destroyed through the enmity between 
          Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A certain man had a friend named 
          Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He made a banquet 
          and asked his servant to invite Kamtza. The servant 
          mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. The host saw Bar Kamtza at 
          the banquet.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The host:</font></b> What are you doing here? You are my enemy! 
               Leave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bar Kamtza:</font></b> Since I am already here, let me stay. I 
               will pay for my meal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The host:</font></b> No.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bar Kamtza:</font></b> I will pay for half the banquet!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The host:</font></b> No.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bar Kamtza:</font></b> I will pay for the entire banquet!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The host did not consent; he bodily threw him out.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO STEALS AN ANIMAL AND DESIGNATES IT AS A KORBAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (55a) teaches that the Rabanan decreed that when a person offers a stolen animal as a Korban Chatas without knowing that the animal was stolen, it nevertheless provides atonement because of 'Tikun ha'Mizbe'ach.' The Gemara (55a) quotes Ula who explains that although according to Torah law such a Korban should <i>not</i> be valid because Ye'ush alone does not effect a transfer of ownership, the Rabanan decreed that if it was not known that the animal was stolen it still provides atonement. They enacted this decree in order that the Kohanim not feel upset that they transgressed the prohibition against eating Chulin inside the Beis ha'Mikdash (see <b>RASHI</b> DH Shelo). 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ye'ush) explains that 'Ye'ush' here means that the owner despaired (the literal meaning of 'Ye'ush') of receiving his animal back. Since there was no 'Shinuy Reshus' ('change of ownership') after the Ye'ush, the animal never entered the possession of the thief (because the thief stole the animal <i>before</i> the owner despaired of retrieving it).
</p><p>
The Gemara here quotes a Beraisa which discusses the case of one who stole an animal and then designated it as a Korban. The Beraisa rules that if one slaughters that animal outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, he is punished with Kares for transgressing the prohibition of 'Shechutei Chutz' (slaughtering a Korban outside the Beis ha'Mikdash). Based on this Beraisa, Rava questions Ula's explanation: if Ye'ush alone does not acquire the object for the thief, how is the thief's Hekdesh (designation of the animal as a Korban) effective such that the prohibition of 'Shechutei Chutz' applies to it? One cannot be Makdish an animal which he does not own.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> asks why Rava challenges Ula only from the Beraisa. He should ask his question from the Mishnah in Bava Kama (74b) which the Gemara earlier quotes, which states that if the thief is Makdish the animal he is exempt from paying 'Arba'ah v'Chamishah' (four or five times the animal's value if he slaughtered or sold it). The only reason why the thief should be exempt from 'Arba'ah v'Chamishah' is that the animal became Hekdesh, but according to Ula the thief could not have made the animal Hekdesh since it was not his!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that Rava could not have asked his question on Ula from the Mishnah. Rava knew that when Ula stated that Ye'ush alone does not acquire, he meant only that Ye'ush does not give the present holder of the animal the ability to make it sanctified as a Korban. The animal cannot be offered as a Korban because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah,' a 'Mitzvah performed through a sin' (see Sukah 30a). However, Ula agrees that Ye'ush alone generally causes a transfer of ownership. This is why Ula would agree with the Mishnah that the thief is exempt from paying 'Arba'ah v'Chamishah' if he slaughters or sells the animal. Rava challenges Ula only from the Beraisa, because the Beraisa considers the animal a valid Korban when it states that a person who slaughters the animal outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is liable for Kares.
</p><p>
The Rashba uses this approach to reconcile Ula's statement in the Gemara here with another statement of Ula in Bava Kama (114a). The Mishnah there discusses a case in which a person saves someone else's object from being washed away by a river, pillaged by an army, or stolen by bandits. The Mishnah says that if the owner had Ye'ush, the item belongs to the person who saved it. The Gemara there cites another Mishnah which quotes a dispute about whether a person normally has Ye'ush when his property is stolen by a thief (who steals clandestinely) or by a Gazlan (who steals openly). Ula there states that the dispute in the Mishnah involves only a case in which it is not known whether or not the owner had Ye'ush. Everyone agrees that when it was known that the owner had Ye'ush, Ye'ush alone gives the thief possession of the stolen object.
</p><p>
Ula's position regarding Ye'ush seems unclear. In the Gemara here, Ula apparently maintains that Ye'ush alone cannot effect a transfer of ownership, while in Bava Kama (114a) he apparently maintains that it <i>can</i>!
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that this contradiction is reconciled by Rabeinu Tam's understanding of Ula. Only in the case of the Gemara here (one who offers a stolen animal as a Korban) does Ula maintain that Ye'ush alone does not transfer ownership. The Gemara in Bava Kama (114a) does not discuss Korbanos, and thus Ula there states that Ye'ush <i>does</i> effect a transfer of ownership. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW THE CHURBAN CAME (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bar Kamtza (to himself):</font></b> Chachamim were there and they 
          did not protest. They must have approved! I will inform 
          on them to the king.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bar Kamtza (to the Keisar):</font></b> The Jews have rebelled 
          against you.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Keisar:</font></b> Why should I believe you?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bar Kamtza:</font></b> Send a Korban, and see if they will 
               offer it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  He sent a choice calf with Bar Kamtza. On the way, Bar 
          Kamtza blemished it on the upper lip (some say, in the 
          eye).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not a blemish in a Nochri's Korban (on a 
               private altar), but it is a blemish for Yisrael (or 
               for offering on behalf of Nochrim in the Mikdash).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Chachamim thought to offer it, to avoid angering the 
          Keisar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Zecharyah ben Avkulas:</font></b> If so, people will say 
               that we may offer blemished animals on the 
               Mizbe'ach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim thought to kill Bar Kamtza, lest he tell the 
          Keisar that Yisrael did not offer his Korban.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Zecharyah:</font></b> If so, people will say that one who 
               blemishes a Korban is killed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The humility of R. Zecharyah destroyed our 
          Mikdash, burned our Heichal and exiled us from our land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Niron Keisar led the army sent against Yerushalayim. He 
          shot an arrow eastward, and it fell in Yerushalayim. He 
          shot an arrow westward... in all four directions, and all 
          landed in Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  He asked a child 'which verse are you learning?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The child:</font></b> 'I will take my vengeance against Edom 
               (Rome), through my nation Yisrael.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Niron:</font></b> Hash-m wants to destroy His house, and punish 
               the conqueror!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Niron abandoned his position and converted. R. Meir 
          descended from him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE HUNGER DURING THE SIEGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Aspasyainus Keisar was sent against Yerushalayim. He 
          besieged it for three years.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  There were three wealthy men in Yerushalayim - Nakdimon 
          ben Guryon, Ben Kalba Savu'a, and Ben Tztzis ha'Keses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Nakdimon ben Guryon was called so because the sun 
               Nokdah (pierced through and reappeared after it set) 
               for him. (The episode is brought in Ta'anis 20a.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Ben Kalba Savu'a was called so because anyone who 
               entered his house as hungry as a Kelev (dog) would 
               leave Savu'a (satiated).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Ben Tztzis ha'Keses was called thusly because the 
               fringes of his Talis dragged on pillows and blankets 
               (he walked only on silk);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Others say, his Kisei (seat) was among the 
                    great officials of Rome.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  One of these three offered to supply the city (during the 
          siege, for up to 21 years,) with wheat and barley. One 
          offered to supply wine, salt and oil, and the third 
          offered to supply wood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The third was most praiseworthy. Rav Chisda trusted 
               his servant with all his keys except for the key to 
               his storehouse of wood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Chisda:</font></b> (To cook) one storehouse of wheat, one 
               needs 60 storehouses of wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  There were provisions for the city for 21 years. 
          Chachamim wanted to make peace with the besieging army. 
          Baryonim (impudent youths) did not allow them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Baryonim:</font></b> Let us go out and fight them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> That will not succeed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Baryonim burned the storehouses of wheat and 
               barley. There was terrible hunger in the city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Marsa bas Baisus was the richest woman in Yerushalayim. 
          She sent her servant to buy fine flour; it was sold out 
          before he got there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The servant:</font></b> There is no fine flour; there is clean 
               bread.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Marsa:</font></b> Go buy it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The clean bread was sold out before he got there. He told 
          her that there was coarse bread. She told him to buy it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The coarse bread was sold out before he got there. He 
          told her that there was barley flour. She told him to buy 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  The barley flour was sold out before he got there. Marsa 
          Bas Baisus decided to try to find food herself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> She was barefoot, and stepped on some dung 
          and died (because she was so fastidious).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> She exemplified 'the soft and 
               delicate among you, who never put her foot on the 
               ground.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> She died from eating figs that R. Tzadok had 
          sucked on.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Tzadok fasted for 40 years that Yerushalayim 
               should not be destroyed. When he would eat, one 
               could see, from the outside, the food passing to his 
               stomach. When he stopped fasting, he would suck the 
               juice of figs, and discard the figs. (end of Version 
               #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  When Marsa was dying, she threw all her money into the 
          street and said 'what good will it do me?!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This fulfilled the verse 'they will cast out their 
               money.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAKING SHALOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Aba Sikra, the head of the Baryonim, was R. Yochanan ben 
          Zakai's nephew. R. Yochanan ben Zakai asked him to come 
          secretly to see him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> How long will you cause us to 
               die of hunger?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aba Sikra:</font></b> What can I do? If I say anything (suggest 
               making Shalom with the besiegers), the Baryonim will 
               kill me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Find a way for me to leave 
               the city. Perhaps I can salvage something.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aba Sikra:</font></b> Pretend to be sick. Everyone will come to 
               visit you. Take something putrid with you in the 
               bed, and people will say that you died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Instruct that only your Talmidim carry the coffin, 
               for whoever carries it will know that you are alive;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  People know that a corpse is heavier than a 
                    living person.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai did so. R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua 
          carried the coffin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  At the gate (to leave the city), Baryonim suspected the 
          ruse and wanted to pierce the coffin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> They besiegers will say that we stabbed 
               our Rebbi!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Baryonim:</font></b> Let us jolt the coffin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> They besiegers will say that we jolted 
               our Rebbi!!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Baryonim allowed them to leave. When R. Yochanan ben 
          Zakai approached Aspanyainus, he said 'Shalom to the 
          king, Shalom to the king,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aspanyainus:</font></b> You are worthy of death for two reasons!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I am not the king;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If I were the king, why didn't you come to me 
               earlier?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Regarding the first point, in 
          truth, you will be king! If not, Yerushalayim would not 
          fall to you;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE MODESTY WHICH DESTROYED THE TEMPLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (55b) relates that Yerushalayim was destroyed because of the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He instructed his messenger to invite Kamtza to a festive meal in his home. The messenger mistakenly summoned Bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza. When the host noticed Bar Kamtza at the meal, he ordered him to leave. All of Bar Kamtza's entreaties to the host to allow him to stay and avoid the humiliation of being evicted fell on deaf ears, and the host threw Bar Kamtza out of his home.
</p><p>
Bar Kamtza reasoned that since there were Chachamim at the meal who did not protest the host's behavior, it must be that they condoned his conduct. Bar Kamtza decided to take revenge and slander them before the Roman Emperor. He related to the Emperor, 'The Jews have rebelled against you.' The Emperor asked him to prove his claim. Bar Kamtza suggested that the Emperor send an animal to Yerushalayim to be offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash as a Korban. If the Jews decline to offer it, he will know that they have rebelled against him. The Emperor sent a choice calf with Bar Kamtza to Yerushalayim to be offered as a Korban. During the journey, Bar Kamtza made a blemish in the animal, rendering it unfit to be offered as a Korban.
</p><p>
When Bar Kamtza arrived and the Chachamim assessed the situation, they wanted to offer the blemished Korban even though such a Korban is normally prohibited, in order to remain on favorable terms with the Emperor. However, Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas stopped them and said that if they offer it, people will say that one may offer blemished animals upon the Mizbe'ach. A suggestion was made that Bar Kamtza be put to death so that he would not return and defame the Jews to the Emperor. Rebbi Zecharyah vetoed this suggestion as well, saying that if they executed Bar Kamtza people would say that someone who makes a blemish in an animal designated as a Korban is liable for the death penalty.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan concluded from this incident that 'the humility (Anvasnuso) of Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas destroyed our Beis ha'Mikdash), burned our Heichal, and exiled us from our land.'
</p><p>
Why did Rebbi Yochanan use the word 'modesty' to describe the actions of Rebbi Zecharyah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> prefaces his explanation by citing the words of <b>RASHI</b> (DH Anvasnuso) who explains that 'Anvasnuso' in this context means 'Savlanus' ('patience'). This attribute describes Rebbi Zecharyah's patient tolerance of the conduct of Bar Kamtza.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer explains that when Rebbi Zecharyah suspected that people would think that one may offer blemished animals on the Mizbe'ach, or they would think that one who blemishes an animal designated as a Korban is liable for the death penalty, his real concern was for the sin of Chilul Hash-m. Rebbi Zecharyah knew that most people know that a blemished animal may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach, and that one is not put to death for blemishing a Korban. Rather, he was concerned that if the Chachamim would permit the Korban to be offered and, as a result, the Emperor would execute Bar Kamtza for lying to him, some people would circulate rumors about how the incident of Bar Kamtza began. They would recall that it started because the Chachamim sat at the original meal and did not protest the affront done to Bar Kamtza when he was thrown out of the house. Rebbi Zecharyah thought that this would constitute a grave Chilul Hash-m in the eyes of the people.
</p><p>
The truth, however, was that Bar Kamtza's conduct was intolerable. A person who was prepared to endanger the whole nation merely because of an affront to his personal prestige must have been a well-known evildoer for some time. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the reason why Bar Kamtza was expelled from the festive meal was because the host could not tolerate the presence of such an evildoer in his home. It is likely that had he not been forced to leave, the Chachamim themselves would have arisen and left in order not to be in his present (see Sanhedrin 23a and Insights there).
</p><p>
Therefore, his eviction from the house was not a Chilul Hash-m. However, since Rebbi Zecharyah excelled in the virtues of tolerance and patience and was able to tolerate the presence of Bar Kamtza at the same meal, he felt that the fact that the Chachamim did not protest was a Chilul Hash-m.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer adds that this approach explains the words of a cryptic Tosefta in Shabbos. The Tosefta in Shabbos (17:4) states, 'Beis Shamai says that one may lift up bones and peels from the table on Shabbos, while Beis Hillel says that one may not lift them up directly but rather he must shake them off the table. Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas did not conduct himself like Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel, but rather he threw them directly behind the couch.' (See also Shabbos 143a.) The Tosefta adds, 'Rebbi Yosi said that the humility (Anvasnuso) of Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas destroyed the Heichal.' What is the meaning of Rebbi Yosi's statement in that context?
<br> 
<br>The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (Beitzah 2a) writes that the reason why Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel permit one to move bones and peels on Shabbos even though they are Muktzah is that they are considered a 'Graf Shel Re'i,' a repulsive object for which the Chachamim did not apply their prohibition against moving Muktzah items on Shabbos. Rebbi Yosi explained that the reason why Rebbi Zecharyah did not accept the leniency of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai was that he was able to tolerate repulsive objects, just as he tolerated the presence of Bar Kamtza. Accordingly, Rebbi Zecharyah did not allow himself to move bones and peels on Shabbos because to him they were not repulsive.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> offers a different explanation which is more consistent with the simple meaning of the word 'Anvasnuso,' 'modesty.' Rebbi Zecharyah was a great Torah scholar, but because of his humility he did not recognize himself as such. The Maharatz Chayos cites the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 656:8) who writes that it is apparent from the account of Bar Kamtza that one may transgress a Torah prohibition when its fulfillment may result in grave consequences from the government. The Maharatz Chayos explains that this is evident from the fact that the Chachamim did not agree with Rebbi Zecharyah's opinion in the incident of Bar Kamtza. Moreover, the Torah permitted the Chachamim to kill Bar Kamtza because he had the status of a 'Rodef,' a 'pursuer' who was threatening to destroy the entire nation.
</p><p>
However, because of Rebbi Zecharyah's great modesty he did not have the boldness to issue a novel ruling. He did not consider himself great enough to issue a Hora'as Sha'ah (a ruling necessary for the circumstances of the moment). He thought that a Hora'as Sha'ah was solely in the domain of the great leaders of the generation, and he did not count himself among them.
</p><p>
Accordingly, it was the exaggerated humility of the otherwise great Rebbi Zecharyah which indirectly led to the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. (See also <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b>, Yevamos 49:7). (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'ha'Levanon will fall to an Adir.' Verses 
               teach that Adir means king, and Levanon refers to 
               the Mikdash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding the second point, until now, the Baryonim 
               did not allow me to leave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aspanyainus:</font></b> If a snake is around a barrel of honey, one 
          should break the barrel to make the snake go away! (You 
          should have burned the wall to dispel the Baryonim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai was quiet.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> '(Hash-m) turns back the wisdom of 
               Chachamim' - he should have answered that one 
               removes the snake with tongs and saves the barrel! 
               (We hoped to overcome the Baryonim and preserve the 
               city wall.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Just then, a Shali'ach came from Rome and said that the 
          Keisar died, and the most important officials decided 
          that Aspanyainus will be the new leader.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Aspanyainus had put on one shoe before hearing this. He 
          was unable to put on the other, nor could he take off the 
          first, and did not know why.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Don't worry - 'good tidings 
               fatten bones.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aspanyainus:</font></b> What should I do?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Someone you hate should pass 
               in front of you - 'a crushed spirit dries bones.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aspanyainus:</font></b> If you are so wise, why didn't you see 
               me until now?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> I already told you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aspanyainus:</font></b> I rejected your answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aspanyainus:</font></b> I will return to Rome and send someone else 
          in my stead. Make a request, and I will grant it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Do not destroy Yavneh and its 
               Chachamim, do not kill off the line of R. Gamliel, 
               and give us doctors to cure R. Tzadok.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> '(Hash-m) turns back the wisdom of 
          Chachamim' - he should have asked him to pardon 
          Yerushalayim this time!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Zakai thought that perhaps he would 
               not agree, and nothing will be salvaged.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How did they cure R. Tzadok?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The first day, he drank water in which bran was 
          soaked. The next day he drank water in which large bran 
          and flour was soaked. The next day he drank water in 
          which flour was mixed in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> With time, his intestines grew (and he was able to 
               eat again).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>TITUS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Aspanyainus sent Titus to conquer Yerushalayim. Titus 
          blasphemed 'where is the Rock they trusted in?!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He took a harlot into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim (the 
               holiest part of the Mikdash), spread a Sefer Torah, 
               and sinned on it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He took a sword and pierced the Paroches (the 
               curtain in front of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim); 
               miraculously, blood spurted out.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He thought he had killed 'himself' (this is a 
               euphemism for Him) - 'the enemies roared in Your 
               meeting place; they believed in their omens.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Aba Chanan):</font></b> 'Mi Chamocha Chasin Kah' - who has 
          restraint like You?! You hear the blasphemy of that 
          Rasha, and You are silent!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Mi Chamocha ba'Elim 
               Hash-m' - who is like You among the Ilmim? (You are 
               silent like a mute!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Titus took the Paroches, and made it like a sack in which 
          he took all the Kelim of the Mikdash. He boarded a boat 
          to return to aggrandize himself in his city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'I have seen buried wicked people. They came from a 
               holy place, they go and are forgotten in the city 
               that they did so' - do not read Kevurim (buried), 
               rather Kevutzim gathered). Do not read forgotten 
               (va'Yishtachechu), rather va'Yishtabchu (they 
               praised themselves).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Others expound 'buried' to teach that even our 
               buried treasures were exposed to them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A stormy wind was about to sink Titus' boat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Titus:</font></b> Their G-d has power only in water. He drowned 
               Pharoah and Sisero (and their armies) in water, and 
               now He wants to drown me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If He is mighty, let Him come onto the land and 
               fight me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A voice from Heaven:</font></b> Rasha, son of a Rasha, 
               descendant of Esav the Rasha! I have a light 
               creation in my world, the mosquito. Come to land and 
               fight it!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is it called a light creation?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It has a mouth, but nothing from which 
                    to excrete.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Titus alighted. A mosquito entered his nose and bored 
          into his brain for seven years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One day, he was passing by a smith, and heard the 
               hammer banging. The mosquito stopped pecking. He 
               found a solution!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Each day he brought a smith to bang in front of him. 
               If it was a Nochri, he would pay him four Zuz. If it 
               was a Yisrael, he said 'it suffices that you see 
               your enemy (being punished).'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> After 30 days, the mosquito became used to the 
               banging, and it resumed pecking.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa#1 - R. Pinchas ben Arova):</font></b> When he died, they 
          pierced his skull. A wild bird was found, weighing two 
          Sela'im;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> It was like a year old bird weighing two 
          Litrin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Its mouth was copper, its claws were iron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  When Titus was dying, he asked to be cremated, and that 
          his ashes be spread on the seven seas, lest the G-d of 
          Yisrael be able to judge him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Unkelus bar Klonikus was Titus' nephew; he wanted to 
          convert. He conjured up his uncle from the dead.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Who is important in the next world?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Titus:</font></b> Yisrael are.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Should I cling to them (convert)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Titus:</font></b> They have too many Mitzvos, you cannot 
               fulfill them. Rather, fight them in your world, and 
               you will become a head.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Its oppressors became leaders' - whoever 
                    oppresses Yisrael becomes a leader.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> What was your judgment?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Titus:</font></b> It is what I myself declared. Each day, my 
               ashes are gathered, judged, burned, and scattered on 
               the seven seas.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE WISDOM OF REBBI YOCHANAN BEN ZAKAI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (56a) relates how Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was smuggled out of Yerushalayim when the city was under siege to speak with Vespasian (Aspasyanos), the commander of the Roman legions. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai called Vespasian 'the king' because he foresaw that he would soon be crowned as Emperor. Vespasian asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, 'If I am indeed an Emperor, why did you not come to me sooner?'
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai replied that the Biryonim (the rebels among the Jews who wanted to fight the Romans and not negotiate; see Rashi to 56a, DH Biryoni) did not allow him to leave the besieged city. Vespasian responded with a parable: 'If one has a barrel of honey and there is a deadly snake wrapped around it, would one not break the barrel so that the snake should go away?' That is, Vespasian claimed that the Jews in Yerushalayim should have burned down the city walls in order to get rid of the Biryonim, who were guarding the ramparts and not letting anyone exit (Rashi DH Ein). Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was silent; he did not respond. Rav Yosef, or according to others, Rebbi Akiva, described Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reaction with the verse, 'Hash-m returns the wise men backwards, and confuses their intellect' (Yeshayah 44:25). Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai should have replied, 'We were waiting for the chance to take tongs and remove the snake and kill it. This way we would save the barrel.' That is, 'we were waiting for the chance to overcome the Biryoni and drive them out and save the city, and then make peace with you' (Rashi DH v'Chavisa).
</p><p>
Immediately after this exchange, a messenger arrived from Rome with the news that the Caesar had died and that Vespasian was chosen as his successor. Vespasian informed Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai that he was returning to Rome and would send a new general in his place. However, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai could make one request of him before he left. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai said, 'Give me Yavneh and her Sages, and the princely line of Raban Gamliel, and doctors to heal Rebbi Tzadok.' 
</p><p>
Again, Rav Yosef, and according to some, Rebbi Akiva, described Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's response with the verse, 'Hash-m returns the wise men backwards and confuses their intellect,' because he should have asked Vespasian to spare Yerushalayim entirely. The Gemara explains that the reason why Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai did not make this request was that he assumed that Vespasian would not be so merciful, and he thus would have wasted his single request and would not have gained for the Jewish people even a small salvation. 
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara explain Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reasoning in his second exchange with Vespasian, but it does not explain his reasoning in the first exchange, in the analogy of the snake and the barrel?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH</b> explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai certainly was not foolish with his answers. On the contrary, he responded with profound wisdom. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai certainly considered the response about the tongs. However, he did not give this reply to Vespasian because he did not want to defeat him with such a simple answer that would have openly disgraced the supposedly wise Vespasian.
</p><p>
The Chochmas Mano'ach cites support for this approach from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (10b). The Gemara there relates that Keti'a bar Shalom defeated the Emperor in a debate. Although the Emperor admitted that Keti'a was right, he sentenced him to death, since anyone who wins an argument with the Emperor must be put to death (see also Sanhedrin 39a and Tamid 32a). Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was being very prudent by remaining silent.
</p><p>
The Chochmas Mano'ach points out that in fact the first part of the verse quoted by the Gemara, 'Hash-m returns the wise men backwards,' is meant to indicate that sometimes the wise men deliberately and consciously retreat and do not return a wise rejoinder. The Chochmas Mano'ach therefore understands that the Gemara does address Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reasoning for not giving this reply to Vespasian.
</p><p>
The Chochmas Mano'ach cites further support for his explanation from the Midrash (Eichah Rabah 1:31). The Midrash relates that the servants of Vespasian asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai the question about the snake and the barrel, and he indeed answered them with the analogy of the tongs. The Chochmas Mano'ach explains that the Midrash does not contradict the Gemara here: although Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai knew it was not prudent to give the correct answer to Vespasian, he had no reservations about giving this answer to Vespasian's servants. 
</p><p>
Perhaps the second dialogue between Vespasian and Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai may be understood in a similar manner. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai realized, in his wisdom, that it would be over-ambitious for him to ask for the salvation of Yerushalayim. The Gemara hints to this when it quotes the verse, 'Hash-m returns the wise men backwards,' a second time. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai realized that the appropriate course of action at the moment was that of retreat and restraint, and thus he deliberately did not request Yerushalayim.
</p><p>
Further support for the Chochmas Mano'ach's explanation may be inferred from the Gemara's account of the dialogue between Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai and Vespasian after Rebbi Yochanan gave Vespasian excellent advice about how to treat his swollen foot. Vespasian again asked him, 'Since you are so wise, why did not come to me until now?' Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai replied, 'Have I not already told you?' This response indicates that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai knew that he had not in fact been defeated in debate by Vespasian when there was such an obvious answer, and that he had tactfully chosen to avoid a clear victory in the debate. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WICKED IN GEHINOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Unkelus conjured up Bilam from the dead.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Who is important in the next world?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bilam:</font></b> Yisrael are.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Should I cling to them?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bilam:</font></b> 'Do not seek their peace or well-being, 
               forever.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> What was your judgment?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bilam:</font></b> I am in boiling semen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Unkelus conjured up Yoshke from the dead.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Who is important in the next world?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yoshke:</font></b> Yisrael are.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> Should I cling to them?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yoshke:</font></b> Seek their good, not their evil. Whoever 
               touches (harms) them is like one who touches the 
               apple of Hashem's eye.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Unkelus:</font></b> What was your judgment?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yoshke:</font></b> I am in boiling excrement.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Anyone who mocks Chachamim is judged in boiling 
                    excrement.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  See the difference between sinners of Yisrael and 
          prophets of the Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar):</font></b> See how great is embarrassment! 
          (Because Bar Kamtza was embarrassed), Hash-m helped him 
          to destroy His Mikdash and burn His Heichal!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DESTRUCTION OF TUR MALKA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Tur Malka was destroyed due to a rooster and a hen. The 
          custom was to bring a rooster and a hen in front of a 
          Chasan and Kalah, an omen that they should be fruitful 
          like chickens.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Once, a Roman troop took the rooster and hen; the Jews 
          hit them. The troop told the Keisar that the Jews were 
          rebelling; he brought an army against them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There was a Yisrael from the south who could leap a 
               Mil (kilometer) and kill soldiers. The Keisar put 
               his crown on the ground.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Keisar:</font></b> Master of the whole world! Please do not 
               hand over my kingdom and me to one man!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The southerner spoke improperly, and said 'Hash-m, 
               You abandoned us! You do not go in our legions!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> David ha'Melech also said this!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> David said it in wonderment (have You 
                    abandoned us?!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The southerner went to the privy. A snake dislocated his 
          anus, and he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Keisar:</font></b> Since Hash-m did a miracle for me, I will leave 
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Jews ate, drank and made a great bonfire. One Mil 
          away, one could see the image on a coin from the fire's 
          light.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Keisar:</font></b> They are mocking me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He returned to attack them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> Tur Malka was attacked by 300,000 sword 
          bearing soldiers. They killed for three days and three 
          nights. On the other side of Tur Malka, they were singing 
          and dancing, unaware of what was happening.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> 'Hash-m swallowed, He did not have compassion, 
          all the beautiful places of Yakov.' This refers to 
          600,000 cities of King Yanai in Har ha'Melech;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Each city had 600,000 inhabitants; the following three 
          had twice this amount.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The village of Bish (shame), in which they would not 
               give lodging to a guest;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The village of Shichlayim (cress), in which their 
               income came from cress;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The village of Dichriya (male);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> In Dichriyah, a woman would 
                    first give birth to males, then to a daughter, 
                    and would not conceive again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> I saw Har ha'Melech. It cannot hold even 600,000 
          reeds!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A heretic:</font></b> You (Chachamim) lie!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chanina:</font></b> Eretz Yisrael is called 'the land of the 
               deer';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Just like a deer's skin cannot cover the flesh 
                    once it has been flayed, Eretz Yisrael expands 
                    when Yisrael dwells on it, and shrivels when we 
                    are not on it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>STORIES OF THE VILLAGE OF SICHNIYA, OF MITZRAYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Nochri captured a couple during Eirusin (before 
          Nisu'in), and married them to each other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The wife:</font></b> Please don't touch me. I don't have a 
               Kesuvah from you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He didn't touch her his entire life.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  She told the eulogizers that he overcame a harder test 
          than Yosef ha'Tzadik!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yosef was tested only once (by Potifar's wife). My 
               husband was tested every day!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Yosef was not in the same bed with Potifar's wife. 
               My husband was in the same bed with me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Yosef was tempted by another man's wife. My husband 
               refrained from his own wife!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The price (of grain) used to be one Dinar for 40 
          measures. It rose to one Dinar for 39 measures.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They investigated the cause, and found that a father 
               and son had raped a Na'arah Me'orasah. They stoned 
               them in Beis Din, and the price returned to the 
               normal level.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Once, a man decided to divorce his wife, but her Kesuvah 
          was great, and he did not want to pay it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He gave his wife and a close friend to eat and 
               drink, until they were drunk. He lied them down on a 
               bed, and put egg white on the sheet between them. 
               (It resembles semen. He made it look like they had 
               Bi'ah, to exempt himself from praying her Kesuvah.) 
               He took them to Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bava Ben Buta (a Talmid of Shamai):</font></b> Shamai taught that if 
          one puts a fire near egg white, it forms a crust. A fire 
          near semen makes it get more absorbed in the sheet.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They tested the sheet, and realized what happened. 
               They whipped her husband, and forced him to pay the 
               Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If they were such Tzadikim, why was the 
          city destroyed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> They did not mourn over Yerushalayim 
          - 'gladden Yerushalayim; rejoice in it, all who love it; 
          all who mourn over it will rejoice with it.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DESTRUCTION OF BEITAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Beitar was destroyed due to a carriage wheel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The custom was to plant a cedar tree when a boy was 
               born, and a Shitah (another species of cedar tree) 
               for a girl. When they got married, they would cut 
               the trees to make the canopy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One day, Keisar's daughter was riding, and the wheel 
               of the carriage broke. They cut down a cedar to fix 
               it; the Jews struck them. The told the Keisar that 
               the Jews were rebelling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> 'In (Hashem's) anger, he cut down the horn 
          (greatness) of Yisrael' - 80,000 horn-blowing troop 
          leaders entered Beitar when they conquered it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They killed men, women and children, until the blood 
               flowed into the Mediterranean Sea.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The sea was one Mil (kilometer) away!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Gadol):</font></b> There are two rivers in 
          the valley called Yadayim; they flow in different 
          directions. They measured and found that two thirds of 
          the flow was water, and one third was blood of those 
          killed in Beitar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The blood sufficed to fertilize the vineyards 
          of the Nochrim for seven years.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CONVERTS FROM THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that grandsons of Haman learned Torah in Bnei Brak. This seems to contradict the Mechilta (Beshalach 2:16) which comments on the verse, '... for the Hand is on the throne of Hash-m, there is a war for Hash-m against Amalek throughout all generations' (Shemos 17:16). The Mechilta says that this verse teaches that Hash-m made an oath on His Throne of Glory that if a member of any of the nations will come and ask to convert, he may be accepted, but no member of Amalek and his offspring may be accepted as a convert. 
</p><p>
The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> in Sanhedrin (96a, DH Mipnei) asks that since Haman was a descendant of Agag the Amalekite (see Esther 3:1), how is it possible that his grandsons converted and learned Torah? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (YD 157:5) suggests that the lineage of the grandsons of Haman became mixed with the lineage of other nations, and thus Beis Din did not realize that they were descendants of Amalek and accepted them as converts. When converts from Amalek have already been accepted, b'Di'eved they are valid converts.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Chazon Ish answers that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 6:4, with the comment of the <b>RA'AVAD</b>) maintains that Beis Din indeed may accept Amalek converts when they come to be converted. The Mechilta, which states that no converts may be accepted from Amalek, refers to when the Amalekites wage war with the Jewish people and then decide to make peace and to convert. In this situation, converts from other nations are accepted but not converts from Amalek (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Sotah 35b, end of DH l'Rabos).
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish cites support for this distinction from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (10b) which relates that the righteous Roman, Antoninus, asked Rebbi if he would receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba. Rebbi replied that he would. Antoninus asked him, 'But does the verse no say that 'there will be no remnant for the House of Esav'?' (Ovadyah 1:18). Rebbi replied that this verse refers only to those who perpetuate the evil ways of Esav. If, however, the Nochri abandons these ways, he can merit a share in Olam Ha'Ba. Similarly, a descendant of Amalek who did not personally enter any war against the Jewish people is not considered as 'going in the way of Amalek,' and he may be accepted as a convert.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV SHALOM SHWADRON</b> zt'l (in his notes to <b>LEV ELIYAHU</b>, Bereishis, p. 71) explains that the Rambam must have understood that the Gemara argues with the Mechilta. This is implied by the fact that the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 12:17) states that Beis Din may accept a convert from any nation other than Amon, Moav, Mitzrayim, and Edom.
</p><p>
The Lev Eliyahu explains the reason for why an Amalekite is accepted as a convert, while an Amonite or Moabite is never accepted as a convert (Devarim 23:3). The Torah (ibid. 23:5) states that a member of the nations of Amon and Moav may not be accepted as a convert because those nations did not greet the Jewish people with bread and water when they traveled through the desert after they left Mitzrayim. Their failure to provide bread and water demonstrated their degenerate Midos (character traits). The verse in Bereishis (19:29) states that Hash-m saved Lot from the destruction of Sedom and Amora through the merit of his uncle, Avraham Avinu. Amon and Moav, who were descendants of Lot (see Bereishis 19:37-8), should have recognized the good deeds done to them by the forebear of the Jewish people. When they not only failed to help the Jewish people in the desert but actively were hostile to them (see Devarim 23:5, that they hired Bil'am to curse the Jewish people), they demonstrated their degenerate Midos and forfeited their right to be part of the Jewish people.
</p><p>
A member of Amalek, on the other hand, may not become part of the Jewish people for a different reason, because 'he did not fear Hash-m' (Devarim 25:18). When Amalek clings to his position of war against Hash-m, they are the Jewish people's worst enemies. However, since their sin is on the intellectual level and not so deeply entrenched in their Midos, if a descendant of Amalek abandons the way of his fathers and recognizes their perverse ways, he indeed may repent. Therefore, if a descendant of Amalek sincerely repents and seeks to follow Hashem's Torah, he may be accepted as a convert. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>ATROCITIES IN YERUSHALAYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> In one valley, Nevuzaradan, the head 
          killer, killed 2,110,000 people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  In Yerushalayim, he killed 940,000 on one rock, until 
          their blood touched the blood of Zecharyah - 'bloods 
          touched bloods.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Nevuzaradan had seen Zecharyah's blood boiling; he 
               asked what it was.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yisre'elim:</font></b> It is blood of Korbanos that was 
               spilled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Nevuzaradan tested this, and found that blood of Korbanos 
          was unlike the seething blood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nevuzaradan:</font></b> If you do not tell me, I will tear your 
               skin with iron combs!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yisre'elim:</font></b> There was a Navi (and Kohen Gadol) who 
               rebuked us about spiritual matters. We killed him 
               (in the Mikdash, on Yom Kipur that was Shabbos). His 
               blood has been boiling all these (more than 200) 
               years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nevuzaradan:</font></b> I will appease the blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  He slaughtered the great Sanhedrin and a small Sanhedrin 
          by the blood; it did not rest. He slaughtered male and 
          female youths; the blood did not rest. He slaughtered 
          children learning from their Rebbi; it did not rest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nevuzaradan:</font></b> Zecharyah, I have slaughtered the best 
               among them. Would you like me to slaughter them 
               all?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The blood rested.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Nevuzaradan repented. He reasoned - if this was the 
          punishment for killing one person, how much greater will 
          be my punishment, for killing so many!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He sent instructions to his home about what to do 
               with his estate, and he converted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Na'aman (whose Tzara'as was cured by 
               Elisha) became a Ger Toshav (a Nochri who keeps his 
               seven Mitzvos and may live in Eretz Yisrael). 
               Nevuzaradan converted. Descendants of Haman taught 
               Torah in Bnei Berak. (This does not prove that we 
               accept converts from Amalek. Perhaps they were from 
               other nations, e.g. descendants of his daughters.) 
               Descendants of Sisera taught children in 
               Yerushalayim. Descendants of Sancheriv taught Torah 
               in public.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who were these descendants of Sancheriv?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They were Shemayah and Avtalyon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  'I will put the blood on the smooth rock, that it will 
          not be covered' refers to the blood of Zecharyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  'The voice is the voice of Yakov, the hands are the hands 
          of Esav.' 'The voice' refers to (screams of the victims 
          of) Adaryanus Keisar, who killed 1,200,000 in Alexandriya 
          of Mitzrayim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The voice of Yakov' refers to (the victims of) 
               Aspasyainus Keisar, who killed 4,000,000 in Beitar. 
               Some say that he killed 40,000,000;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'The hands are the hands of Esav' refers to the evil 
               kingdom that destroyed our house, burned our 
               Heichal, and exiled us from our land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, 'The voice is the voice of Yakov' teaches 
          that prayer works only for those who descend from Yakov;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The hands are the hands of Esav' teaches that 
               conquest in war comes only to descendants of Esav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches like R. Elazar 
          taught;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'When (evil) speech is rampant, hide' - 
               when there is harassing speech, hide.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'By the rivers of Bavel we sat and cried 
          when we remembered Tziyon' teaches that Hash-m showed 
          David (who wrote Tehilim) the destruction of Bayis Rishon 
          and Bayis Sheni;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'By the rivers of Bavel...' alludes to Churban Bayis 
               Rishon (through Bavel);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Hash-m, remember the sons of Edom, the day of (the 
               destruction of) Yerushalayim; those who say 'raze, 
               raze it to the foundations'' alludes to Churban 
               Bayis Sheni.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAPTIVES WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO AVOID SINNING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> There was a boat with 400 
          boys and girls who were being taken for sexual 
          exploitation. They realized this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The girls:</font></b> If we drown ourselves in the sea (to 
               avoid this), will we come to the world to come?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The oldest boy:</font></b> Yes - 'Hash-m... will return from 
               the depths of the sea.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Upon hearing the answer, the girls jumped into 
                    the sea.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The boys made a Kal va'Chomer. The girls took their 
               own lives to avoid a 'natural' abomination;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We are being taken for homosexual exploitation, 
                    which is a perversion. All the more so, we 
                    should take our own lives to avoid this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The boys jumped into the sea, fulfilling 'for You we 
               are killed the entire day. We are like sheep to be 
               slaughtered.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rav Yehudah himself):</font></b> 'For You we are killed 
          the entire day' refers to a woman and her seven children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first child was brought before the Keisar; he 
               was told to serve an idol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The child:</font></b> I will not serve. The Torah says 'I am 
               Hash-m your G-d!' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The second child was brought, and was told to serve 
               an idol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The child:</font></b> I will not serve. It says 'you will not 
               have other gods in front of Me.' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The third child refused, citing 'one who slaughters 
               (Korbanos) to (the other, false) gods will be 
               killed.' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> The fourth child refused, citing 'you will not bow 
               to another god.' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The fifth child refused, citing 'Shema Yisrael 
               Hash-m Elokeinu Hash-m Echad.' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> The sixth child refused, citing 'Hash-m is One in 
               Heaven above and on the land below.' He was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> The seventh child refused, citing 'You have 
               designated Hash-m... and Hash-m has designated you.' 
               We swore to Hash-m that we will not serve another 
               god in place of Him, and He swore to us that He will 
               not exchange us (to have His closest connection) 
               with another people.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The Keisar:</font></b> I will throw my ring with my image 
               engraved in it. Bow down and pick it up, so it will 
               appear as if you accept my authority.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The child:</font></b> Woe to you! You are so concerned for 
               your honor! How much more I must be concerned for 
               the honor of Hash-m!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  As they took him to be killed, his mother asked 
                    to kiss him first. She told him to tell Avraham 
                    (in the next world) 'you tied one son on a 
                    Mizbe'ach to sacrifice him. I tied sons on 
                    seven Mizbechos.' (The ability you bequeathed 
                    to Yisrael has blossomed.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  She went up to the roof and fell to her death. 
                    A voice from Heaven proclaimed 'happy is the 
                    mother of children.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> ('We are killed for 
          You the entire day') refers to circumcision, which we do 
          on the eighth day (sometimes babies die from it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #4 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The verse refers to Chachamim 
          who demonstrate slaughter on themselves (this can prompt 
          death).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> One may demonstrate anything on himself, 
               except for slaughter and Tzara'as.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #5 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It refers to 
          Chachamim who give their lives for learning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'This is the Torah. If a man will 
               die in a tent...' - words of Torah last only in 
               someone who kills himself (forgoes all other 
               interests) for them.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE BLOODSHED IN BEITAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Forty Se'ah of Tefilin were found 
          on the heads of the victims in Beitar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yanai b'Rebbi Yishmael):</font></b> Three crates were found. 
          Each held 40 Se'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 40 crates were found, each holding three 
          Se'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that they found 40 Se'ah of hand Tefilin 
               and 120 Se'ah of head Tefilin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> Forty Se'ah of brain were found on one rock.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Kahana):</font></b> An allusion to this is 'happy is the 
               one who will repay (to Bavel what they did to us)... 
               and smash your babies on the rock'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the meaning of 'precious children of 
          Tziyon Mesula'im with Paz (fine gold)'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They would cover the children with Paz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> D'Vei R. Shilo taught that two small 
               measures of Paz descended to the world. Rome 
               received one , and the rest of the world got the 
               other. (There was not enough to cover the children.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, their beauty made Paz look bad. 
          (Mesula'im is from Solu, to withdraw).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> At first, the most important Romans would have Bi'ah 
               in front of the images on their signet rings (to 
               bear children in that image). Once they took the 
               children of Tziyon, they would tie them to the bed 
               and have Bi'ah in front of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> One child (to another):</font></b> Where does the Torah hint to 
               this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The other:</font></b> 'Also every sickness and affliction that 
               is not written in this Sefer Torah (Hash-m will put 
               upon you).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah, citing R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> 'My eyes 
          wail for my soul, from all the daughters of my city' - 
          there were 400 Batei Kenesiyos in Beitar. Each had 400 
          teachers (of children), and each teacher had 400 
          children. When the enemy entered, they poked them with 
          their quills (Aruch). When the enemy conquered them, they 
          wrapped the children in Seforim and burned them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Chananyah was in Rome. He 
          heard about a beautiful child who was a captive. He stood 
          at the entrance of the prison and said 'who caused Yakov 
          to be despoiled, that Yisrael should be to the 
          plunderers'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The child:</font></b> 'For we have sinned to Hash-m, and did 
               not desire to go in His ways, and did not listen to 
               His Torah.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> I am sure that this child will give 
               rulings in Halachah! I will not leave until I redeem 
               him for anything they ask.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He redeemed him there for a large sum of money. 
                    After a short time, the child gave a ruling in 
                    Halachah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  That child was R. Yishmael ben Elisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The son and daughter of R. Yishmael ben 
          Elisha were captured by different men. The captors met; 
          each boasted of the beauty of his captive. They decided 
          to mate the captives to beautiful children, which the 
          captors would split. They put them in a room together.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The children sat in opposite corners. Each thought 
               that the other was a regular slave. Each lamented 
               that he or she, the child (or descendant) of a Kohen 
               Gadol, would be mated with a slave. They cried all 
               night. When morning came, they recognized each 
               other, and died amidst crying.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Yirmeyahu lamented over them 'over these I cry. 
                    My eye, my eye drips water.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> There was a wondrously beautiful woman, 
          the daughter of a Kohen Gadol. Her captor had his way 
          with her at night. The next morning, he dressed her in 
          seven garments, and took her out to sell her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A particularly repulsive man asked to see her 
               beauty. The captor took off six garments; she tore 
               the seventh and wallowed in the dust.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She beseeched Hash-m - if You will not have 
               compassion on us, why not have compassion on Your 
               great name?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Yirmeyahu lamented over her 'the daughter of My 
                    nation, gird yourself with sackcloth and wallow 
                    in the dust...suddenly the plunderer will come 
                    upon us.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  It says 'on us', not 'on you', for it is as if 
                    the plunderers came upon Hash-m as well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'They oppressed a man and his house, a man 
          and his inheritance' refers to a certain apprentice who 
          desired his teacher's wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The teacher needed to borrow money. The apprentice 
               told him to send his wife, and he would lend it to 
               her. He sent her; she stayed there three days, and 
               her husband came to look for her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The apprentice:</font></b> I gave to her the money, and she 
               left right away! I heard that she had Bi'ah with 
               youths.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The apprentice counseled his teacher to divorce her. 
               He offered to lend to him the money to pay her 
               Kesuvah, for it was large.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> He divorced her, and the apprentice married her. The 
               teacher was not able to pay his debt on time; the 
               apprentice asked him to pay the debt by working for 
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The teacher served his ex-wife and the apprentice. 
               While they ate and drank, his tears flowed into the 
               cup. At this time, the Churban was decreed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Others say, it was decreed due to two men who shared 
               a wife.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LAW OF SIKRIKON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought land from a Sikrikon (and 
          then from Shimon, the original owner, the sale is void).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> This is only if Shimon told him to acquire the 
          land through Chazakah, but if Shimon wrote a sale 
          document, the sale is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Even if he wrote a document, the sale is void, 
          unless Shimon writes (that he accepts) Acharayus (to 
          reimburse Reuven if the land is taken from him).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BOY IN THE PRISON IN ROME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that when Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah traveled to Rome, he was told that there was a beautiful Jewish child incarcerated in prison. He stood at the entrance of the prison and said the words, 'Who made it that Yakov should be despoiled, that Yisrael should be to the plunderers?' (the first half of Yeshayah 42:24). The child responded, 'For is it not Hash-m, He to Whom we have sinned, and we did not desire to go in His ways and did not listen to His Torah.'
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehoshua declared, 'I am sure that this child will issue forth a Torah ruling (Moreh Hora'ah). I swear that I will not leave until I redeem him for any amount that they demand.'
</p><p>
He redeemed the child for a large sum of money. The boy grew up to be the great Torah sage, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha (see following Insight).
</p><p>
How did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah see from the words of the child that he would become a great Torah sage? Was is so unusual that a child should simply be able to finish a verse which one starts?
<br> 
<br><b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara makes no mention of the age of the child. Perhaps he was only two or three years old. Such a young child who is able to complete a verse in Yeshayah certainly possesses unusual wisdom, particularly one who was held captive, possibly alone, in a foreign prison where his conditions were likely unbearable. One who is able to retain his Torah learning under such conditions certainly has a promising future in the Torah world.
</p><p>
Nevertheless, it is unclear what knowledge of Tanach has to do with becoming a Moreh Hora'ah. The <b>CHESHEK SHLOMO</b> asks this question, and he also asks why Rebbi Yehoshua predicted that the boy would be a 'Moreh Hora'ah' ('Hora'ah' in the singular), and not 'Moreh Hora'os.'
</p><p>
The Cheshek Shlomo therefore explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction was based not on the child's answer but on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. He foresaw that this child would one day issue a triple ruling in one statement (with regard to the Mitzvah of Chalitzah), demonstrating deep wisdom in so doing.
</p><p>

The reason why Rebbi Yehoshua called out the first half of the verse may have been to ascertain that the Jewish child was indeed located in that prison, without the Romans becoming aware of his intention.
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that the Yerushalmi in Horayos (3:4) records the same incident but with a number of changes. One of those changes is the omission of Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction that the child would become a 'Moreh Hora'ah.' (See the MAR'EH <b>HA'PANIM</b> there.) (E. Chrysler)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in Kol Eliyahu) asks this question. He cites the Gemara in Berachos (4a) and Sotah (36a) which teaches that during the redemption from the Galus in Bavel, the Jewish people were destined to witness miracles as great as those they witnessed during the redemption from Mitzrayim. However, these miracles did not transpire due to the sins of the people which made them less deserving of miracles.
</p><p>
This is derived from the verse, 'Ad Ya'avor Amcha Hash-m, Ad Ya'avor Am Zu Kanisa' (Shemos 15:16). The first 'Ad Ya'avor' refers to the crossing of the Reed Sea and Jordan River during the redemption from Mitzrayim. At that time, the Jewish nation was called 'Amcha <i>Hash-m</i>' -- 'Your nation, Hash-m.' The second 'Ad Ya'avor' refers to their return to Eretz Yisrael during the redemption from Bavel. At that time, however, the Jewish nation was called 'Am <i>Zu</i> Kanisa' -- '<i>this nation</i> that You have acquired.' They were not called 'Your nation, Hash-m,' as they were called at the time of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim. 'This nation that You have acquired' means that even if the Jews sin again and must be sent into Galus, they will be redeemed; Hash-m will not forsake them because He has 'acquired' them. However, if they will be sinless and be worthy of the title of 'Your nation, Hash-m,' they will be redeemed miraculously with a full redemption, like the redemption from Mitzrayim at the time of the first 'Ad Ya'avor.' If they will not be worthy, they will be redeemed but without miracles, and the redemption will not be an absolute one. 
</p><p>
This was the theme of the interchange between Rebbi Yehoshua and the child. Rebbi Yehoshua cited the verse which asks the question, 'Who made it that Yakov (a reference to the Jewish people when they sinned) should be despoiled (and sent to Galus in Bavel), that Yisrael (a reference to the Jewish people when they were more worthy and were redeemed from Bavel) should be to the plunderers (with the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash)?' That is, why was the second Beis ha'Mikdash destroyed and the redemption from Bavel not a full and lasting Ge'ulah?
</p><p>
The child replied, 'Ha'Lo Hash-m Zu' -- 'For is it not 'Hashem Zu,' for we have sinned to Him.' The child meant that the difference between the redemption from Mitzrayim and the redemption from Bavel was the difference between 'Amcha Hash-m' and 'Am Zu' in the verse; the reason why the redemption from Bavel was not a full redemption was that instead of being 'Amcha <i>Hash-m</i>,' the Jewish people were only 'Am <i>Zu</i>' and were not deserving of a full redemption (as the Gemara in Berachos says). That is why they suffered another exile.
</p><p>
In the verse, an 'Esnachta' appears under the word 'Hash-m,' and 'Zu' begins the next phrase ('Zu Chatanu Lo'). The wisdom of the child was to juxtapose the words 'Hash-m' and 'Zu,' and place the break after the word 'Zu.' This reading alludes to the Derashah of the Chachamim on the verse in Shemos and utilizes that Derashah to explain why the Jews did not merit a full redemption when they were redeemed from Bavel and why the second Mikdash was destroyed. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHEN DID REBBI YISHMAEL BEN ELISHA LIVE?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that when Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah traveled to Rome, he was told that there was a beautiful Jewish child incarcerated in prison. Rebbi Yehoshua spoke to the child and saw that he was destined to teach Torah to the Jewish people, and therefore he redeemed him for a very high ransom (see Insights to 45:1 as to why he was permitted to redeem the boy for such a large sum). The Gemara states that, indeed, not long passed until the boy grew up to be the great Torah sage, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (45a, DH d'Lo) states that this incident occurred at the time of the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Tosfos' assertion seems difficult to reconcile with the Beraisa recorded by the Gemara in Berachos (7a). The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who related that he once entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to offer the incense offering on Yom Kippur. If Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was a young boy at the time of the destruction, how could he have served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> suggests, but refutes, the possibility that Tosfos refers not to actual destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash but to the exile of the Sanhedrin which took place forty years before the Churban.
</p><p>
The Maharam Shif instead answers this question based on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Yevamos (104a, DH Amar). The Gemara in Yevamos there cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi mentions that he saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Tosfos asks how is it possible that the son of Rebbi Yosi saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha? Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was one of the ten martyrs killed by the Romans. Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was killed before Rebbi Akiva was killed. The Gemara in Shabbos (51a) says that Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi was a disciple of Rebbi, and the Gemara in Kidushin (72b) says that Rebbi was born on the day that Rebbi Akiva died. Accordingly, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was not alive at the time Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi was born! 
</p><p>
Tosfos answers in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha. The sage who was murdered by the Romans was the grandfather of the sage Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha. 
</p><p>
This answers the question here as well. It is possible that the Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash was the grandfather of the Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who was redeemed from captivity by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah. (See also <b>CHESHEK SHLOMO</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU NISIM GA'ON</b> clearly does not agree with this approach. The Gemara in Berachos (57b) states that a person who sees Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha in a dream should fear an impending misfortune. Rabeinu Nisim (DH Rebbi Yishmael) explains that this is because in Rebbi Yishmael's days the Jewish people suffered sorrows, decrees, and wars at the end of the period of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Rabeinu Nisim writes that Rebbi Yishmael was captured in his youth and redeemed by Rebbi Yehoshua, as the Gemara here relates. This was the same Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash. He was killed before the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash together with Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabeinu Nisim cites the Mechilta (Shemos 22:22) which says that when Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Shimon were martyred, Rebbi Akiva told his disciples to expect further disaster.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on apparently disagrees with the explanation of Tosfos that the redemption of the young Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha occurred at the time of the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Alternatively, perhaps Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on agrees with Tosfos but accepts the resolution which the Maharam Shif rejects (that the episode mentioned here occurred during the exile of the Sanhedrin, the prelude to the Churban).
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS RABEINU YEHUDAH SIRLEON</b> in Berachos (57b) also maintains that there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, a grandfather and his grandson. He asserts that the correct text of the Gemara in Berachos reads, 'He who sees Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha [in a dream] should expect to attain wisdom' (as Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was very wise). He proves at length that this refers to the colleague of Rebbi Akiva, whose <i>grandfather</i> was the Kohen Gadol who was killed as one of the ten martyrs. 
</p><p>
Although Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah and the Ri agree that there were two Rebbi Yishmael ben Elishas, they clearly disagree about when the second one lived. The Ri understands that the second Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha lived long after Rebbi Akiva, while Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah maintains that he was a colleague (not a student) of Rebbi Akiva. It is unclear how Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah will answer Tosfos' question in Yevamos (104a, DH Amar). 
</p><p>
(Although it is possible that Rebbi Akiva's colleague outlived him to the point that Rebbi (who was born on the day Rebbi Akiva died) had a student who saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, it is not likely, particularly considering that Rebbi Akiva died at the age of 120 (see Sifri, end of Parshas Vayechi).) 
</p><p>
1. <b>RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY</b> shlit'a, quoted in <b>DERECH SICHAH</b> (p. 337), adds another proof that there were two Rebbi Yishmael ben Elishas. The Gemara in Horayos (11a) derives from the verse, 'from the people of the Land' (Vayikra 4:27), that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Chatas when he inadvertently transgresses. 
<br>However, the Mishnah in Shabbos (12) sates that one may not read by the light of a candle on Shabbos because he may inadvertently tilt the candle (and transgress the Melachah of Mav'ir) to be able to see better. The Gemara there (12b) states that Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha said, 'I will read, and I will not tilt the candle.' Rebbi Nasan related that on one occasion Rebbi Yishmael read by the light of a candle on Shabbos, and indeed he tilted the candle. After Shabbos, Rebbi Yishmael wrote in his notebook, 'When the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt, I will sacrifice there a fat [Korban] Chatas for atonement.'
</p><p>
According to the Gemara in Berachos (7a) that says that Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was a Kohen Gadol, he would not bring a Chatas, since a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Chatas as derived by the Gemara in Horayos! However, if there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the problem is resolved. The one who tilted the candle must have been the grandson who lived after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash and was not a Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
(For an extensive debate on this subject, see <b>SEDER HA'DOROS</b>, section Tana'im, 'Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.') (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Shmuel - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> If 
          Levi bought land on which there was a lien to pay the 
          Kesuvah of Yehudah's wife Leah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he first bought it from Leah and then from 
               Yehudah, the sale is valid. If he first bought it 
               from Yehudah and then from Leah, the sale is void, 
               unless she writes Acharayus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rav!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Rav explains that 'Acharayus' means a 
          document (i.e. something that prevents her from 
          collecting the land).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven bought land from a Sikrikon and used 
          it for (three) years of Chazakah in front of Shimon (the 
          original owner), then sold it to Levi, Shimon has no 
          claim against Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Levi claims that Reuven bought the land 
               from Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, the Beraisa should have taught a 
               simpler case: if Reuven never sold it, and he claims 
               that he bought it from Shimon, Shimon has no claim 
               against him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Levi does not claim that Reuven bought 
               the land from Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, (not only Reuven would lose if he 
               didn't claim that he bought it from Shimon,) even 
               Levi does not keep the land!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Really, Levi does not make this 
          claim. In cases like this, we claim on behalf of one who 
          inherits or buys property;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, we do not claim on behalf of Reuven, for he 
               knows how he got the land. If he himself does not 
               claim, he loses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The law of Sikrikon (that Reuven can buy the 
          land from the Nochri and give Shimon a quarter of the 
          price) does not apply to a Nochri who took Shimon's land 
          for payment of a debt, or through mere extortion (when 
          there was no concern that he would kill Shimon);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding extortion, it must remain with the Nochri 
               for 12 months. (If not, the land belongs to Shimon.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We said that the law of Sikrikon does not apply 
          to extortion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa means that regarding a 
          Sikrikon, the land must stay with the Nochri for 12 
          months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There is not extortion in Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We see that there is!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, the law of extortion does not apply 
          in Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is an official with whom complaints may be 
          filed. If Shimon did not complain, this shows that he 
          allows the Nochri to keep the land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  (A landowner in a valley went away.) Gidal bar Rilai 
          arranged with the neighbors that he would work the land 
          and give the appropriate share of the tax (like the 
          custom). He paid three years of taxes in advance to the 
          king; the owner returned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The owner:</font></b> You gave the taxes for the first year and 
               consumed the Peros. Now I will pay the tax and use 
               my field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Suggestion (Rav Papa) Gidal collects what he paid 
               for the other two years from the neighbors (even 
               though they will have to pay the full tax. Since 
               Gidal is not a landowner in the valley, what he paid 
               will not count.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> If so, you 
               apply the law of Sikrikon to the king! (You say that 
               Gidal gets back what he paid, like the revised 
               version of the Mishnah when Shimon could have 
               redeemed his own land.) There is no Sikrikon in 
               Bavel (the king merely collects taxes)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMPENSATING THE ORIGINAL OWNER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This is the first version of the Mishnah. 
          Later, it was enacted that when Reuven buys from a 
          Sikrikon, he gives Shimon a quarter of the price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> He gives a quarter of the price he paid, in land 
          or in money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> He gives a quarter of the land. If he pays in 
          money, he gives a third of the price.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rav holds that a Sikrikon sells for four 
               fifths of the true value. Shmuel holds that he sells 
               for three fourths of the true value. (Therefore, 
               Reuven pays Shimon what he saved.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> This is the first 
          version of the Mishnah. Later, it was enacted that when 
          Reuven buys from a Sikrikon, he gives Shimon a quarter of 
          the price;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shimon may demand to be paid in land or in money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This applies when Shimon could not have redeemed the 
               land himself; if he could have, he may take back his 
               land (and pay Reuven what Reuven paid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi convened a Beis Din, who voted and enacted 
               that if the Sikrikon had the land for 12 months, 
               anyone may buy it, just he must give a quarter to 
               Shimon, in land or money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for Shmuel - Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa calls it a 
          quarter (in money), for one quarter of the total  Reuven 
          pays goes to Shimon (i.e. a third of what he paid the 
          Sikrikon).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) DOES BEIS DIN MAKE A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE LITIGANT?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that when one buys a field from a 'Sikrikon' and afterwards occupies the land for three years in front of the owners and then sells it to someone else, the original owners have no claim on the second buyer.
</p><p>
(<b>RASHI</b> (55b, DH Lo) explains that 'Sikrikon' refers to a murderous idolater who forces a Jew to hand over his field at the threat of his life. The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (Gitin 5:6) cites the <b>BARTENURA</b> (Bikurim 1:2) who explains that the root of the word 'Sikrikon' is 'Sa Karka v'Hanichani' -- 'take the land and leave me alone.' The field is not legally acquired by the idolater since the Jew did not willingly give him that field. Therefore, someone else who subsequently buys the field from the Sikrikon does not acquire the field.)
</p><p>
The Gemara asks, what is the claim of the second buyer? If he claims that the first buyer bought the field from the original owner, then even the first buyer would win with such a claim. It would not be necessary for the Beraisa to mention a case that involves a second buyer. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Minach) explains that the first buyer gave the original owner one quarter of the real value of the field (the Mishnah (55b) states that a later Beis Din instituted that one who buys a field from a Sikrikon must return a quarter of the value of the field to the original owners). If the second buyer does not argue that the first buyer gave a quarter to the owners, then the field does not belong to the second buyer either. What is the case in which there is specifically no claim on the second buyer?
</p><p>
Rav Sheshes answers that the case is where the second buyer does not argue that the first buyer paid a quarter to the original owner, and nevertheless Beis Din argues the case for him in the case of a Sikrikon. This is in contrast to the first buyer who must make this claim on his own. 
</p><p>
Rashi (DH To'anin) explains that the case is where a person bought a field from a Sikrikon and then either died (and his sons inherited the field and occupied it for three years) or sold it to someone else (who then occupied it for three years). If the original owner attempts to claim it back from the heirs or purchaser and he does not know that he should claim that 'perhaps the first buyer bought it from you,' Beis Din intervenes and makes that argument on behalf of the heir or for the purchaser.
</p><p>
Rashi writes that 'even according to the opinion in Bava Basra' that Beis Din generally does <i>not</i> claim for an heir or purchaser that the first buyer must have purchased the field from the original owner will <i>agree</i> that in this case Beis Din helps the defendant with this claim. The reason is that usually one who buys a field from a Sikrikon knows that it was a field originally seized forcibly from its original owner. He therefore will not waste his money and buy it without first consulting with the original owner. Accordingly, Beis Din may assume that the first buyer came to an arrangement with the original owner. This is why Beis Din makes this claim for the second buyer, even if he does not know that he should make this claim. However, Beis Din does not make this claim for the first buyer, because he certainly knows whether or not he bought it from the original owner. If he had indeed bought it from the original owner, he would have made this claim himself.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kegon) asks that the opinion which Rashi quotes from Bava Basra that Beis Din does not argue on behalf the heir or purchaser does not seem to exist. In fact, the Gemara in Bava Basra (23a) states that the principle that 'we make a claim for the buyer' and 'we make a claim for the heir' have a solid basis in the Mishnah and no one disagrees. To what opinion does Rashi refer?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that Rashi refers to the statement of Rav Bibi in Bava Basra (47b). Rav Bibi states that Beis Din does not accept the claim of a person who is known to have stolen an item, even if he has witnesses that the victim later admitted that the transaction was eventually conducted as a valid purchase and he received the money for his item. The Rashba explains that the Gemara also clearly implies that Beis Din does not make a claim for someone who purchased an object from a thief even though the thief may have converted his theft into a legal transaction. Rashi therefore writes that even according to this opinion, Beis Din <i>does</i> make such a claim for a person who bought or inherited a field from someone who bought the field from a Sikrikon. What, though, is the difference between a Sikrikon and a thief? 
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that Rashi answers this question as follows. Since the Chachamim established a way to buy from a Sikrikon (by paying the original owner one quarter of the value), the first buyer must have bought the field in that manner. Accordingly, as long as the heirs established a Chazakah afterwards, Beis Din may assume that the purchase was done in accordance with the way the Chachamim mandated that one deal with a Sikrikon. In contrast, the Chachamim never established a way to deal with other stolen goods in this manner. Therefore, whenever it is known that something was stolen, Beis Din does not assume that it had any 'legal' resolution. (See Rashba at length.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that Rashi refers to a dispute between Rav and Rebbi Chiya in Bava Basra (41b). Although everyone agrees that Beis Din <i>does</i> make claims on behalf of an heir, Rav and Rebbi Chiya disagree about whether Beis Din does so only when the heirs have some sort of proof that the object belongs to them. Rashi explains that in the case of the Gemara here, Beis Din makes the claim for the heirs even though they have no proof that the land is theirs.
</p><p>


The Pnei Yehoshua addresses the obvious question. In the case of the Gemara here, the heirs have a Chazakah (they occupied the field for three years). How can this be called lack of proof? The Pnei Yehoshua answers that since the heirs certainly know that a Sikrikon originally seized the land, they admit that they might have been occupying the land wrongfully for all of these years. Accordingly, the Chazakah is not considered a valid proof in this case. (D Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LEADERSHIP IN YISRAEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> I was among the Beis Din that Rebbi convened to 
          vote on this law. I was the first to speak.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> In matters of money or Tum'ah, the 
          greatest Chacham speaks first (and Rebbi was the 
          greatest). In capital cases, he does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah brei d'Rava):</font></b> Rebbi conducted differently. 
          He never spoke first. (Rashi - he holds that the greatest 
          Chacham never speaks first. Tosfos - he did not want to 
          show that he was the greatest.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah brei d'Rava):</font></b> From the time of Moshe until Rebbi, 
          we do not find that the leader of Yisrael was the 
          greatest in Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> Yehoshua (bin Nun) was the leader and the 
          greatest in Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Elazar (ben Aharon) was as great in Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Elazar was the greatest (after Yehoshua 
          died)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Pinchas was as great.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> Pinchas was the greatest (after Elazar 
          died)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The elders were as great.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #4:</font></b> Sha'ul was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel was around.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> After Shmuel died, Sha'ul was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah brei d'Rava means, no one else was the 
          greatest all the years of his reign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #5:</font></b> Shlomo was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shim'i ben Geira was around.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shlomo was greatest after he killed Shim'i!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He was not the greatest all the years of his 
          reign.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN WAS THE LEADER OF YISRAEL THE GREATEST IN TORAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #6:</font></b> Chizkiyah was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There was Shevna.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He was killed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chizkiyah was not the greatest all the years of 
          his reign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Ezra was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Nechemyah ben Chachalyah was as great.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Similarly, from Rebbi until Rav 
          Ashi, the leader was not the greatest in Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Huna bar Noson was the greatest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Huna was submissive to Rav Ashi.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUISITIONS OF CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Cheresh (deaf-mute) gestures or reacts to 
          gestures (to make transactions);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Ben Beseirah says, he moves his lips or responds to lip 
          motion (and this suffices) for Metaltelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If Pa'utos (mature children) buy or sell Metaltelim, it 
          is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman) Version #1:</font></b> They argue only about 
          Metaltelim, but all agree that gestures suffice for 
          Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious. The Mishnah explicitly says 
          that they argue about Metaltelim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that they argue even about 
          Metaltelim. Rav Nachman teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Just like they argue about Metaltelim, they 
          also argue about Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says only that they argue about 
          Metaltelim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means, they argue even about Metaltelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Pa'utos buy or sell Metaltelim, it is 
          valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> At what age are children considered Pa'utos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is from the age of six or 
          seven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> It is from the age of seven or 
          eight.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> It is from the age of nine or 10.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They do not argue. It varies according to the 
               sharpness of the child.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was it enacted that Pa'utos can buy and 
          sell Metaltelim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Aba bar Yakov):</font></b> It is so they can buy their 
          necessities.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'He said to the guardian of the Miltechah, 
               take out clothing for all that serve the idol Ba'al' 
               - what is Miltechah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Aba bar Yakov):</font></b> (A fabric) that is 
               NiMLal and NimTaCH (rolled and stretched. The Gemara 
               brings these teachings of Rav Acha bar Yakov 
               together, even though they are not related to each 
               other.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Bunyas ben Bunyas sent to Rebbi four 
               types of linen garments. They were amazingly thin, 
               and could be compressed into the size of a nut and a 
               half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Up to how much may Pa'utos err, and the 
          transaction is still valid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yonah):</font></b> It is up to a sixth of the value, like 
          the law of adults.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Can Pa'utos give gifts?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yemar):</font></b> They cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> They can.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rabanan sent these opinions to Rav Mordechai, but 
               they switched them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> Tell Mar bar Rav Ashi that my Rebbi 
               (his father) ruled that they can give gifts;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This applies whether the child is healthy or 
                    dying, whether the gift is large or small.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENACTMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF SHALOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are enactments for the sake of 
          Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Kohen reads the Torah first, followed by a Levi, 
          followed by a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Eruv (bread used to make a courtyard shared by 
          different houses considered one joint domain) is always 
          placed in the same house.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO SPEAKS FIRST IN DECISIONS OF BEIS DIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that when Beis Din adjudicates in matters of capital punishment the less experienced judges should voice their opinions first, but in matters of monetary law the head of the Beis Din should voice his opinion first. What is the reason for this difference?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that there is concern that the head of the Beis Din will say that the defendant deserves the death penalty, and the other judges will refrain from disagreeing with him because of the precept that one should not voice an opinion against that of a greater authority, as derived from the verse, 'Lo Sa'aneh Al Riv' (Shemos 23:2), which is interpreted to mean 'Lo Sa'aneh Al <i>Rav</i>.' (See Rashi, Sanhedrin 36a and 18b.)
</p><p>
Rashi writes that this law is a unique law which applies to cases of capital punishment (as implied by the Gemara in Sanhedrin 2b). In contrast, in cases of monetary matters there is no need to have the less experienced judges voice their opinions first, since the younger judges are permitted to express their opinions even after the head judge has voiced his.
</p><p>
Rashi uses this approach to explain the next part of the Gemara, which says that in the days of Rebbi the younger judges voiced their opinions first in <i>all</i> cases. Why was this the protocol in the days of Rebbi?
</p><p>
Rashi explains that Rebbi was of the opinion that the prohibition against voicing an opinion against that of a greater Rav applies to monetary law as well. Therefore, in his days, the younger judges voiced their opinions first in all cases.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> writes that a younger judge is always permitted to voice his opinion, even after the head of the Beis Din has voiced his. The Torah requires that younger judges voice their opinions first in cases of capital punishment, because there is a concern that they will not <i>want</i> to voice their opinion in disagreement with the head of the Beis Din. In contrast, in cases of monetary law, the Torah is not concerned that the younger judges will refrain from voicing their opinions after the head of the Beis Din has voiced his, and therefore the head of the Beis Din voices his opinion first.
</p><p>
The Ran explains that the reason why, in the days of Rebbi, the younger judges expressed their views first in all cases, is that since Rebbi was a very great and personality, there was a concern that when he served on the Beis Din the younger judges would not voice their opinions after his even with regard to monetary cases. Although in general there is no concern that the younger judges will not voice there opinions in cases of monetary law, when the head of the Beis Din is such a great sage like Rebbi, there <i>is</i> a concern even in cases of monetary law.
<br> 
<br>(<b>TOSFOS</b> explains that although Rebbi agrees that the head of the Beis Din voices his opinion first in cases of monetary law, Rebbi had the younger judges express their opinions first out of his great humility.) 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ACQUISITIONS OF MINORS ABOVE THE AGE OF TEN</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara states that minors may acquire movable objects (Metaltelin). The Gemara discusses the minimum age at which a minor may make a Kinyan. The Gemara concludes that the age depends on each child's level of intelligence. A sharp child may make a Kinyan at the age of six, while a less intelligent child may make a Kinyan only at a later age.
</p><p>
The Gemara discusses the assessment of a child's intellectual maturity only up to the age of ten years. May a child older than ten make a Kinyan even without Beis Din's assessment of his intellectual maturity?
<br> 
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> infers from the Gemara that once a child is ten years old, Beis Din assumes that he is sharp enough to make a Kinyan and there is no need to assess his acumen. Only when a ten-year-old clearly lacks the normal intelligence for that age is he not able to make a Kinyan. (See <b>REMA</b> CM 235:1.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Mechirah 29:6) rules that child under the age of thirteen must be assessed in order to be able to make a Kinyan. (See <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> CM 235:1 and <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> there, #2.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) ACQUISITIONS OF THE DEAF</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that the gestures and signs which a deaf person makes are valid indications of his desire in cases of acquisitions of movable objects (Metaltelin). Accordingly, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Mechirah 29:2) rules that a deaf-mute may sell only Metaltelin, but not Karka (land), even if he is deaf and not mute. (Support for the notion that there is a different standard of intelligence with regard to the ability to buy and sell land may be adduced from the Gemara later (65a) that states that even an adult (above the age of Bar Mitzvah) may not sell land until he is twenty years old.)
</p><p>
The Rambam's ruling is difficult to understand in light of the Gemara in Chagigah (4b) which states that only a deaf-mute is treated like a Shoteh (without the intellectual capacity to make a Kinyan). A deaf person who is able to speak is considered like an ordinary adult.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (CM 235) answers that the Rambam understands that the Gemara in Chagigah means that a deaf person who can speak is like a normal adult only with regard to specific Halachos. His status with regard to making Kinyanim, however, differs from that of a normal adult.
</p><p>
The Beis Yosef adds that perhaps the Rambam maintains that the Gemara in Chagigah refers to one who is able to hear, but only with difficulty. Such a person has the status of a normal adult. In contrast, one who cannot hear <i>at all</i> does not have the status of a normal adult even if he can speak.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (235:20) rejects the Beis Yosef's explanations. He points out that the Gemara in Chagigah states that 'in every place' one who can speak is treated like a normal adult, which implies that he is treated like an adult for <i>all</i> matters. The Nesivos ha'Mishpat points out that the <b>ROSH</b> rules that the Halachic definition of a Cheresh (deaf person) is one who cannot hear or speak at all (in contrast to the Beis Yosef's second answer, that one who can hear with difficulty is considered a Cheresh if he cannot speak). 
</p><p>
The Nesivos ha'Mishpat answers instead that the Rambam understands that the Gemara in Chagigah refers only to places in which the term 'Cheresh' is mentioned <i>with</i> the term 'Shoteh.' The Mishnah here mentions only a Cheresh and <i>not</i> a Shoteh, and thus the term 'Cheresh' includes one who is deaf but not mute. (See also <b>VILNA GA'ON</b>, CM 235:54.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The pit closest to the irrigation ditch takes water 
          first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  It is considered stealing to take from where fishermen 
          and hunters set their traps;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this is absolute theft!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If a Cheresh, lunatic or minor picked up a Hefker object, 
          it is considered stealing to take it from him;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this is absolute theft!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  If an Oni (poor person) knocked down olives from an olive 
          tree, someone else not take the olives below;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this is absolute theft!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  We do not object to poor Nochrim who take Leket, 
          Shichechah and Pe'ah (agricultural gifts left for the 
          poor).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ORDER OF READING FROM THE TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that a Kohen reads 
          first?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Masnah):</font></b> 'Moshe wrote the Torah and gave 
          it to the Kohanim, the sons of Levi.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We already know that Kohanim descend from 
               Levi!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, this teaches that a Kohen reads 
               first, then a Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'Aharon was separated to be the 
          holiest.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> 'You will sanctify him (a 
          Kohen)' - for every matter of Kedushah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beraisa (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'You will sanctify 
               him' for every matter of Kedushah - to speak first, 
               to bless first, and to receive a nice portion first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah say that he reads first 
          for the sake of Shalom. According to these answers, the 
          Torah says that he reads first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Torah says so for the sake of 
          Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> All laws of the Torah are for the sake of 
          Shalom - 'its ways are ways of Shalom'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (and Answer #4 to Question (a) - Abaye):</font></b> We 
          understand this from what my Rebbi (Rabah) said. (The 
          enactment was that a Kohen must read first. The Torah 
          teaches that we ask him to read first.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If two eat from a common serving bowl, 
               one does not take another portion until the other 
               finishes his portion (so he can take at the same 
               time);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If three eat and two have finished, they need 
                    not wait for the third.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The one who blessed on the bread is the first to 
               take from the bowl (to accompany his bread). He may 
               honor his Rebbi or one greater than himself by 
               letting them take first.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> This applies only to a meal. Regarding 
                    reading the Torah, a Kohen may not honor 
                    someone else by letting him read first, for 
                    this will lead to quarrels.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Masnah):</font></b> Rabah's law applies only on 
                    Shabbos or Yom Tov, when many people are in 
                    Beis ha'Keneses, but not on Mondays or 
                    Thursdays.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Huna (who was not a Kohen) read 
                    first on Shabbos and Yom Tov!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is an exception. Even R. Ami and R. 
                    Asi, the greatest Kohanim of Eretz Yisrael, 
                    were submissive to him. (People will not 
                    quarrel if Rav Huna reads first.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If no Kohen is present, the order is undone. 
          (The Levi does not read at all. Some say that there is no 
          set place for him to read.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If no Levi is present, a Kohen reads in his 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught, a Kohen may not read after 
          a Kohen, lest people think that the latter reads because 
          we found out that the first was not a valid Kohen. A Levi 
          may not read after a Levi, lest people think that either 
          one of them is not a Levi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Kohen who read first also reads the 
          second portion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Regarding Leviyim, R. Yochanan is concerned 
          lest people think that either of them is not a Levi. 
          Regarding Kohanim, he is concerned for suspicion only 
          about the first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, everyone knows that the father of 
          the second Kohen is a valid Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that similarly, everyone knows 
          that the father of the second Levi is a valid Levi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> People will think that the second Levi's mother 
          is a Mamzeres or Nesinah, therefore he is not a proper 
          Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should be concerned lest people think 
          that the to a minor Kohen's mother is a divorcee or 
          Chalutzah, and he is a Pasul Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (People will not suspect this, for) if he were 
          Pasul, he would not be considered even a Levi, and he 
          would not read second.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> About whom are we concerned (lest they suspect 
          that the first Kohen is Pasul)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We are concerned about people who stay 
               for the entire Torah reading.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> They will see that he was counted among 
               the seven who read (so they will know that he is a 
               valid Kohen)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned about people who leave during 
          the Torah reading.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: THE RIGHT TO THE FIRST ALIYAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that, mid'Oraisa, a Kohen should be given the first Aliyah at the reading of the Torah because it is a Mitzvah to give honor to Kohanim. When the Mishnah says that this is only an enactment of the Rabanan for the sake of preserving peace among people, it refers to the rule that the Kohen is given the first Aliyah even when the Kohen himself prefers to defer the honor to his teacher. Since he prefers to defer, there is no longer a Mitzvah d'Oraisa to give the honor to him.
</p><p>
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna received the first Aliyah since he was the greatest Torah authority of his time. This implies that in the case of an ordinary person who happens to be more learned than the Kohen who is present, the more learned person does <i>not</i> precede the Kohen. The Kohen is given the honor of the first Aliyah even though the other person is more learned.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Horayos (13a) seems to contradict the Gemara here. The Gemara there states that giving honor to a Talmid Chacham takes precedence over giving honor to a Kohen who is an Am ha'Aretz. How are these Gemaras to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that when the Mishnah says that a Kohen receives the first Aliyah, it refers only to a situation in which no greater Talmid Chacham is present. The Rambam writes that there is no requirement for a Talmid Chacham to honor a Kohen who is less learned than he, as implied by the Gemara in Horayos. The Rambam understands that the Gemara here stresses the greatness of Rav Huna because Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi -- who were the greatest Kohanim of that time -- were present and only a Talmid Chacham greater than would be given the Aliyah before them.
</p><p>
The Rambam's opinion is problematic. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that when one recites the blessing for bread and has in mind to recite the blessing for others who are present, the one who recites the blessing dips his slice of bread before the others. If he is a Kohen and wants to honor his teacher, he may let his teacher dip first. This implies that the Kohen is entitled to be first even though his teacher, who is more learned than he, is present. This seems to contradict the Rambam's ruling that honoring a Talmid Chacham takes precedence over honoring a Kohen.
</p><p>
The <b>PRI CHADASH</b> answers that the rule that one who recites the blessing dips his bread first applies even if he is not a Kohen and not a Talmid Chacham. Therefore, there is no implication from this Gemara that the honor of a Kohen takes precedence over the honor of a Talmid Chacham, since the reason he has the right to dip before the Talmid Chacham is not because he is a Kohen, but because he is the one who recited the blessing over the bread.
<br>	
<br>(b) The <b>TUR</b> cites <b>RAV AMRAM GA'ON</b> and <b>RAV NOTRANA'I GA'ON</b> who maintain that when there is a Kohen present, he receives the first Aliyah even if he is ignorant and there is a great Talmid Chacham present. They apparently understand that although a great Talmid Chacham has precedence over a Kohen with regard to other Mitzvos (such as giving Tzedakah to one before the other when both are poor) as the Gemara in Horayos teaches, with regard to the reading of the Torah the Chachamim instituted an enactment to prevent disputes and therefore established that the Kohen <i>always</i> receives the first Aliyah even if he is less learned than others.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> writes that the Kohen receives the first Aliyah even when there are others present who are more learned than he, but only when the Kohen is not an Am ha'Aretz. When the Kohen is an Am ha'Aretz, the Talmid Chacham precedes him.
</p><p>
The Ritva seems to understand that the requirement that a Kohen receive the first Aliyah applies only when the Kohen possesses qualities for which he deserves to be honored, besides the fact that he is a Kohen. In such a case, the Kohen may not relinquish his honor to others.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Ritva maintains that when both candidates -- the Kohen and the Yisrael -- for the first Aliyah are Talmidei Chachamim, the Kohen receives the first Aliyah even if the Yisrael is a greater Talmid Chacham (as implied by the Gemara here). If, however, the Kohen is an Am ha'Aretz, the Talmid Chacham has precedence (as implied by the Gemara in Horayos); there was no enactment that such a Kohen should precede a Talmid Chacham.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The common practice today follows the opinion of the Ge'onim who maintain that a Kohen always receives the first Aliyah, for the sake of preserving peace. The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 135:3) quotes the <b>CHAYEI ADAM</b> who says that when there is an eminent Talmid Chacham present and there is also a Kohen who is learned as well as a Kohen who is not learned, it is preferable to give the first Aliyah to the Kohen who is a Talmid Chacham and not to the one who is an Am ha'Aretz. (Nevertheless, one must be careful with this Chumra and avoid causing disputes.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>READING THE TORAH IN THE TZIBUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (people of Galil):</font></b> Who reads after the Kohen and 
          Levi?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yitzchak Nafcha):</font></b> The next priorities to read 
          are: Chachamim appointed over the Tzibur; Chachamim 
          qualified to be appointed; children of the appointed 
          Chachamim; the heads of the Tzibur; and everyone else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (people of Galil):</font></b> May we read the Torah in the 
          Beis ha'Keneses from a scroll containing only one of the 
          five Chumashim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabanan):</font></b> We learn from R. Yochanan that one 
          may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We may not read in the Beis 
               ha'Keneses from a Sefer Torah missing a column.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> He disqualifies a deficient Sefer. We ask 
          about a complete Sefer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> We may not read, for it 
          is dishonorable to the Tzibur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> We may not read from a Sefer 
          Haftorah (a scroll containing only the passages from 
          Nevi'im read for the Haftorah), for one may not write 
          such a Sefer. (One may write only complete Sefarim of 
          Tanach.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> One may not even move it on 
               Shabbos, for one may not read from it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> The Halachah does not follow these opinions. 
          Rather, we may move and read from such a Sefer. (We learn 
          from the following.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish read from a Sefer of 
               Agadata on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> One may not write oral Torah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since there was no alternative (the 
               teachings were in danger of being forgotten), they 
               could be written - 'Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu 
               Torasecha.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Similarly, we may write and use a Sefer Haftorah 
               (since not every Tzibur can afford a complete set of 
               Nevi'im).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WRITING PORTIONS OF THE TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> May one write a Megilah (a partial 
          Chumash), in order to teach a child?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can ask according to the opinion that the Torah 
               was given (written) one Parshah at a time (and 
               merged at the end), and also according to the 
               opinion that the Torah was given (not written until 
               it was) complete.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that the Torah was given 
               one Parshah at a time, we should likewise be allowed 
               to write a Megilah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or perhaps, once the Torah was finalized, it 
                    can no longer be written piecemeal!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that the Torah was given 
               complete, likewise, we may write only complete 
               Seforim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or perhaps, since there is no alternative (for 
                    people who cannot write a full Chumash), one 
                    may write a Megilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> According to both opinions, it may not 
          be written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Queen Hilni made a gold tablet on 
          which Parshas Sotah was written (for the Kohanim to copy 
          from).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Only the first letter of each word 
          was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The Kohen (who copies the Parshah) 
          looks at the tablet and writes what is written in the 
          tablet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This means that he writes based on what is 
          written in the tablet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> It is written in the tablet 'if a man 
          lied (with you)... if a man did not lie.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Only the first word of each verse is properly 
          written in the tablet. Only the initial letters of the 
          other words are written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not one may 
          write a Megilah to teach a child.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not write a Megilah to teach a 
               child;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, one may write from Bereishis until 
               the generation of the flood. One may write from the 
               beginning of Sefer Vayikra until 'va'Yhi ba'Yom 
               ha'Shemini.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Torah was given one Parshah at a time 
          - 'bi'Mgilas Sefer it is written about me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Torah was given complete - 'take this 
          Sefer Torah.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Yochanan explain this verse?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It was said only after the Torah was 
               completed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does Reish Lakish explain the verse 
               that R. Yochanan learned from?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> The entire Torah is also called a Megilah 
               - 'I see a Megilah flying.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Only eight Parshiyos, which were taught 
               on the day that the Mishkan was inaugurated, were 
               written separately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Levi):</font></b> The following eight Parshiyos were 
               written on the day that the Mishkan was inaugurated:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The special Isurim of Kohanim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  The Parshah of the Leviyim (that they will 
                    assist the Kohanim);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  That people Tamei at the time of Pesach bring 
                    the Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheni (Rashi; 
                    Tosfos - that Tamei people may not touch 
                    Kodshim);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b>  The expulsion of Tamei people from the camps;
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> That only the Kohen Gadol may enter the Kodesh 
                    ha'Kodoshim, during the Yom Kipur service.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: THE ORDER OF THE ALIYOS </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara lists the order of the Aliyos and who takes precedence for being called to read from the Torah. Why is the Gemara's order not followed in practice today?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> (OC 136:2) writes that today there no longer are Parnasim (community leaders) or Talmidei Chachamim who can answer a Halachic question in any area of Torah. Hence, the Gemara's order of Aliyos is not applicable today.
<br> 
<br>He adds that it is a Mitzvah to put an end to the common but mistaken assumption that certain Aliyos are a disgrace. When a person sees that others look down upon a certain Aliyah, he should go out of his way to get that Aliyah in order to prevent disgrace of the Torah and the development of disputes.
<br> 
<br>The prevailing custom is to give the Rav of the congregation the third Aliyah ('Shelishi'). In certain places, the custom is to give the Rav the last Aliyah. (See Aruch ha'Shulchan ibid., and Mishnah Berurah OC 136:5).
</p><p>
Although the Gemara implies that there is nothing special about the sixth Aliyah ('Shishi'), many people today consider that Aliyah to be a more honorable one, based on the words of the Zohar. 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: READING FROM A SEFER TORAH THAT IS 'PASUL'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara states that the Parshah should not be read from a Sefer Torah that is missing a section of its parchment (Yeri'ah). Does this imply that a Sefer Torah is Pasul only when it is missing an entire Yeri'ah?
</p><p>
Moreover, does this imply that a Sefer Torah that is Pasul may not be used for the public reading of the Torah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Megilah (9a) proves from the Gemara here that a Sefer Torah that is missing just one word is valid as long it is not missing an entire Yeri'ah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> here writes that even if the Sefer Torah is missing one letter, it is Pasul. He explains that the Gemara does not mean to imply that if only one letter is missing, the Sefer Torah is valid. In his Teshuvos (1:611), the Rashba writes that the Gemara mentions that the Sefer Torah is Pasul when it is missing an entire Yeri'ah because in such a case one is not permitted even to read from another Chumash in that Sefer Torah. In contrast, when it is missing only one letter, one is permitted to read from another Chumash in that Sefer Torah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in a Teshuvah quoted by the <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Sefer Torah 10:1) maintains that a Sefer Torah which is missing even one letter is Pasul. He proves from the Gemara that a Sefer Torah that is Pasul may be used for the public Torah reading, and only if it is missing an entire Yeri'ah is it Pasul for the public Torah reading. This ruling, however, is not consistent with the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Sefer Torah, where he writes that a missing letter renders a Sefer Torah unfit for public Torah readings. 
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> There are three basic approaches to what to do when a mistake is found in a Sefer Torah in the middle of an Aliyah.
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAHARI BEI RAV</b> maintains that the person who was called up for that Aliyah should <i>not</i> recite the blessing normally recited after the Aliyah ('Ashar Nasan Lanu Toras Emes...'). Rather, the reader must read at least three verses from a valid Sefer Torah, and then the person may recite the blessing. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 143) rules in accordance with this opinion.
</p><p>
2. The <b>MORDECHAI</b> maintains that when the mistake is found at a point at which the reader may stop reading, the person called up for that Aliyah should recite the concluding blessing at that point, and the reading should continue from there (with the next Aliyah) in a valid Sefer Torah. If the reader cannot end the Aliyah there (due to the nature of the verses being read, or because he has not yet read the minimum number of verses), he should read by heart until he reaches a point at which he can end the Aliyah, and then the concluding blessing may be said.
<br> 
<br>3. The <b>REMA</b> makes a compromise between the opinions of the Mahari Bei Rav and the Mordechai. He writes that if the mistake is found at a point where the Aliyah can be concluded, the concluding blessing should be said at that point (like the Mordechai). If the Aliyah cannot end at that point, another Sefer Torah should be brought and the Aliyah finished the valid Sefer Torah, and then the concluding blessing may be said.
</p><p>
If a Sefer Torah is found to be Pasul in the middle of the Torah reading, it is not necessary to read again the previous Aliyos that were read before the error was found. One may rely on the opinions that a Sefer Torah that is Pasul is valid for use for the public Torah reading.
</p><p>
However, the <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 143:13) quotes Acharonim who rule that if a mistake is found after several Aliyos have been read, where it is possible to split the remainder of the Parshah into seven Aliyos it is preferable to do so.
</p><p>
The Mishnah Berurah (OC 143:29) discusses what should be done when the synagogue has no other Sefer Torah. According to some Acharonim, in such a case the rest of the Aliyos should be read <i>with</i> the blessings. However, the <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> and the <b>SHA'AREI EFRAIM</b> write that no additional blessings should be said. Therefore, the one who received the Aliyah in which the mistake was found should remain standing at the Bimah and should not recite the concluding blessing. The Gabai should call up others for the rest of the Aliyos, but they should <i>not</i> recite the blessings. When the reading of the Parshah has finishes, the one who received the Aliyah in which the mistake was found should recite the concluding blessing.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b>  The Isur for a Kohen to serve while drunk;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b></b>  The lighting of the Menorah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii. </font></b></b>  The red heifer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The majority of the Torah is written, the 
          minority is oral - 'I will write for him (Yisrael) most 
          of My Torah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The majority of the Torah is oral, the 
          minority is written - 'Al Pi (according to - literally, 
          by the mouth) these words' (the covenant was made).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Yochanan explain R. Elazar's 
               verse?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Hash-m asks in astonishment 'should I write 
               for him most of My Torah?' He considers it foreign!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Elazar explain the verse that 
               R. Yochanan learned from?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The covenant was on the oral Torah, for it 
               is harder to learn.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yehudah bar Nachmani):</font></b> One verse says 'write 
          these words', and another says 'Al Pi these words' (they 
          should be oral)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yehudah bar Nachmani):</font></b> You may not recite 
          (Rashi - teach to Yisrael) written Torah by heart. You 
          may not read oral Torah from a written text (you may not 
          write it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'These' - words of 
          Torah you may write, but you may not write Halachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Hash-m made a covenant with Yisrael only 
          due to the oral Torah - 'Al Pi these words I made a 
          covenant with you and with Yisrael.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENACTMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF SHALOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Eruv is placed in the same house (like it 
          used to be) for the sake of Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this needed for Shalom?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is due to the honor of the original 
               house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The Shofar (sounded on Erev Shabbos; some 
               say, a collection box for money to support the 
               Yeshivah) of Pumbadisa was originally in Rav 
               Yehudah's home. It later passed to the houses of 
               (the succeeding Roshei Yeshiva, i.e.) Rabah, then 
               Rav Yosef, then Abaye, then Rava!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, if people see it missing from its usual 
          place, they might suspect that people carrying in the 
          courtyard are transgressing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The pit closest to the irrigation channel 
          takes water first...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The people downstream on a river drink from it 
          first;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The people upstream drink first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that anyone may take whenever he wants 
               like the river flows; they argue about damming up 
               the river to irrigate one's fields.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel says that the upstream people have priority, 
               for the water comes to them first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav says that the downstream people have priority. 
               They can claim that the river should be allowed to 
               flow. (No one cares what happens downstream from 
               them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav - Mishnah):</font></b> The pit closest to the 
          irrigation channel takes water first for the sake of 
          Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel, on behalf of Rav):</font></b> The case is, the 
          channel passes over the pit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, obviously they take first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the others can tell 
          him to cover his pit and draw with a bucket (like they 
          do). The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna bar Tachlifa):</font></b> Since the Halachah was not fixed 
          like either opinion, the strongest party wins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Simi bar Ashi told Abaye that he would irrigate his 
          fields for him, in order that Abaye would have time to 
          learn with him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Simi told the people upstream that the Halachah 
               is that the people downstream drink first. He told 
               the people downstream that the upstream people drink 
               first. He dammed the river and irrigated Abaye's 
               fields.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye was upset. He did not eat from the Peros of 
               his fields that year (to show his disapproval).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Certain people used to detour a river so it would 
          irrigate their fields. People upstream complained that 
          this caused flooding upstream.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> The upstream people should dig to deepen the 
               river to avoid the flooding.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The upstream people:</font></b> If we do so, when the river is 
               low, it will not irrigate our fields!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> If so, the downstream people may not reroute 
               the river (Rashi. R. Chananel - the upstream people 
               cannot protest.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) MORE WRITTEN TORAH THAN ORAL TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Elazar maintains that the majority of the Torah is Torah she'Bichtav (the Written Torah). Rebbi Yochanan disagrees and maintains that the majority of the Torah is Torah she'Ba'al Peh (the Oral Torah).
</p><p>
What does Rebbi Elazar mean when he says that the majority of the Torah is Torah she'Bichtav? There are clearly many more volumes of Torah she'Ba'al Peh than Torah she'Bichtav.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yochanan are not comparing the Written Torah with the Oral Torah. Both are discussing the Oral Torah. Rebbi Elazar refers to the Halachos of Torah she'Ba'al Peh that are derived from Derashos from the verses in the Written Torah, while Rebbi Yochanan refers to the Halachos of Torah she'Ba'al Peh that were given to Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai and passed down from him, which do not have any apparent source in the Written Torah.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks that according to Rashi's explanation, if Rebbi Elazar means that all Halachos derived from Derashos are included in the Written Torah, then it is obvious that the Written Torah is larger. Why does Rebbi Yochanan disagree? The Maharsha answers that perhaps the novel interpretations of the Chachamim are also included in the category of Oral Torah, and thus the Oral Torah is larger than the Written Torah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BE'ER SHEVA</b> explains that everyone agrees that if everything derived from Derashos (through the Thirteen Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen) are included in the Written Torah, the Written Torah is larger. The disagreement is whether the laws learned from Derashos should be categorized as part of the Written Torah or as part of the Oral Torah.
</p><p>
The <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> (beginning of 'Pesichah ha'Koleles') writes that this dispute has Halachic implications. The Gemara continues and mentions the prohibition against writing Torah she'Ba'al Peh. If Halachos derived from Derashos are included in Torah she'Ba'al Peh, those Halachos and Derashos should not be permitted to be written, but if they are included in Torah she'Bichtav, they may be written. (In practice, Torah she'Ba'al Peh may be written so that it not be forgotten ('Eis la'Asos la'Shem...') but not for other reasons.) 
</p><p>
The Gemara cites the verse, 'Echtav Lachem Rubei Torasi' -- 'I wrote for him the great things (or majority) of My Torah...' (Hoshea 8:12), as support for the opinion that most of the Torah is Torah she'Bichtav. The Gemara says that Rebbi Yochanan -- who maintains that the Oral Torah constitutes most of the Torah -- understands the verse as a rhetorical question in which Hash-m asks, 'Should I write the majority of the Torah? If so, the Jews will be the same as the other nations!' (This is according to Tosfos' explanation of the Gemara. Tosfos explains that if the Oral Torah would be written down, the other nations would copy it and say that it was also given to them.) Based on the Pri Megadim and Be'er Sheva, one may suggest that this interpretation of the verse also explains <i>why</i> Halachos that are derived from Derashos are considered part of the Oral Torah and thus may not be written: if this part of the Oral Torah would be written, the other nations would have access to all of the Derashos.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENACTMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF SHALOM (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (One may not take from) traps for animal, 
          birds or fish...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  All agree that it is absolute theft to take from a net 
          (because the owner of the net acquires what is trapped). 
          They argue about what is caught in hooks. (Chachamim 
          forbid taking it, for the sake of Shalom. R. Yosi says 
          that it is full theft.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> What a deaf person, lunatic or minor finds...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this is absolute theft.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> R. Yosi means that it is absolute theft 
          mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make to say that it is 
          absolute theft?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi holds that Beis Din makes him return it. 
          Chachamim disagree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If an Oni knocked down olives from a tree, 
          what is below...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the Oni held the olives in his hand before 
          casting them down, all agree that this is absolute theft.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rashi):</font></b> Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal. He saw a man 
          throwing sticks to knock down dates. (Rashi; Tosfos  - he 
          was throwing down branches of a date tree. Rav Kahana 
          thought that the man only wanted the wood.) Rav Kahana 
          ate some of the dates.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The man:</font></b> I threw them down with my hands! (I want 
               the dates. It is full theft to take them!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Kahana:</font></b> Because he is from R. Yoshiyah's region, 
               he knows the Halachah well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not protest against Nochrim who take 
          Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We support poor Nochrim along with poor 
          Yisre'elim, we visit sick Nochrim along with sick 
          Yisre'elim, and we bury Nochrim as well as Yisre'elim. 
          All these are for the sake of Shalom.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HELPING TRANSGRESSORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Leah is suspected to transgress Shemitah, 
          Sarah may lend to her a sifter, grinder or oven, but she 
          may not sift or grind with her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Sarah, the wife of a Chaver (a trustworthy man, regarding 
          tithes or Taharah) may lend to Leah (a commoner's wife) a 
          sifter, and she may sift and grind with her. Once she 
          adds water (e.g. to knead), Sarah may not help, for we do 
          not assist transgressors;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> What is allowed was permitted only for the sake of 
               Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  We encourage Nochrim working in Shemitah, but not 
          Yisre'elim, and we may greet Nochrim with 'Shalom', for 
          the sake of Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why do we forbid to help sift or grind 
          in the Reisha, but permit this in the Seifa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Most commoners tithe properly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Seifa refers to helping the wife of 
          a man who is reliable about tithes, but not about 
          Taharah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since the Isur to make Chulin Tamei in Eretz Yisrael 
               is only mid'Rabanan, we are more lenient.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A commoner is one who does not 
               eat Chulin in Taharah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is one who does not tithe 
               properly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (end of the Seifa):</font></b> Once she adds water, Sarah 
          may not help.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that the Reisha of the Seifa does not 
               discuss Taharah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Both parts of the Seifa pertain to Taharah. The 
          first part discusses Tum'ah of Chulin, which involves 
          only an Isur mid'Rabanan;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The end discusses Tum'ah of Chalah, which is 
               mid'Oraisa.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ACQUIRING AN OBJECT WITHOUT INTENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (59b) states that olives which an olive-picker knocked off the tree do not become his (if he does not own the tree). Someone else who takes those olives does not transgress the prohibition of stealing mid'Oraisa, but he does transgress Gezeilah <i>mid'Rabanan</i>, because the Rabanan enacted that no one may take those olives 'Mipnei Darchei Shalom.' The Gemara says that if the picker puts the olives into his hand, they belong to him, and someone who takes them from him transgresses the Torah prohibition against stealing.
</p><p>
What does the Gemara intend to teach? It is obvious that if the picker placed the olives into his hand, he acquired them and no one may take them from him. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Liket)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara's intent is to teach that even if he picked them with intention to throw them down and he immediately let them fall from his hand, the presence of the olives in his hand for a moment constitutes a Kinyan and they are considered to belong to him.
</p><p>
Tosfos' answer needs clarification. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Basra (54a, DH a'Da'asa) writes that although one automatically acquires that which is in his hands even if he is not aware that the item is there, if he <i>knows</i> that the item is in his hands but he has no intent to acquire it, it does <i>not</i> become his. Tosfos there seems to contradict Tosfos here who says that although the person picked the olives with intent to throw them on the ground, he still acquires them immediately once they are placed in his hands, even though he has no intention to acquire them.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Gezeilah 17:8) writes that Tosfos here does not mean to say that the person acquires the olives even though he had no intent to acquire them. Rather, Tosfos means that in a situation in which the picker immediately throws the olives down, there is room to assume in error that he did not have intention to acquire them. The Gemara teaches that even though he threw the olives down to the ground, we must still assume that he picked them with intent to acquire them, and therefore one may not take them from him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MACHANEH EFRAIM</b> (Kinyan Meshichah 4) understands that Tosfos here means that the picker indeed did <i>not</i> intend to acquire the olives, and nevertheless he acquires them. How does the Machaneh Efraim understand the conflicting words of Tosfos in Bava Basra? The Machaneh Efraim explains that Tosfos in Bava Basra refers to a case in which the person had no intention at all to acquire the item, and therefore his hand cannot acquire it for him. Tosfos here, in contrast, refers to a case in which the picker wants to acquire the olives eventually, but he does not intend to acquire them with the act of picking them. In such a case, he acquires the olives from the time they reach his hand.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHACH</b> (CM 275:3) understands that the <b>RAMBAM</b> disagrees with Tosfos in Bava Basra and maintains that although the picker knows that the item is in his physical possession and still has no intent to acquire it, he nevertheless acquires it. (See also <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RAN</b> (on the Rif) here.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHEN MAY ONE LEND A UTENSIL TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT OBSERVE THE LAWS OF SHEMITAH </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a woman may lend to her friend a sifter, mill, and oven even though her friend does not observe the laws of Shemitah. Also, a woman who meticulously observes the laws of Tum'ah and Taharah may lend to her friend, who is not meticulous in those laws, a sifter even though she might use it to make dough and she will cause Chalah to become Tamei. The meticulous woman is also permitted to help her friend sift and grind the flour. The Mishnah concludes that these things are permitted for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony among people.
</p><p>
When the Mishnah says that these things are permitted for the sake of peace, does it refer to all of the acts mentioned previously (both lending utensils and assisting in food preparation), or does it refer only to assisting in food preparation? Perhaps lending a utensil is permitted even when no lack of peace would result without lending.
<br> 
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> maintains that even lending is permitted only for the sake of peace. When no lack of peace will result if one does not lend the utensil, one is not permitted to lend the utensil.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> asks that the Mishnah in Shevi'is states that one may sell a cow used for plowing to a buyer who does not observe the laws of Shemitah since there is a possibility that he will slaughter the cow for meat and not use it to plow. That Mishnah implies that as long as there is a possibility that the Am ha'Aretz will not use the item for a prohibited act, one is permitted to sell it to him (and there is no concern for 'Lifnei Iver').
</p><p>
Tosfos assumes that only when one does not want to <i>lend</i> his utensils is there concern for lack of peace, but there is no concern for lack of peace when one <i>sells</i> his wares. When one <i>sells</i> an item, no lack of peace will result if the owner does not sell it to the Am ha'Aretz (because the Am ha'Aretz will assume that the seller wants more money or has decided to keep the item for himself). Tosfos proves from the Mishnah in Shevi'is that one is permitted to lend utensils to someone who does not observe the laws of Shemitah even if there is no concern for lack of peace, in a situation where there is a possibility that he will not use them to transgress the laws of Shemitah. Based on this approach, <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explains that the Mishnah must refer to a case in which it is known that the other woman has only produce of Shemitah in her possession and will definitely use the utensils for her Shemitah produce, and yet the first woman is still permitted to lend the utensils to her for the sake of peace.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a woman may lend to her friend a sifter, mill, and oven even though her friend does not observe the laws of Shemitah. The Mishnah explains that she may lend these items for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony among people.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> proves (see previous Insight) that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the utensils definitely will be used for prohibited produce, in which case one is <i>not</i> permitted to lend the utensils to an Am ha'Aretz even when refraining from lending will cause a lack of peace. When there is a possibility that the utensils will be used for permitted produce, one is permitted to lend them to an Am ha'Aretz even where there is <i>no</i> concern for lack of peace.
</p><p>
This seems to contradict the Yerushalmi which states that one is permitted to lend a sifter to one who does not observe the laws of Shemitah, since he might use it to count his money or to sift sand, and not to sift grain. This implies that even if all of the produce in his possession is produce of Shemitah, one still may lend the utensils to him since he might not use them for food at all.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the forms of usage mentioned in the Yerushalmi are not normal forms of usage of utensils. If those forms of usage are the <i>only</i> ways in which the utensil can be used in a permitted manner, one would <i>not</i> be permitted to lend them to an Am ha'Aretz if not for the concern for peace.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, and <b>RAN</b> (in Chidushim) understand from the Yerushalmi that one may not lend utensils to an Am ha'Aretz even in a case where one is not sure that he will use them for prohibited produce, unless there is a concern for maintaining peace. Based on this, the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RAN</b> explain that the ruling of the Mishnah in Shevi'is (see previous Insight) -- which permits one to sell a cow used for plowing to an Am ha'Aretz during Shemitah (even though there is no concern for maintaining peace in the case of a sale, as mentioned earlier) -- is a special leniency made so that one may make a living to support himself.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain that the concern for maintaining peace exists even in the case of a sale (they disagree with the assumption of Tosfos) and the Mishnah in Shevi'is is also based on the Heter for the sake of peace which the Mishnah here mentions. 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa #1):</font></b> We may ask people who eat 
          Shemitah Peros or eat their Peros in Tum'ah to grind our 
          food and we may deposit it with them, but we may not 
          grind their food or take deposits from them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a Kohen who eats 
          Terumah in Tum'ah, which a Torah Isur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why may we deposit our food with him?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> We may deposit Terumah 
               with a Yisrael commoner, but not with a Kohen 
               commoner, for he feels free to touch it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Ilai):</font></b> We may deposit it in a sealed 
          earthenware Kli. (A Tamei person who touches it does not 
          Metamei it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We should be concerned lest his wife move it 
          when she is Nidah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> (If liquid is put on a food, it 
          becomes Huchshar, i.e. able to become Tamei). We may 
          deposit food that was not Huchshar, but not food that was 
          Huchshar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> If one takes wheat to be ground 
          by a Kusi (one who descends from the Nochrim that settled 
          in place of the exiled 10 tribes or a commoner, it keeps 
          its status regarding tithes and Shemitah, but not 
          regarding Taharah. (Beraisa #1 is not concerned lest a 
          commoner be Metamei our food!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We already answered this! We may deposit only 
          food that was not Huchshar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was the question even asked?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This Mishnah was brought in order to ask a 
          different question.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE COMMONERS SUSPECTED TO SWITCH FOOD?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Mishnah #1 says that the food keeps its status regarding 
          tithes and Shemitah. We are not concerned lest the food 
          was switched.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah #2):</font></b> If one deposits food with his 
          mother-in-law (who is suspected about tithes), he must 
          tithe what he deposits with her and takes back, for she 
          is suspected to switch Peros that are spoiling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah explained that she is suspected to 
          switch because she wants her daughter to eat good food, 
          but she is embarrassed to tell her son-in-law that his 
          food was spoiling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We always suspect commoners of switching!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one deposits food with an innkeeper, 
               he must tithe what he gives to her and what he 
               receives back, because she switches.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, she rationalizes: I will do a favor for 
          the Talmid. He will eat my warm (fresh) bread, and I will 
          eat his cold bread! (Rashi; Tosfos - should he eat warm 
          bread, and I, who toil for him, eat cold?!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rashi) Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Sarah, a Chaver's 
          wife, may grind with Leah, a commoner's wife, when Sarah 
          is Teme'ah (then she is careful not to eat), but not when 
          she is Tehorah (lest she forget, and eat);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, even when she is Teme'ah 
               she may not, for Leah will give her, and she will 
               eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Sarah may grind 
          with Leah when Leah (knows that she) is Teme'ah (then she 
          is careful not to touch the grain), but not when Leah 
          (thinks that she) is Tehorah (lest she give some to Sarah 
          to eat);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, even when Leah is Teme'ah 
               Sarah may not help, lest another woman (a commoner's 
               wife) will give to Sarah to eat. (end of Version #2)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Summation of question):</font></b> If we suspect lest a 
               commoner's wife steal, all the more so she is 
               suspected to switch!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There also, she rationalizes: an ox 
          eats while it works. (Also Sarah is entitled to eat!
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE COMMONERS SUSPECTED OF SWITCHING?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam):</font></b> A Chaver kneader may 
          not separate b'Taharah the Chalah from a commoner's 
          dough, but he may knead a dough for him b'Taharah and 
          separate Chalah, and put the Chalah in a Kli that cannot 
          become Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When the commoner comes, he takes the dough and the 
               Chalah. We are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Chaver may not separate b'Taharah Terumah from a 
          commoner's olives, but he may harvest his olives for him 
          b'Taharah (i.e. in a way that they do not become 
          Huchshar) and separate Terumah. The Chaver puts the 
          Terumah in his own Kli;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When the commoner comes, he takes the olives and the 
               Terumah. We are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why are we not concerned?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is an enactment to support the 
          livelihood of kneaders and olive-pressers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  It is necessary to teach both cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a kneader, we would think 
               that we are lenient for him because he receives a 
               small wage, but we are stringent about an olive-
               presser;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about an olive-presser, we would 
               have thought that we are lenient for him because he 
               is not employed frequently, we are stringent about a 
               kneader.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He puts the Chalah in a special Kli that 
          cannot become Tamei. When the commoner comes, he takes 
          the dough and the Chalah. We are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest the commoner touch 
          the Chalah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We tell him that if he touches it, it will revert 
          to Tevel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned that he does not care, 
          and will touch it anyway!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This commoner hired a Chaver to separate Chalah 
          properly. This shows that he cares!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He separates Terumah, and puts it in his own 
          Chaver Kli. When the commoner comes, he takes the olives 
          and the Terumah. We are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest he touch it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, a kneader puts it in a special Kli, so the 
               commoner will remember not to touch it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here, there is no reminder!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He puts it in a Kli of dung, stone or earth 
          (which cannot become Tamei).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why must it be the Chaver's Kli? It 
          could even be the commoner's Kli!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, it means a Kli of a commoner that a 
          Chaver can use.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We support Nochrim working in Shemitah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Dimi bar Shishna taught that we may not dig 
          with Nochrim (in Shemitah), and we do not say 'Shalom' to 
          them twice!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah does not mean that we help them. We 
          merely wish them that they should prosper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi bar Shishna):</font></b> We do not say 'Shalom' to them 
          twice.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda would greet them first. (Maharsha - 
               Derech Eretz obligates one who receives 'Shalom' to 
               return it and double it, and this is forbidden.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Kahana would say 'Shalom to my master', 
               intending to bless his Rebbi with Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may greet them with 'Shalom'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If we may wish them prosperity, all the more so 
          we can greet them with 'Shalom'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yevo):</font></b> The Mishnah permits greeting them on 
          their holiday.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not enter a Nochri's house on his 
               holiday and greet him with 'Shalom'. This is 
               permitted if he meets a Nochri in the market; it 
               must be in a serious tone.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna and Rav Chisda were sitting; Geneiva passed by. 
          One suggested that they stand for him, for he is learned. 
          The other said that they should not, since he is 
          quarrelsome.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Geneiva:</font></b> Shalom to you kings, Shalom to you kings!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Huna and Rav Chisda:</font></b> What is the source that 
               Chachamim are called kings?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Geneiva:</font></b> 'In me (the Torah), kings will reign.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Huna and Rav Chisda:</font></b> What is the source that we 
               say 'Shalom' twice to a king?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Geneiva:</font></b> Rav Yehudah learns this from 'with you, Ben 
               Yishai, Shalom, Shalom.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Huna and Rav Chisda:</font></b> Please taste something.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Geneiva:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that one may not taste 
               anything before giving food to his animal;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'I will give grass in your field for 
                    your animals', then it says 'you will eat and 
                    be satiated.'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GREETING A NOCHRI WITH 'SHALOM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (61a) states that one may greet a Nochri with 'Shalom' for the sake of peace. The Gemara here, however, says that one may not greet a Nochri with a double greeting of 'Shalom, Shalom.' The Gemara says that Rav Chisda would always greet a Nochri first with 'Shalom' before the Nochri greeted him.
</p><p>
Why is there a need for a special allowance (to maintain peace) to greet a Nochri? Why would greeting a Nochri be prohibited without this special allowance?
</p><p>
Moreover, why is one prohibited from doubling the greeting and saying 'Shalom, Shalom,' and why was Rav Chisda so careful to precede the Nochri with his greeting?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the word 'Shalom' is one of the names of Hash-m. As such, it should not be used as a greeting for a Nochri, if not for the purpose of preventing animosity. (See Mishnah in Berachos (54a) which says that there was a special enactment made to allow a Jew to greet his friend with the name of Hash-m. Rashi in Makos (23b) says that this refers to the greeting of 'Shalom,' which was enacted in order to fulfill Hashem's will for peace among Jews.) Since saying 'Shalom' to a Nochri is permitted only to prevent animosity, one is permitted to say 'Shalom' only a single time because that suffices to prevent animosity. To say a double greeting of 'Shalom, Shalom' is not necessary to prevent animosity and therefore it is not permitted.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that one should not double a greeting to a Nochri because of the concern that one will become too friendly with the Nochri and begin to learn from his ways. The Me'iri explains that Rav Chisda went out of his way to greet a Nochri first, before the Nochri greeted him, because it was customary for the one who was greeted to add to the greeting of the first person. Rav Chisda was concerned that the Nochri would greet him with a blessing and he would have to add to that blessing in his response. By initiating the greeting, he was able to keep the greeting to a minimum and prevent unnecessary closeness.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> (Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition) writes similarly that Rav Chisda initiated the greeting so that he would not have to answer the Nochri with a double greeting as was customary.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and relates how the Talmidei Chachamim greeted one another with a double greeting. According to the Me'iri's explanation, this is a fitting contrast to the previous Gemara which says that one may not extend a double greeting to a Nochri. According to the Me'iri, one may not extend a double greeting to a Nochri because he must limit his relationship with the Nochri, but the opposite applies when one greets a Talmid Chacham; one should make every effort to develop a relationship with Talmidei Chachamim and to learn from their ways.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>TUR</b> (YD 148) writes that it is recommended that one initiate the greeting to a Nochri for the reason the Ritva writes. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> records this as the Halachah (YD 148:10).
</p><p>
The two explanations (that of Rashi and that of the Me'iri and the Ritva) for why one may not repeat 'Shalom' to a Nochri have Halachic implications. According to Rashi's explanation, extending a double greeting to a Nochri is prohibited only when one uses the term 'Shalom,' since the repetition is an unnecessary use of Hashem's name. Repeating a different greeting ('hello, hello') would be permitted according to Rashi. According to the explanation of the Me'iri, no type of greeting to a Nochri should be repeated.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 148) cites the <b>ORCHOS CHAIM</b> who rules that one is permitted to repeat a greeting if he does not use the term 'Shalom.' The <b>TAZ</b> cites the same ruling in the name of the <b>SEMAK</b>. 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) INITIATING A GREETING TO A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Chisda went out of his way to initiate the greeting to a Nochri in order to avoid the problem of repeating 'Shalom' (see Me'iri quoted in previous Insight). His conduct seems to contradict the implication of the Gemara in Berachos (17a) which says that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai always initiated the greeting to his fellow man, '<i>even</i> to a Nochri in the marketplace.' This implies that there is <i>less</i> of a reason to initiate a greeting to a Nochri than to a Jew! According to the Gemara here, however, there is <i>more</i> of a reason to initiate the greeting to a Nochri than to a Jew.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Berachos stresses that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai initiated the greeting even to a Nochri 'in the marketplace (Shuk).' It is possible that the Gemara stresses this point because it is referring to a Nochri who was a complete stranger, with whom Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was not acquainted, and thus Raban Yochanan ben Zakai had no concern that the Nochri might greet him first. Nevertheless, Raban Yochanan ben Zakai still initiated the greeting. The Gemara there is teaching that even in such a case, where there was no special reason for him to initiate the greeting, Raban Yochanan ben Zakai did so anyway. (<b>TAZ</b> YD 148:6)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b>PEREK HA'OMER</b>
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SHALI'ACH TO RECEIVE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven told Shimon 'receive this Get for my 
          wife' or 'take this Get for my wife' (and gave it to 
          him), Reuven can retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Reuven's wife told Levi 'receive my Get for me' (and 
          Reuven gave it to him), Reuven cannot retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if Reuven told Levi 'I don't want you to 
               receive it for her. Rather, take it and give it to 
               her' (and he gave it to him), he can retract;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even if she said 'take my Get 
          for me', Reuven cannot retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya):</font></b> In the Reisha, 
          Reuven can retract only because his wife did not make 
          Shimon a Shali'ach to receive the Get. Had she done this, 
          Reuven could not retract (even though he said 'take').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Inference):</font></b> When a man says 'take', it is as if he says 
          'acquire (on behalf of).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, it is not as if he says 'acquire'. He 
          can retract even if his wife made Shimon a Shali'ach to 
          receive;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah needed to teach about when he says 
               'receive this Get for my wife.' One might have 
               thought that since he cannot appoint a Shali'ach to 
               receive a Get, even when she receives it, it is 
               Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. When he 
               says 'receive', he means 'receive and take.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven's wife told Levi 'receive my Get for 
          me' (and Reuven gave it to him), Reuven cannot retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This applies to both cases (above), 
               whether Reuven said 'receive' or 'take.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, it is only when he said 'receive.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Therefore, if Reuven told Levi 'I don't want 
          you to receive it for her. Rather, take it and give it to 
          her' (and he gave it to him), he can retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Inference):</font></b> This is only because Reuven said 'I 
               don't want...' If not, he could not retract!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This teaches that saying 'take' is like saying 
                    'receive'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps he said 'Heilach' (here it is, 
               which connotes 'take it like she said').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Clearly, a man can be a Shali'ach to give a Get. He is in 
          place of the husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Clearly, a woman can be a Shali'ach to receive a 
               Get. She is in place of the wife;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Can a man be a Shali'ach to receive a Get, and 
          can a woman be a Shali'ach to give a Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'receive 
          this Get for my wife' or 'take this Get for my wife', he 
          can retract;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven's wife told a Shali'ach 'receive my Get 
               for me', he cannot retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The same person can be a Shali'ach in 
               both cases. This shows that a Shali'ach to give a 
               Get can receive a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, they must be different people. (Since only 
          a man can give a Get, only a woman can receive it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> Therefore, if Reuven told the 
          Shali'ach 'I don't want you to receive it for her, rather 
          take it and give it to her' (and he gave it to the 
          Shali'ach), he can retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that one person can be a Shali'ach for 
               either.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> At least we will say that a man can be a Shali'ach 
               for either, since a father can receive his 
               daughter's Get when she is a minor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The question remains, can a woman be a Shali'ach to 
               give a Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Mari - Mishnah):</font></b> Five female relatives of 
          Leah (are suspected to hate her, e.g. her co-wife, her 
          Yevamah... and) are not believed to say that Leah's 
          husband died. They are believed to bring her Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, the women are Sheluchim to give the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We can also learn this from the 
          Reisha.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman may bring her own Get. She must 
               say 'it was written and signed in front of me.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The case is, she is a Shali'ach to give her own Get.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SHALI'ACH WHO CHANGED HIS MISSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If Leah asked Shimon to bring her Get, and 
          he told Reuven (her husband) that he was asked to receive 
          it, and Reuven said 'Heilach (here you have it; take it) 
          like she said', even when Shimon gives it to Leah, she is 
          not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Inference):</font></b> He holds that Reuven relies on what Shimon 
          told him (that he was a Shali'ach to receive. Therefore, 
          Reuven did not make Shimon a Shali'ach to give the Get);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he held that Reuven relies on what Leah said, 
               since she asked Shimon to bring the Get, and Reuven 
               told him to do as she said, he would be a Shali'ach 
               to bring it, and she would be divorced when she gets 
               it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO BE DIVORCED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a man who sends a Shali'ach to bring a Get to his wife or to receive a Get on behalf of his wife may change his mind as long as his wife did not yet receive the Get. <b>RASHI</b> explains that he may change his mind because the Get is a Chov (a liability, and not a benefit) for his wife, and one cannot appoint a Shali'ach to carry out a transaction that is a Chov for someone else without that person's explicit consent.
</p><p>
According to Rashi's explanation, what would be the Halachah in a case where the woman says that she wants to be divorced? Apparently, since she has revealed her feelings that the Get is beneficial and desirable to her, as soon as the husband gives the Get to a Shali'ach and appoints that Shali'ach to accept the Get on behalf of his wife, she should be divorced! Accordingly, even when the husband changes his mind after he gives the Get to the Shali'ach, the Get is still valid since it was received by the Shali'ach on behalf of the woman before the man changed his mind. However, the Gemara makes no mention of such a Halachah.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, and <b>RITVA</b> quote the Yerushalmi which says that even in such a case the husband may change his mind and repeal the Get as long as it has not yet been given to the woman herself. The Yerushalmi explains that although she says that she wants the Get, this is no proof that she <i>always</i> wanted it (even at the time the Get was given over to the Shali'ach). Perhaps she changed her mind at that time and decided that she did not want to be divorced.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (EH 140) writes that according to the above view, there are grounds to say that if there are witnesses who heard the woman say at the time the Get was given to the Shali'ach that she wants to be divorced, the Shali'ach may function as her Shali'ach l'Kabalah and receive the Get for her, and the husband is not able to change his mind after the Shali'ach receives it.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A WOMAN WHO APPOINTS A SHALI'ACH TO RECEIVE HER GET AND THEN CHANGES HER MIND</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when the woman appoints a Shali'ach to receive the Get for her, once her Shali'ach receives the Get the divorce takes effect immediately and the husband cannot change his mind and recall the Get. The Yerushalmi (see previous Insight) states that even when the woman expresses a desire to be divorced, there is a concern that she changed her mind before the husband gave the Get to the Shali'ach whom he appointed to receive it for her. Why, then, is there no concern that she will change her mind about the divorce when <i>she</i> appoints a Shali'ach to receive the Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that the very act of appointing a Shali'ach shows that there is no fear that she will change her mind. The act of appointing a Shali'ach is clear evidence that she has so strongly decided that she wants the divorce that there is no concern that she will change her mind (of course, she may actively annul the Shelichus if she indeed opts not to receive the Get). In the case of the Yerushalmi, it was the husband who appointed the Shali'ach, and the wife merely expressed her desire to get divorced but did not actually appoint a Shali'ach, and therefore there is a concern that she might change her mind.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV SHIMON SHKOP</b> (Ma'areches ha'Kinyanim 4) explains that once the woman appoints a Shali'ach, she empowers him with the ability to receive the Get for her unless she explicitly nullifies the Shelichus. She effects a change in status by making a Shali'ach, and that status remains the status quo unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. When the Shali'ach comes to receive the Get, a Chazakah states that he is her Shali'ach and that she wants the Get. Just by changing her mind and deciding that she does not to want to get divorced does not remove the power which she has given over to the Shali'ach. Therefore, as long as it is not known whether or not she has nullified the Shelichus, he remains with his status quo and has the status of her Shali'ach. In the case of the Yerushalmi in which she merely expresses her desire to get divorced, there are no grounds to assume that her desire will continue unless there is clear evidence that it did continue, because no formal status was created by her original desire such that we may assume that it is still her desire.
</p><p>
Support for this approach (as opposed to that of the Pnei Yehoshua) may be found in the <b>RAN</b> on the Mishnah. The Mishnah states that when the woman appoints a Shali'ach to receive the Get for her, the husband cannot change his mind once he gives the Get to the Shali'ach. If, however, the husband says to her Shali'ach that he does not want him to receive the Get as her Shali'ach but just as a Shali'ach that will deliver the Get to her (a Shali'ach l'Holachah), then he may still change his mind (since the divorce will not take effect until she receives the Get).
</p><p>
The Ran explains that even if the husband says that he does not want the Shali'ach to receive the Get on her behalf but that he should be an unappointed messenger on her behalf and accept for her the Get through the mechanism of 'Zechiyah,' the divorce does not take effect until she actually receives the Get because 'Zechiyah' works only when we know that the intended recipient definitely wants the item (i.e. it is a 'Zechus,' a benefit, for him or her). The Ran explains that although she expressed interest in getting divorced by the fact that she appointed a Shali'ach to receive the Get, there is a concern that she changed her mind.
</p><p>
It is clear that although she performed an act of appointing a Shali'ach to receive the Get, the divorce will take place at the time the Shali'ach receives the Get only if he receives it as her appointed Shali'ach (and we are not concerned that she made an act of annulment), but if that same Shali'ach receives it as an unappointed Shali'ach, the divorce will not take effect when he receives the Get since we are concerned that she changed her mind (as the Shali'ach does not receive the Get in the capacity of his status as <i>her</i> Shali'ach), even though she did an act of appointing him as her Shali'ach.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the only way the husband can prevent the divorce from taking effect at the time her Shali'ach receives it is by saying that he does not want the Shali'ach to receive it as his wife's Shali'ach but rather as his own Shali'ach to bring the Get to his wife. According to Rashi's explanation, if the husband would say that he wants the Shali'ach to receive the Get as an unappointed Shali'ach, the Get would take effect right when he receives it. This is compatible with the Pnei Yehoshua's logic. (E. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SHALI'ACH WHO CHANGED HIS MISSION (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We cannot infer this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Had Rav Nachman discussed when Leah asked Shimon to 
          receive her Get, and Shimon told Reuven that he was asked 
          to bring it, and Reuven said 'Heilach, like she said':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had Rav Nachman said in this case that once Shimon 
               takes it, she is divorced, we could deduce that he 
               holds that Reuven relies on Leah's words;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had Rav Nachman said that once Shimon gives it to 
               her, she is divorced, we could deduce that he holds 
               that Reuven relies on Shimon's words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  However, Rav Nachman discussed when Shimon was asked to 
          bring the Get, and he said he was asked to receive it. He 
          did not accept to be a Shali'ach to bring it. This is why 
          she is not divorced! (We cannot deduce on whom Reuven 
          relied. The next three questions are against Rav 
          Nachman.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav Huna bar Chiya - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven 
          told Shimon 'receive this Get for my wife' or 'take this 
          Get for my wife', Reuven can retract;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Inference):</font></b> (Even when Reuven said 'receive',) had 
               Reuven not retracted, the Get would be valid, even 
               though a husband cannot make a Shali'ach to receive 
               a Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We must say that once he seeks to divorce her, he 
               wants to divorce her in any way possible. Here also 
               (when he tells the Shali'ach, 'Heilach like she 
               said'), we should say that that is his intention!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> You cannot learn from the Mishnah. There, a 
          man knows that he cannot make a Shali'ach to receive, so 
          he intended to make Shimon a Shali'ach to give it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, he was tricked (he thought that Shimon was a 
               Shali'ach to receive)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If a minor said 'receive my 
          Get for me', she is not divorced until it reaches her 
          hand.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Her husband didn't explicitly authorize the 
               Shali'ach to give the Get. We must say that once he 
               seeks to divorce her, he wants to divorce her in any 
               way possible!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The same applies when the Shali'ach lied to him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Also there, a man knows that a minor 
          cannot make a Shali'ach to receive a Get, therefore her 
          husband intended to make him a Shali'ach to give it. In 
          our case, the husband errs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> If Leah asked Shimon to bring her 
          Get, and he told Reuven that he was asked to receive it; 
          or, if Leah asked Shimon to receive her Get, and he told 
          Reuven that he was asked to bring it, and Reuven said 
          'take it and give it to her' or 'acquire for her' or 
          'receive for her', he can retract;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Once she gets the Get, she is divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Reuven said 'receive for her' when 
               Shimon said that he is a Shali'ach to receive it. 
               Reuven said 'take it and give it to her' when Shimon 
               said that he is a Shali'ach to bring it. (Rav 
               Nachman would say that in the former case, even when 
               she gets the Get, she is not divorced!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, Reuven said 'receive for her' when Shimon 
          said that he was told to bring it. Reuven said 'take it 
          and give it to her', when Shimon said he was told to 
          receive it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Reuven said 'receive for her' when Shimon 
          said that he was told to bring it (and he was really told 
          to receive it), she should be divorced immediately! Why 
          does the Beraisa allow him to retract until it gets to 
          her hand?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must say that the husband relies on what the 
          Shali'ach tells him! (Why was Rav Ashi (b:1,2) unsure 
          about this?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> In the Beraisa, he did not say 'Heilach, like 
          she said.' In Rav Nachman's case, he said this. Perhaps 
          he relies on what she said!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'HEILACH' LIKE SAYING 'ZECHI'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Leah asked Shimon to receive her Get, and 
          he told this to Reuven, and Reuven said 'take it and give 
          it to her', 'Zechi (acquire) for her', or 'receive for 
          her', he cannot retract;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Nasan says, when he says 'take it and give it to her', 
          he can retract. When he says 'Zechi', or 'receive for 
          her', he cannot retract;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, in all these cases he cannot retract. If he 
          said 'I do not want you to receive for her. Rather, take 
          it and give it to her', he can retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rebbi is like the first Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rebbi teaches about when Reuven says 'I do not 
          want you to receive for her. Rather,...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Seifa reveals that the first Tana is 
          Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Nasan hold that 'Heilach' is like 
          'Zechi'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'receive 
          this Get for my wife' or 'take this Get for my wife', 
          Reuven can retract;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Leah told a Shali'ach 'receive this Get for me' 
               (and Reuven gave it to him), Reuven cannot retract.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'HOLECH V'TEN LAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Tosefta which discusses a case in which the husband told his wife's Shali'ach, 'Holech v'Ten Lah' ('take it and give it to her'). Rebbi Nasan says that the husband may change his mind and recall the Get until the woman receives it from the Shali'ach, because he rules that 'Holech v'Ten Lah' does not mean 'accept it' (be 'Zocheh' it) for her. Rebbi maintains that once the Shali'ach receives the Get, the husband cannot change his mind.
</p><p>
Does Rebbi mean to say that the Get takes effect when the Shali'ach receives it and there is no need for the woman to receive the Get afterwards, since the divorce was consummated when the Shali'ach received it, or does the wife have to receive the Get eventually in order for the divorce to take effect?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> is in doubt about whether or not the woman needs to receive the Get herself in order for the divorce to be valid. Although the Shali'ach acquires the Get for her, perhaps the man's words, '... v'Ten Lah' ('give it to her'), imply that he wants the Get to take effect only on condition that she eventually receive it herself.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RE'AH</b> (quoted by the <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> 125:3) understands that implicit in the husband's words is a condition that the Get will take effect only if it is eventually received by the woman.
</p><p>
The <b>TORAS GITIN</b> (140:7) points out that only when the man gives a Get in such a manner is there a basis to say that he is making a condition that she should eventually receive the Get, since there is no other explanation for why he added the term 'v'Ten Lah.' The woman has no use for the actual document itself, so it must be that he said 'v'Ten Lah' as a condition for the divorce to take effect. In contrast, in the case of a person gives a gift to a Shali'ach and says to him to 'take it and give it' ('Holech v'Ten') to his friend, everyone agrees that the fact that he said 'v'Ten' ('give it') is not for the sake of making a condition that the gift will not be consummated unless it is eventually delivered, but rather he means merely that the Shali'ach should acquire the gift on behalf of the recipient so that he will have it for his own personal use.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Reuven said 'Heilach'. The Mishnah is 
               like R. Nasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he said 'take it.' It is like Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> Therefore, if Reuven told Levi 'I 
          don't want you to receive it for her. Rather, Holech 
          (take it) and give it to her' (and he gave it to him), he 
          can retract;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Inference):</font></b> This is only because Reuven said 'I 
               don't want...' If not, he could not retract!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This teaches that saying 'Holech' is like saying 
               'receive'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The text of the Mishnah says 'Heilach'; 
               the Mishnah is like R. Nasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it says 'Holech.' It is like Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'Holech this Get to my 
          wife', he can retract. If he said 'Heilach this Get to my 
          wife', he cannot retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nasan is the Tana who says that he can retract 
               when he says Holech. This shows that R. Nasan holds 
               that he cannot retract when he says Heilach, for 
               this is like saying 'Zechi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba citing Rav):</font></b> If Leah asked Shimon to receive her 
          Get, and he told this to Reuven, who said 'Holech and 
          give it to her', (his intent is unclear, so) Shimon is a 
          (Safek) Shali'ach of Reuven and of Leah. If Reuven died, 
          she must do Chalitzah, but not Yibum (perhaps she was 
          divorced immediately).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Here, Rav is unsure whether saying 'Holech' is 
          like saying 'Zechi'. Elsewhere, he is sure that it is!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> If Reuven said 'Holech this money that I owe 
               to Shimon', if the money does not reach Shimon, 
               Reuven still owes the money. Reuven cannot tell the 
               Shali'ach 'I retract. Return the money to me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There also, Rav is unsure. When in doubt about 
          monetary laws, we keep the status quo (Reuven cannot 
          retract). Regarding Isurim (such as divorce), we are 
          stringent.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A SHALI'ACH GIVE THE GET TO A SHALI'ACH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> A woman cannot make a Shali'ach to receive her Get 
          from her husband's Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> She can make a Shali'ach for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Rav's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is a disgrace to the husband (that she 
          does not take it herself). We assume that he did not 
          authorize his Shali'ach to give the Get in such a manner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> This is a decree due to when she acquires a 
          field in which the Get was placed. (In that case, her 
          husband did not give the Get to her. She took it, which 
          is invalid.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to this, if she made her Shali'ach before 
               the husband made his, there is no decree. According 
               to Answer #1, the Get is Pasul also in this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Reuven sent a Get to his wife; the Shali'ach found her 
          kneading. She told the Shali'ach to receive the Get for 
          her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> If the Halachah followed R. Chanina, I 
               would rule that the Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Why? The Shali'ach accepted another mission 
               before finishing his first mission (which is Pasul)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Ami agreed with Rava. R. Chiya bar Aba requested 
               more time to think about this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chiya bar Aba:</font></b> I am still in doubt. In doubtful 
               rulings involving forbidden Bi'ah, (we are 
               stringent. If the husband died in the meantime,) she 
               does Chalitzah, and not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, and R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa 
          required a Get and Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could both be needed? Get applies only if 
          the husband is alive, and Chalitzah applies only if he is 
          dead!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He ruled that if he is alive, she needs a Get to 
          remarry. If he is dead, she needs Chalitzah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN WITNESSES WRITE ANOTHER GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Get was written for a woman called Nafasa; on the Get 
          they wrote 'Tafasa'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa):</font></b> The 
          witnesses did their mission. (They were appointed to 
          write only one Get. They cannot write another one without 
          a new appointment.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rabah):</font></b> They were appointed to write a valid 
          Get. They did not do this yet!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rabah):</font></b> If they wrote a Get and it was lost, 
          they cannot write another one without a new appointment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> They were not appointed to write 
          a Get and hold onto it. Their mission was to write and 
          give a Get, they did not do this yet!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> They may write and give even 
          100 Gitin (until they give a valid Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If witnesses were asked to write a Get 
          and gave it to the husband's Shali'ach, and the Shali'ach 
          lost it, can the witnesses write another Get?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps they cannot for they already fulfilled their 
               mission;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps their mission was to divorce his wife. 
               He suggested giving it to his Shali'ach only to make 
               their job easier!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> (If you will say that they fulfilled 
          their mission,) if he said 'and take it to her', what is 
          the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven's wife told a Shali'ach 'receive my Get 
          for me' (and Reuven gave it to him) - Reuven cannot 
          retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Whether she said 'take', 'carry', or 'let it 
          be my Get in your hands', she authorized the Shali'ach to 
          receive it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SHALI'ACH MUST 'RETURN' TO THE HUSBAND</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a husband sends a Shali'ach to deliver the Get to his wife, and when the Shali'ach arrives at the home of the wife she tells him to be <i>her</i> Shali'ach to receive the Get on her behalf. The Amora'im remain in doubt whether the Get takes effect in such a case or whether the problem of 'Lo Chazrah Shelichus Etzel ha'Ba'al' (literally, 'the Shelichus did not return to the sender (the husband)') prevents the Get from taking effect. 
</p><p>
There are various ways to understand how this principle prevents the Get from taking effect in this case.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that since the husband's Shali'ach has become the wife's Shali'ach <i>before</i> he has carried out the Shelichus of the husband, this negates his power to serve as a Shali'ach for the husband, because a Shali'ach must be able to return to his sender while he still represents the sender and tell him that he carried out the mission that he was sent to do. Here, however, he has become the wife's Shali'ach before he has completed his Shelichus for the husband.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 6:9) writes that when this principle establishes that a Shali'ach cannot accept a new mission before he completes the first one for which he was appointed, the Get does not take effect because there is no second Shali'ach (Shali'ach l'Kabalah) to receive the Get. 
</p><p>
In contrast to Rashi's explanation (that the problem is that the Shelichus of the <i>first</i> Shali'ach has been annulled), the Mishneh l'Melech understands that the problem is that the Shelichus of the <i>second</i> Shali'ach has been annulled (see Avnei Milu'im, ibid.).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> (24a) explains that there is a specific problem in the giving of the Get in this case. The act of giving a Get must involve transferring the Get directly from the hands of the husband (or his representative) to the hands of the wife (or her representative). When the wife appoints her husband's Shali'ach as her own Shali'ach to receive the Get, there is no such act of delivery. (See <b>SHACH</b> and <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b>, CM 185:1, who disagree about whether this problem applies only to the giving of a Get or to the giving of all documents.)
</p><p>
According to all three approaches, however, why are the Amora'im in doubt about this principle? The Gemara earlier (24a) unequivocally states that such a Shali'ach does <i>not</i> have the authority to act as a Shali'ach!
</p><p>
The Acharonim (<b>AVNEI MILU'IM</b> 141:1 and <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> to Gitin 24a) answer that in the case of the Gemara earlier (24a), the woman herself was sent as a Shali'ach to bring the Get to herself (see there, and see Insights to 24a). In such a case (where the Shali'ach happens to be one of the parties involved in the transaction), everyone agrees that the person cannot be a Shali'ach since it is impossible for him or her to remain a Shali'ach at the moment the transaction is consummated (since, at that moment, he cannot represent the sender but must represent himself). Accordingly, it is clear to the Gemara there that the woman cannot be a Shali'ach for her husband. In the case of the Gemara here, however, a third party was appointed as Shali'ach by the husband to bring the Get to his wife, but when the Shali'ach arrived the wife decided that she wanted him to act as her Shali'ach as well. Since the Shali'ach is an outside party and can potentially represent the husband at the consummation of the transaction, there is room to question that perhaps he remains a valid Shali'ach even though the wife asked him to represent her as well by receiving the Get for her.
</p><p>
This is why Rashi earlier (24a; see DH v'Chi Matis, and DH v'Ha Lo) stresses that the wife who is sent to bring the Get to herself is not a third party but is one of the parties involved in the transaction, and therefore she is unfit to be a Shali'ach.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE WITNESSES FULFILLED THEIR MISSION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara introduces a principle called 'Asu Edim Shelichusan.' This principle states that when witnesses who were told to sign a document have fulfilled their mission and signed the document, they may not sign another document for the person since they already completed their mission (Shelichus) and are not empowered to sign as witnesses again until specifically appointed to do so. The Gemara concludes that if the first document contained an error which rendered it invalid and unfit for use, the witnesses <i>may</i> sign a second document to replace the first, since they have not successfully fulfilled their mission until they sign a valid document.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kosvim) infers from the Gemara that if the Get was written and signed and then found to have a problem that creates a doubt in its validity, the witnesses should not write another Get because there is a possibility that the first Get was valid and the witnesses already carried out their mission and are not fit for signing a second Get.
</p><p>
Why, though, may they not write another Get out of doubt and give <i>both</i> Gitin to the woman? By giving both Gitin, they certainly give one valid Get and the woman is divorced!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition) answers that if the witnesses have already carried out their Shelichus, to sign another Get would be considered false testimony, since by signing the Get they testify that the husband requested them to sign that document.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> (quoted by the <b>REMA</b>, EH 122:1) disagrees and rules that if there is a doubt about the validity of the first Get, the witnesses <i>may</i> sign another Get and give both to the woman. The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> writes that even Tosfos agrees with this. When Tosfos writes that they should not write a second Get in such a case, he means that preferably the husband should say that he wants them to sign the Get in a manner in which there will be no doubts, so that they will avoid a situation which would require them to deliver two Gitin simultaneously to the woman.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WITNESSES REQUIRED FOR DIVORCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman told a Shali'ach 'receive my Get 
          for me', to remarry, she needs two pairs of witnesses:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Two witnesses must testify that they heard her 
               command the Shali'ach;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Two witnesses must testify that they saw the 
               Shali'ach receive the Get and tear it up (this will 
               be explained).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The same two people can testify about both of these.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, three witnesses may testify, if one 
               saw the command, one saw the reception and tearing, 
               and one saw both of these.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> If Reuven gave a Get to Shimon, and 
          Reuven says that he asked him only to watch it, and 
          Shimon says that Reuven told him to give it to Reuven's 
          wife, who is believed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> Reuven is believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Shimon is believed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna believes the husband. Had he wanted to 
               divorce his wife, he would have given it himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda believes Shimon. Since he gave the Get to 
               him, Reuven trusted Shimon for whatever Shimon will 
               say.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba, against Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> A 
          litigant's admission is like 100 witnesses. A third party 
          (with whom the document was deposited) is believed more 
          than either litigant.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the litigants argue, we rely on what the third 
               party says.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Money matters are different. There, we can say 
          that by trusting him with the document, they forfeited 
          their money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The same applies to Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It refers to monetary Gitin (documents).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The same applies to documents. 
          (Therefore, 'Gitin' must refer to documents of divorce!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> These are two separate Beraisos teaching the same 
          thing (monetary documents).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Chisda - Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman told 
          a Shali'ach 'receive my Get for me', to remarry, she 
          needs two pairs of witnesses, one pair who heard her 
          command, and two who saw the Shali'ach receive the Get 
          and tear it up.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why are witnesses needed? Why can't we 
               believe the Shali'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> He is believed only when he is 
          holding the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand why she needs witnesses who heard 
          the command. Why does she need witnesses who saw him get 
          the Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Eliezer, who says 
          that Edei Mesirah Karsei (a Get is empowered by the 
          witnesses who saw it given).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do they tear the Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This Mishnah was taught when there 
          were decrees (by the Nochrim) forbidding Gitin (and other 
          Mitzvos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> Rav Huna admits that if she says that the 
          Shali'ach told her that he was authorized to give the 
          Get, she is believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It cannot be that the Shali'ach is not 
          believed to say this, but she is believed to say it in 
          his name!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if she says that she saw her husband 
          authorize the Shali'ach to give it, she is believed, for 
          she could have said that she received it from her 
          husband. (Had she made this latter claim, she would be 
          believed.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY WE RELY ON A SHALI'ACH TO FULFILL HIS MISSION?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven says that he told the Shali'ach 
          to give the Get, and the Shali'ach says that he gave it, 
          and she says that she received it and lost it, since 
          matters involving marriage require two witnesses and we 
          do not have two witnesses, we cannot permit her to 
          remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't we believe the Shali'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is believed only when he is holding the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't we believe the husband?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> If a man says that he divorced 
               his wife, he is believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The husband does not know whether or not the Get 
          was given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't we rely on the Chazakah that a 
          Shali'ach fulfills his mission?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> If Levi told Shimon 'be Mekadesh a 
               woman to me', and Shimon went away and died, Levi is 
               forbidden to marry any woman, because there is a 
               Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission. (We 
               must be concerned lest Shimon was Mekadesh (to Levi) 
               the sister (or another close relative) of whomever 
               Levi wants to marry!)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE APPOINTMENT OF A SHALI'ACH FOR A GET</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that when a woman appoints someone as a Shali'ach to receive her Get, she must have a pair of witnesses who see her appoint the Shali'ach, as well as witnesses who see that the Shali'ach receives the Get from the husband.
</p><p>
The Mishnah clearly requires that witnesses be present not only for the actual giving of the Get, but also for the woman's appointment of the Shali'ach who will receive the Get for her.
</p><p>
This requirement applies when the woman appoints a Shali'ach to receive her Get. When the <i>husband</i> appoints a Shali'ach to deliver the Get, does he also need to appoint his Shali'ach in front of witnesses?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 3:16) rules that the husband does not need to appoint his Shali'ach in front of witnesses. The first Mishnah in Gitin provides proof for this when it states that the Shali'ach of the husband who comes from overseas and says that the Get was written properly is believed, and the Get is considered valid based on his testimony. The Gemara there explains why the Shali'ach is believed when he says that the Get was written properly, but it does <i>not</i> explain why the Shali'ach is believed to say that he was actually sent by the husband. It is clear that there is no need for witnesses to testify that he was appointed.
</p><p>
With regard to why the Shali'ach is believed to say that he was appointed as a Shali'ach to bring the Get (while the woman's Shali'ach to receive the Get needs witnesses to prove that he was appointed), the <b>RAMBAM</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b> disagree. The Rambam understands that there is an essential difference between the Shali'ach who gives the Get and the Shali'ach who receives it. The Shali'ach who gives the Get is not the final destination, so to speak, of the Get. The Get arrives at its final destination not when the Shali'ach gives the Get, but when the woman receives it. In contrast, a Shali'ach to receive a Get performs the final stage of the Get. When he receives it, it takes effect. Witnesses are necessary for the appointment of a Shali'ach only when the Shali'ach's mission involves an act that is a 'Davar sheb'Ervah.' Since a divorce is a 'Davar sheb'Ervah,' the directive of the wife or husband does not suffice; witnesses are necessary in order for the act to take effect ('Edei Kiyum'). The only Shali'ach whose act involves a 'Davar sheb'Ervah' and who needs 'Edei Kiyum' (see Kidushin 65b) is the one who performs the final act which effects the divorce. The act of the Shali'ach of the husband does not involve a 'Davar sheb'Ervah' because the actual divorce takes effect only after the Get has left his hands. That is why only the Shali'ach who is appointed to receive the Get needs witnesses that he was appointed, while the Shali'ach who sends the Get does not need witnesses that he was appointed. Based on this, the Rambam rules that not only in the case of a Get does the Shali'ach of the husband not need witnesses to testify that he was appointed as a Shali'ach, but also in the case of Kidushin the Shali'ach does not need witnesses to testify that he was appointed. 
</p><p>
The <b>RA'AVAD</b> disagrees and understands that only in the case of a Get is there no need for witnesses, since the Shali'ach is holding the Get document. The fact that the document is in his hands is testimony that it was given to him by the husband. (When a signed document serves as testimony, it includes testimony that the document was transferred properly.) In contrast, in the case of Kidushin, where the husband merely gives money to the Shali'ach to deliver to the woman, there is no proof that the money was given to the Shali'ach by the husband (since there is no document involved), and thus it is necessary for witnesses to testify that he was appointed as a Shali'ach. (See <b>CHIDUSHEI RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI</b>, Hilchos Gerushin 6:9, for a discussion of this issue.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> (beginning of the fourth chapter) quote the Yerushalmi which states that there indeed is a requirement for witnesses to see the appointment of the husband's Shali'ach to deliver the Get. The <b>ROSH</b> (beginning of Gitin) writes that the fact that the Shali'ach who comes from overseas to deliver a Get is believed to say that he was appointed by the husband even though he has no witnesses is part of the rabbinical enactment to believe the Shali'ach. That is, the Rabanan enacted that the Shali'ach is believed not only to say that the Get was written properly, but also that the husband appointed him as his Shali'ach.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) DO WE BELIEVE THE 'SHELISH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a Shali'ach (a 'Shelish,' or third party) says that he received the Get for the sake of divorcing a man's wife. The husband says that he gave it to the Shelish as a deposit to watch for him but he did not intend that it should be given to the wife for divorce. Rav Huna says that the husband is believed. Rav Chisda says that the Shelish is believed.
</p><p>
The Rishonim ask that if the husband's word is believed over the Shali'ach's, the enactment of the Rabanan discussed in the beginning of Gitin is rendered entirely useless. The Rabanan enacted that the Shali'ach is believed to say that the Get was written properly. If, however, the husband is believed when he says that he did not give the Get to the Shali'ach in order to give it to his wife, the enactment of the Rabanan is meaningless.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that Rav Huna maintains that the husband is believed only when both the husband and wife are in the same town. In such a case, if the husband indeed wanted to divorce his wife, he would have given the Get to her directly without the use of a Shali'ach. Therefore, the husband is believed when he says that he did not intend to give the Get to the Shelish for the sake of divorcing his wife. In contrast, the Mishnah in the beginning of Gitin (2a) refers to a case in which the husband and wife are in two different cities, in which case it is more logical to assume that the reason the husband gave the Get to the Shali'ach was because he wanted to give it to his wife (since the husband lives in a different city), and therefore the Shali'ach's word is believed.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> answers that the Gemara here refers to a case in which the husband gave the Get to a Shali'ach <i>l'Kabalah</i> (a Shali'ach appointed to receive the Get on behalf of the woman). Only in such a case is there reason to believe the husband when he says that he did not give it for the sake of divorcing the woman; had he intended to divorce her, he would have given it directly to her. The Mishnah in the beginning of Gitin refers to a case of a Shali'ach l'Holachah (a Shali'ach appointed to deliver the Get to the woman). In such a case the above-mentioned reasoning does not apply; perhaps the husband wanted to give it specifically to the Shali'ach and not to his wife because he did not want the divorce to take effect immediately.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> offers another answer. Perhaps Rav Huna maintains that the husband is believed only when the Get is still in the hands of the Shali'ach and was not yet delivered to the woman. In such a case, it is logical to say that the Get was not given to the Shali'ach for the sake of divorcing the woman and that is why the Get is still in his hands and has not yet been delivered. In contrast, once the wife has received the Get from the Shali'ach, the husband is not believed to say that he did not give the Get to the Shali'ach with intent that it be used to divorce his wife. Therefore, in the Mishnah in the beginning of Gitin there is no concern that the husband will be believed since the Get is immediately handed over to the wife; once the Get has been given to the wife the husband is not believed.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AN UNIDENTIFIED WIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a man appointed a Shali'ach to betroth a woman to him, and the Shali'ach died before he could return and tell the sender the identity of the woman whom he betrothed. Rebbi Yitzchak rules that the man is prohibited from marrying any woman in the world (lest the woman be a close relative to the woman whom the Shali'ach betrothed to him).
</p><p>
The fact that Rebbi Yitzchak rules that the man is prohibited from marrying any woman in the world implies that only the man has such a prohibition; the Chachamim do <i>not</i> prohibit every <i>woman</i> in the world from getting married as a result of the doubt. If, however, the Chachamim prohibit the man from marrying and do <i>not</i> rely on the fact that the majority of women in the world are permitted to him, why do they permit any woman in the world to marry? They should be concerned that perhaps this woman is the woman who was married to the Shali'ach's sender!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> writes that if the woman is an adult, there is no concern that she is already married to a different man; if she already accepted the Kidushin from the Shali'ach she would not marry another man afterwards.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks that, nevertheless, the Chachamim should prohibit all women who were <i>minors</i> at the time the Shali'ach went to betroth someone to his sender, because a minor would not know whether or not her father accepted Kidushin on her behalf, and perhaps she is the one who is married to the sender of the Shali'ach.
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that according to the strict letter of the law, even the sender of the Shali'ach should be permitted to marry since there is no certain that his Shali'ach actually carried out his assignment and betrothed a woman to him, and even if the Shali'ach did carry out his assignment, mid'Oraisa we should follow the majority and permit him to marry, since a majority of the women in the world are permitted to him. The sender of the Shali'ach is prohibited to marry only as a result of a penalty decreed by the Chachamim for his negligence in sending a Shali'ach to betroth to him any woman whom the Shali'ach wanted.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> disagrees with Tosfos and says that there is no reason to assume that the Shali'ach did not carry out his assignment. The Ramban seems to understand that the rule of 'Kavu'a' applies here. He explains that the reason why all women are permitted to marry is that every woman has a Chazakah that she was (at one time) not married. This Chazakah says that any woman who comes to get married is presumably not married. This Chazakah, however, works only to permit the <i>women</i> to marry; it does not permit the man who sent the Shali'ach to marry. He is prohibited from marrying any woman because the reason why any given woman might be prohibited to him is not that she might already be married, but because her close relative might be married to him. The Ramban explains that in such a case the rule of Chazakah does not apply since there is a doubt about the marriage of the woman's relatives, while, on the other hand, those relatives are not the subject of the presenting question (but rather, the man who wants to get married, and the woman whom he wants to marry, are the subjects of the question). A Chazakah is not a logical proof to determine the truth about a situation ('Birur'), but rather it is a way of dealing with situations of doubt ('Hanhagah'). Hence, the concept of Chazakah applies only to a question which involves the Halachic status of that which is in doubt. In this case, there is no Halachic discussion concerning the status of this woman's relatives, but only concerning the status of the woman herself.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We do not rely on the Chazakah to be lenient, 
          only to be stringent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't we believe Reuven's wife (that she 
          received and lost the Get)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If a woman says to her husband 'you 
               divorced me', she is believed. It is established 
               that a woman could not be so brazen to lie to her 
               husband about this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here is different, for the Shali'ach supports 
          her. This enables her to lie.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUISTIONS OF MINORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Na'arah Me'urasah (during Eirusin) or her 
          father can receive her Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, the Torah never authorizes two people to 
          acquire the same matter. Only her father can receive it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Any girl who cannot guard her Get cannot be divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim say that the Torah gave her an 
          additional way to receive her Get (i.e. through her 
          father). R. Yehudah holds that her own power to receive 
          does not work when she is in her father's Reshus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any girl who cannot guard her Get cannot be 
          divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A minor can be divorced only if she knows to 
          guard her Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Knowing to guard her Get' is if she guards her Get 
               and something else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> (If she loses her Get,) she 
          guards something else, and thinks that it is her Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach):</font></b> That is a lunatic!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach):</font></b> She can distinguish 
          between her Get and something else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah, citing Rav Asi):</font></b> If a child knows to 
          discard a rock but keep a nut, he can acquire for 
          himself, but not for others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one can deposit an item with him and he will 
               return it later, he can acquire for himself and for 
               others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Both of these children have the same law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does Shmuel mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Either can acquire for himself, but 
          not for others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Chisda - Rav Chinena Vardan - 
          Mishnah):</font></b> To make Shituf Mavo'os (an Eruv to allow 
          carrying in an alleyway on Shabbos), one designates a 
          barrel of wine for all members of the Mavoy. Someone 
          acquires on their behalf;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The following can acquire - the donor's adult son or 
               daughter, and his Eved or Amah ha'Ivriyim (male or 
               female Yisrael slaves).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of his Amah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> (After 12 years,) she brought hairs 
                    (of adulthood).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so she is free, she is not his 
                    slave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, she is still a minor. The Mishnah 
               says that she can acquire for others!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shituf Mavo'os is mid'Rabanan. Chachamim were 
          lenient to allow her to acquire, but mid'Oraisa, she 
          cannot acquire.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Rav Chinena was silent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What could he have said?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> All decrees of Chachamim were patterned on 
          mid'Oraisa laws.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUISTIONS OF MINORS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Chinena did not answer, for he holds that only 
          enactments mid'Rabanan with an origin in Torah (e.g. to 
          take the Lulav every day of Sukos) are patterned on Torah 
          laws.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Chisda - Rav Avya - Mishnah):</font></b> One 
          may scheme to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni without adding the 
          additional fifth (by asking someone else to redeem it for 
          him);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man may tell his adult son or daughter, or his 
               Eved or Amah ha'Ivriyim 'here is money. Go redeem 
               this Ma'aser Sheni.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of his Amah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she brought hairs, she is free. She is not 
                    his slave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, she is still a minor (yet she can 
               redeem on behalf of others)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah refers to Ma'aser Sheni nowadays 
          (after the Churban), which is only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Nowadays we do not have Yisrael slaves!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Yisrael slaves only apply when Yovel 
               applies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Mishnah refers to Ma'aser Sheni of Peros 
          that grew in a flowerpot without a hole, which is only 
          mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> They are three ages of minors regarding 
          acquisitions:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a child discards a rock but keeps a nut, he can 
               acquire for himself, but not for others;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  An (orphaned) girl of this age can become 
                    Mekudeshes mid'Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Pa'utos (mature children) can buy and sell 
               Metaltelim (movable objects).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A girl of this age can (receive her own Get 
                    and) become divorced, even if she was 
                    Mekudeshes mid'Oraisa by her father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> When he reaches the age of vows, his vows are 
               binding. If he made his property Hekdesh, it takes 
               effect;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A girl of this age may do Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A child cannot not sell land that he inherited from 
               his father until he is 20.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHELICHUS TO RECEIVE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a minor made a Shali'ach to receive her 
          Get, it is not valid until it reaches her hand. 
          Therefore, her husband can retract until she gets it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because a minor cannot make a Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If her father made a Shali'ach to receive her Get, her 
          husband cannot retract after he gives it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a man told a Shali'ach 'give this Get to my wife in 
          Ploni (a certain place), and the Shali'ach gave it 
          somewhere else, the Get is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he told the Shali'ach 'give this Get to my wife. 
               She is in Ploni', and the Shali'ach gave it 
               somewhere else, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If a woman told a Shali'ach 'receive my Get in Ploni', 
          and the Shali'ach received it somewhere else, the Get is 
          Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar says, it is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she told the Shali'ach 'bring my Get from Ploni', 
               and the Shali'ach brought it from somewhere else, it 
               is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does R. Elazar agree in the Reisha 
          (when the man made a Shali'ach)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A man decides whether or not he wants to divorce 
          his wife, so he can be particular about the place. A 
          woman is divorced against her will. She cannot decide 
          where the Get will be given. She merely suggests to the 
          Shali'ach where she thinks that he can get the Get.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS ONE INSISTENT THAT HIS DIRECTIONS ARE FOLLOWED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kohen's wife told a Shali'ach 'bring my 
          Get', she may eat Terumah until the Get comes to her 
          hand;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she said 'receive my Get', she is immediately 
          forbidden to eat Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she said 'receive my Get in Ploni (a certain place)', 
          she may eat Terumah until the Get gets there;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, she is immediately forbidden to eat 
          Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> In the Seifa, the Get is valid (even 
          if the Shali'ach received it in a different place). The 
          previous Mishnah taught that it is Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, she asked him to receive it in 
          Ploni, and remarked that her husband is often found in 
          Almoni.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She wants him to take the Get wherever he finds her 
               husband, but it should take effect only when he gets 
               to Ploni.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ACQUISTION OF A MINOR ON BEHALF OF OTHERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether a minor has the power to acquire items on behalf of someone else. The Gemara attempts to prove from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (4:4) that a minor <i>is</i> able to make a Kinyan for others. The Mishnah there states that one may give money to his children in order for them to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni on his behalf.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's proof? In the case of the redemption of Ma'aser Sheni, the child acquires the money for <i>himself</i> when it is given to him. How can the Gemara prove from there that a minor can acquire something for someone else?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> offers two answers. In his first answer, he explains that the proof is not from the fact that the minor acquired the money but from the fact that he has the ability to redeem someone else's produce. Redeeming another person's produce is equivalent to acquiring something for another person since, by redeeming the produce, one 'buys' or makes an acquisition on the produce, on behalf of the owner, from its state of being owned by Hekdesh.
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, the <b>RAMBAN</b> writes that the dispute about whether a minor can acquire something for someone else is based on the question of whether a minor who is given an object acquires it for himself mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. Rav Yehudah maintains that he acquires it mid'Oraisa and, therefore, just as he can acquire it for himself he can acquire it for others. Rav Chisda maintains that the minor acquires an object only mid'Rabanan, and thus he maintains that the Rabanan enacted that a minor may acquire things only for his own needs but not on behalf of others. The Gemara proves (according to Rav Yehudah) that a minor can acquire for others from the fact that he is able to acquire the money for himself mid'Oraisa (that is, he is able to redeem the Ma'aser Sheni with the money given to him without having to pay the additional Chomesh fee), and since he acquires it mid'Oraisa he must be able to acquire an object for others as well. (This answer is also cited by the <b>RITVA</b> and <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>.)
</p><p>
Perhaps the first answer of the Ramban was not satisfied with the second answer because, as some Rishonim maintain, even if a person acquires something through a Kinyan which is only mid'Rabanan, the item belongs to him from a Halachic perspective even with regard to matters that require his ownership mid'Oraisa. (This is because the Torah empowered the Rabanan with the ability to determine the ownership of the item.) Therefore, there is no proof that the minor acquires things mid'Oraisa from the fact that the money is legally his after it is given to him.
</p><p>
Perhaps the second answer did not accept the first answer because the act of redeeming Ma'aser Sheni is not an act of transferring ownership back to the possession of the first owner, but rather it is merely an act of removing Kedushah. Hence, once the Kedushah is removed the fruits may be used by the original owner who <i>always</i> owned them. (See <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ</b> to Zevachim 6.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A MITZVAH D'RABANAN ROOTED IN THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara attempts to prove that a minor has the power to acquire items on behalf of someone else from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (4:4) which states that one may give money to his children in order for them to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni on his behalf. The Gemara refutes the proof and says that the Mishnah is discussing Ma'aser nowadays (bi'Zman ha'Zeh), which is only mid'Rabanan. The Gemara implies that when the conditions for the Torah obligation of a Mitzvah are not present (such as the absence of the Beis ha'Mikdash) and in lieu of the Chiyuv d'Oraisa there is a Chiyuv d'Rabanan, the Mitzvah d'Rabanan is considered an obligation which does <i>not</i> have an 'Ikar Min ha'Torah.'
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> asks that the Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara in Pesachim (116b) which says that the requirement to eat Maror nowadays (in the absence of the Korban Pesach) <i>is</i> considered an obligation that has an 'Ikar Min ha'Torah' even though it is only a Chiyuv d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> There is a basic difference between the two Mitzvos d'Rabanan of Ma'aser Sheni nowadays and Maror nowadays. The Mitzvah of Ma'aser Sheni is mid'Rabanan because in order to be mid'Oraisa, the majority of Jews in the world must live in Eretz Yisrael. The requirement nowadays, when most Jews do not live in Eretz Yisrael, is thus a Mitzvah d'Rabanan that is not rooted in a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. In contrast, the reason why the obligation to eat Maror is mid'Rabanan today is because it is not eaten with the Korban Pesach. Even nowadays, however, one potentially could sacrifice a Korban Pesach and be obligated <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to eat Maror. (In practice, one may not sacrifice a Korban Pesach today because of various issues.) Therefore, even when one does not eat the Maror with the Korban Pesach, it is considered something that has an 'Ikar Min ha'Torah.'
</p><p>


<font><b>3) MA'ASER SHENI OF VEGETABLES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara attempts to prove that a minor has the power to acquire items on behalf of someone else from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (4:4) which states that one may give money to his children in order for them to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni on his behalf. The Gemara refutes the proof and says that the Mishnah refers to a case of produce grown in a pot, for which the requirement to separate Ma'aser Sheni is only mid'Rabanan, and thus the minor may redeem it. There is no proof that a minor can redeem Ma'aser Sheni mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara answer that the Mishnah refers to the relatively rare case of produce grown in a pot? Why does the Gemara not answer simply that the Mishnah refers to a case of Ma'aser Sheni of <i>vegetables</i> (and not fruits), for which the obligation to separate Ma'aser Sheni is only mid'Rabanan? (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the case of separating Ma'aser Sheni from fruits grown in a pot has an 'Ikar Min ha'Torah,' a basis in the Torah, since there is other fruit (i.e. fruit grown in the ground) that requires Ma'aser Sheni to be separated mid'Oraisa. Therefore, separating Ma'aser Sheni from fruit in a pot should have all of the requirements of Ma'aser Sheni <i>d'Oraisa</i>, as the Gemara earlier mentions.
</p><p>
<br>


