# dafyomi

lvr: 43
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR THE 'SHIBUD' OF AN 'AREV'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna asks what the source is for the law that an Arev is able to be Meshabed himself through his word alone, without a formal act of Kinyan, so that he becomes obligated to pay back the debt of the borrower. Rav Huna answers that the source for the Shibud of an Arev is the verse, 'Anochi E'ervenu, mi'Yadi Tevakshenu' -- 'I will guarantee him, from my hand you can demand him' (Bereishis 43:9).
</p><p>
Rav Chisda challenges Rav Huna's source by pointing out that the verse he quotes is discussing a case of an Arev <i>Kablan</i> and not an ordinary Arev, and thus he cannot learn from that verse that an ordinary Arev is able to be Meshabed himself through his word alone. Rav Chisda proves that the verse that Rav Huna cites is referring to an Arev Kablan by citing another verse, 'Tenah Oso Al Yadi va'Ani Ashivenu Elecha' -- 'Give him into the care of my hand, and I will return him to you' (Bereishis 42:37). Since he uses the words, '<i>Give</i>... and I will return...,' he clearly is making himself an Arev Kablan, because this is the phrase used by an Arev Kablan to commit himself, as the Gemara later teaches (174a).
</p><p>
How does Rav Chisda disprove Rav Huna's source from the verse of 'Anochi E'ervenu' (Bereishis 43:9) from the earlier verse, 'Tenah Oso Al Yadi' (Bereishis 42:37)? In the verse that Rav Huna quotes, it is <i>Yehudah</i> who is committing himself to be an Arev for the return of Binyamin to his father, Yakov. In the verse that Rav Chisda quotes, it is <i>Reuven</i> who is committing himself to be an Arev for the return of Binyamin! Even if Rav Chisda is correct that Reuven made himself an Arev Kablan, how can Rav Chisda prove from there that Yehudah was an Arev Kablan?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that it was Reuven who first implored Yakov, unsuccessfully, to send Binyamin with him to Mitzrayim. If Reuven -- who offered to take responsibility for Binyamin with the degree of an Arev Kablan -- was unsuccessful, then it does not make sense that Yehudah, who urged Yakov to send Binyamin with him <i>after</i> Reuven's unsuccessful attempt, would offer to be only an ordinary Arev. It must be that Yehudah, too, was an Arev Kablan. (See also <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> to Bereishis 43:9.)
</p><p>
What, then, was Rav Huna's Havah Amina when he quoted the verse discussing Yehudah's offer to be an Arev, if it is obvious that he was offering to be an Arev Kablan?
</p><p>
The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> suggests that Rav Huna understands that there was a difference between the two offers of Arvus from the fact that they are phrased with two different expressions (as the Gemara on 174a teaches, each type of Arvus is accepted through a different expression). In addition, the Iyun Yakov suggests, Reuven did not really intend to be Meshabed himself, as he did not actually use the word 'Arev' or 'Kablan.' Yehudah, though, had absolute intent to accept full responsibility for Binyamin, as he himself said later to Yosef (Bereishis 44:32).
</p><p>
Alternatively, perhaps Rav Huna understands the verses in the manner that <b>RASHI</b> explains them, or in the manner that the <b>RAMBAN</b> explains them. <b>RASHI</b> (Bereishis 42:38) explains that Yakov rejected Reuven's offer because Reuven had offered to give up the life of two of his children if he did not return Binyamin to his father. Yakov responded, 'Are they your children and not my children?!' Yehudah, on the other hand, offered his own eternal life in Olam ha'Ba if he did not return Binyamin to his father. Therefore, it sufficed for him to commit to be an Arev, and not a Kablan.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that the reason why Yakov did not accept Reuven's offer, but did accept Yehudah's offer, was because he trusted Yehudah with Binyamin much more than he trusted Reuven. Yehudah was the leader of and the strongest of the brothers; they certainly would listen to him and heed his word to take care of Binyamin. Reuven, however, had already lost some of Yakov's trust with the earlier mishap of the bed of Bilhah (Bereishis 35:22). In addition, Yehudah strategically waited to ask Yakov to send Binyamin to Mitzrayim until all of the food in Yakov's home had been completely consumed (Bereishis 43:2). Therefore, it could be that Yehudah only needed to offer to be an Arev, and not even an Arev Kablan, in order to persuade Yakov to send Binyamin with him.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) BECOMING AN 'AREV' FOR WHOM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna asks what the source is for the law that an Arev is able to be Meshabed himself through his word alone, without a formal act of Kinyan, so that he becomes obligated to pay back the debt of the borrower. Rav Huna answers that the source for the Shibud of an Arev is the verse, 'Anochi E'ervenu, mi'Yadi Tevakshenu' -- 'I will guarantee him, from my hand you can demand him' (Bereishis 43:9). The Torah there relates Yehudah's commitment to be an Arev for the return of Binyamin to his father, Yakov.
</p><p>
Who, though, was the 'Loveh,' the one who 'borrowed' Binyamin, in that case, such that Yehudah obligated himself to be an Arev for that person? It seems that Yehudah himself was the 'borrower' who was taking Binyamin from Yakov! How could Yehudah become an Arev for himself, for his own debt?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers in the name of his teachers that since this verse is only an Asmachta for the law of an Arev, it does not need to be identical to the case that the Gemara attempts to learn from it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> himself maintains that Rav Huna is not quoting the verse merely as an Asmachta, but as an actual source for the law that an Arev can obligate himself with his word alone. The Ritva explains, therefore, that Yehudah was making himself an Arev for Reuven and the other brothers. He was asking Yakov to hand over Binyamin to the other brothers (who would be considered the 'borrower'), and he would be their guarantor to ensure that they return Binyamin to Yakov.
</p><p>
It seems that the Ritva means to say that Yehudah was making himself an Arev for the brothers who were acting as the <i>Shali'ach</i> of the borrower (and not that they themselves were the 'borrower'). It was Yosef, in Mitzrayim, who was the one 'borrowing' Binyamin, and who had sent the brothers as his agent to bring Binyamin to him. Thus, Yehudah was actually making himself an Arev to Yosef for the return of Binyamin to his father.
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DIVIDING WALL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Partners who want to make a Mechitzah
          (divider) in the yard build the wall in the middle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	They build like the local custom, with uneven stones,
          even stones, half-bricks or bricks.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When they use uneven stones, each gives three
               Tefachim of his property for the wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When they use even stones, half-bricks or bricks,
               each gives two and a half Tefachim; two Tefachim, or
               one and a half Tefachim, respectively.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if the wall falls, the area it
               occupied and the stones belong to both neighbors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Similarly, in a garden, in a place where people make a
          wall, one neighbor can force the other;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In a valley, a place where people don't make a
               wall, one neighbor cannot force the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	If he wants to build the wall himself, he builds on his
          side, and makes a Chazis (sign). If the wall falls, the
          area and stones are his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	If they both build the wall, they build in the middle,
          and make a Chazis on each side;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the wall falls, the area and stones belong to
               both of them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS HEZEK RE'IYAH CONSIDERED DAMAGE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Gemara):</font></b> We are thinking that 'Mechitzah'
          means wall, as in the following Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If the Mechitzah of a vineyard
               (separating between it and a grain field) breaks, we
               tell the owner to repair it. If it breaks again, we
               tell him to repair it;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'THE' PARTNERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Perek and Masechta begins with the word, 'ha'Shutafin' -- '<i>the</i> partners.' <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (2a) proposes that a Perek begins with the definite article 'the' only when the subject of the Mishnah is mentioned in a verse in the Torah. The Mishnah uses the word 'the' to point out that it is referring to the subject that is mentioned already in the verse.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, why is the word 'the' justified in the phrase 'ha'Shutafin'? Where are the laws of 'Shutafin' mentioned in the Torah such that the Mishnah is referring to that verse when it says '<i>the</i> partners'? (<b>TORAS CHAIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> answers that the definite article 'the' of 'ha'Shutafin' does not refer to 'the partners' mentioned anywhere in the Torah, but rather to 'the partners' mentioned at the end of the previous Masechta. As Tosfos (DH ha'Shutafin) writes, Bava Basra is arranged after Bava Metzia because the end of Bava Metzia discusses the laws of 'Shutafin' in a case in which one partner owns the ground floor of a house and one owns the second floor.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that the division of jointly-owned property <i>is</i> mentioned explicitly in the verse. The Torah commands judges to rule justly between 'a man and his brother and Gero' (Devarim 1:16). <b>RASHI</b> there cites the Midrash which translates 'Gero' as a neighbor and which explains 'brother' to mean that the brothers are coming to court to divide property that they inherited.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR GARMI</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If the wall between a vineyard and a
               grain field broke, we tell the owner to repair it.
               If it breaks again, we tell him to repair it. If he
               decided not to repair it, the grapes and grain
               become forbidden; and he pays for the grain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Kama 62a (Shmuel):</font></b> (If we do not know how much
               Levi stole from David, it was enacted that David
               swears how much was taken and he collects.)
               Similarly, if one's stack was burned, he can swear
               what was inside and collect, according to R.
               Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ameimar):</font></b> Was a similar enactment made for
               a Moser (Ploni incited the kingdom to take Yakov's
               property)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Surely, the opinion that exempts for Garmi
                    (semi-direct ways of causing damage) exempts
                    also this is. We ask according to the opinion
                    that obligates for Garmi. Can Yakov swear what
                    was taken, and collect?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> If Reuven burned Shimon's loan document, he
               is exempt. He can say 'I burned a mere piece of
               paper!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Dimi bar Chanina):</font></b> R. Shimon and Chachamim
               argue about this. R. Shimon holds that Davar
               ha'Gorem l'Mamon (something without intrinsic value,
               but its loss causes a loss of money) is like money.
               He obligates for burning documents. Chachamim
               exempt, for Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon is unlike money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> R. Shimon
               said k'Mamon Dami for something that once had value,
               like stolen Chametz during Pesach. We never find
               that R. Shimon obligates for something that never
               had intrinsic value!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ameimar):</font></b> The one who obligates for Garmi obligates
               the full value of the document. The opposing opinion
               obligates paying the value of the paper.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 100a:</font></b> Reish Lakish showed a coin to R. Elazar, and
               said 'I rely on you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Elazar:</font></b> Do you expect me to pay if I am wrong?
               You yourself say that R. Meir obligates for Garmi
               (but the Halachah does not follow him)!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reish Lakish:</font></b> No, the Halachah follows R. Meirl
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the wall between the vines and
                    the grain broke, and Reuven decided not to fix
                    it, this forbids the grain, and he is liable.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 116b:</font></b> A man was Moser the Reish Galusa. Rav Nachman
               obligated him. Rav Huna bar Chiya asked if this was
               letter of the law, or a fine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches this. If the
                    land that Reuven stole was taken due to Reuven,
                    he must give another field to Shimon. This is
                    when Reuven showed it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef (to Rav Huna):</font></b> What difference does it
               make if it is letter of the law, or a fine?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Huna:</font></b> We may learn to other cases only if it is
               letter of the law.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 7:7):</font></b> One who causes
               to harm to property pays full damage from his best
               property, like other damagers. Even though he did
               not do the final damage, since he is the first
               cause, he is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8:1):</font></b> If one was Moser another's property,
               he must pay from his best property. If he died, we
               collect from his heirs, like other damages.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Teshuvos Maimoniyos (Nezikim 4):</font></b> The
                    distinctions given between Gerama and Garmi are
                    difficult. The Ritzva says that Garmi is a
                    fine, like the Yerushalmi. Any damage that
                    would be common if not for the fine is Garmi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Ri):
                    Similarly, the one who obligates for
                    unnoticeable damage holds that this is a fine
                    to deter people from doing so. Perhaps R. Meir
                    obligates for Garmi b'Shogeg, just like he
                    fines one who was Metamei or mixed Terumah with
                    Chulin b'Shogeg.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (54a DH Chamor):</font></b> According to R. Yehudah, it
               was enacted that whose stack was burned can swear
               what was inside and collect (62a). Ameimar asked
               whether a similar enactment was made for a Moser,
               according to the opinion that obligates for Garmi.
               This shows that Garmi is mid'Rabanan. If it were
               mid'Oraisa, Moser would be no different than
               burning!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Yam Shel Shlomo 9:26):</font></b> Perhaps it is
                    mid'Oraisa, but Chachamim enacted only for
                    damaging the property itself. Also, Garmi is
                    uncommon. The Ritzva says that Garmi is a fine,
                    lest people damage this way, just like
                    Chachamim decreed about unnoticeable damage.
                    Perhaps R. Meir fines even b'Shogeg, like one
                    who was Metamei or mixed Terumah with Chulin
                    b'Shogeg. Also the Mordechai, from Maharam,
                    says that Garmi is mid'Rabanan. The Ri
                    disproved this; one who despaired of fixing his
                    fence is liable, even without intent to damage.
                    Also he loses (his grapes)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramban (Kuntres d'Garmi DH umi'Shum):</font></b> Some bring a
               proof from the Yerushalmi, which fines one who tore
               a document. However, the Bavli calls it Dina
               d'Garmi, i.e. it is not a fine. We would not fine
               the son of one who burned documents! R. Ila'a did
               not intend to damage when he ruled about a coin, but
               if he erred, he would have been liable. We fine only
               for Mezid!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Shach CM 386:1):</font></b> The Ramban says that
                    perhaps the Yerushalmi exempts Garmi. This is
                    wrong. Reish Lakish (Kil'ayim 31a) fines one
                    who forbade through Kil'ayim, like R. Meir!
                    Elsewhere, R. Yochanan says that it is a fine,
                    for land cannot be stolen. The Rema (388:2)
                    obligates a Moser's son only if Beis Din judged
                    his father. Despair from fixing the fence is
                    negligence. It is like intent to damage, like
                    the Ramban says about one who erred about a
                    coin (he should have learned before ruling)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yam Shel Shlomo (ibid.):</font></b> One may rely on the
                    Ramban, for the Rosh agreed with him. Also, we
                    say that R. Meir Da'in (judges) Dina d'Garmi,
                    not that he fines. Also, this is like we say
                    about R. Noson, that the Halachah follows him
                    because he descended to the depth of the Din.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (ibid.):</font></b> We do not say 'R. Meir obligates
                    for causing damage', rather, he is Da'in Dina
                    d'Garmi. This implies that it is not
                    mid'Oraisa. Indeed, if it is a fine we do not
                    fine the son! We exempt a Moser if he was
                    forced. If Garmi were mid'Oraisa, he would be
                    liable, like for all damages. The Ramban says
                    that Chachamim were lenient about (damage
                    through) speech, and did not obligate for Ones.
                    Why should they exempt it? Why didn't Rav
                    Nachman prove that Garmi is a fine from the
                    exemption of Moser b'Ones? Perhaps he never
                    heard the Beraisa. Or, one could reject the
                    proof; perhaps the Tana exempts for Garmi (even
                    without Ones); he teaches that he is liable
                    even b'Ones if he himself gave over the money.
                    This is why Rava needed to teach that he is
                    liable without Ones (lest one explain that the
                    Tana exempts for Garmi). We said (98b) that
                    even R. Shimon, who holds that Davar ha'Gorem
                    l'Mamon k'Mamon Dami, would exempt for a
                    document, for it never had intrinsic value.
                    Ameimar taught that the opinion that obligates
                    for Garmi pays the full value of the document.
                    If it were mid'Oraisa, what is his source?
                    Perhaps R. Meir holds like R. Shimon, and
                    exempts! It is difficult to say that Ameimar
                    argues with what was said above. Also, if he
                    argues it should have said 'Ameimar Omar
                    (said)', and not 'Omar Ameimar.'
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 386:1):</font></b> We hold like R. Meir, who
               obligates for Garmi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (1):</font></b> The Ramban elaborated about the
                    differences between Gerama and Garmi, for he
                    holds that it is mid'Oraisa. Really, it is
                    mid'Rabanan; we obligate only what is common.
                    The Tur and Shulchan Aruch hold that it is
                    letter of the law. Most hold, like the
                    Yerushalmi, that it is only a fine: Tosfos, the
                    Mordechai, R. Avigdor, the Nimukei Yosef,
                    Maharam and RI'az. Smag agrees, but he
                    obligates a Moser's heirs, which connotes that
                    it is mid'Oraisa (62a). The Terumas ha'Deshen
                    was unsure. Even if most held like the Ramban,
                    heirs could say 'we hold that those who say
                    that it is only a fine.' The Rambam obligates
                    one who was Shogeg, and heirs. If Garmi were
                    mid'Oraisa, it would apply even if he did not
                    touch what was damaged!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (1):</font></b> Rav Huna asked if Moser is liable
                    letter of the law. Rav Nachman answered 'it is
                    the law of our Mishnah.' Those who say that
                    Garmi is a fine explain 'i.e., it is a fine.'
                    The Magid Mishneh says that the Rambam holds
                    that Moser is not a fine; Rav Hai Gaon, the
                    Ramban and Rashba agree. The Rambam says that
                    Rav Nachman did not prove this from our
                    Mishnah. Perhaps it is a fine! This is correct.
                    Rav Yosef asked 'what difference does it make
                    if it was letter of the law, or a fine?' Had
                    Rav Nachman answered that it is letter of the
                    law, Rav Yosef would not have mentioned 'or a
                    fine.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (1):</font></b> The Ramban says that Garmi must be a
                    fine, for we learn from it. His main proof is
                    from Shmuel. The Halachah follows him in
                    monetary laws, and Shmuel holds that a Mishnah
                    (Gitin 52b) obligates for mixing another's wine
                    with wine of idolatry, and also for mixing
                    Terumah and Chulin, for we can not derive one
                    fine from another. This is no proof. The Rambam
                    (Hilchos Chovel 7:2,6) rules like Rav; I
                    defended this in 385:1.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (10):</font></b> If Garmi were a fine, only judges
                    with Semichah in Eretz Yisrael could collect
                    it. However, Rafram and Rav Nachman enforced
                    it! Really, it is not a fine. Even if it were,
                    we collect it in Chutz la'Aretz, like common
                    damage in which the victim loses money (Rashba
                    117a).
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>BURNING A DOCUMENT </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he decided not to repair it, the grapes and
               grain become forbidden; and he must pay for the
               grain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Inference):</font></b> The Mishnah says that they wanted to build
          a wall. If not, one could not force the other!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that Hezek Re'iyah (invasion of
               privacy) is not considered damage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Mechitzah' means division, as in
          'Mechetzas (the portion of) ha'Edah.' Once the partners
          agree to divide, they must build a wall!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This would teach that Hezek Re'iyah is considered
               damage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> If so, the Mishnah should have said 'who want
          to divide', and not 'who want to make a division'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Counter-question:</font></b> If Mechitzah means wall, the Mishnah
          should have said 'they build it', and not 'they build the
          wall'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Had it said 'they build it', one might have
          thought that 'it' is a Mesifas (Rashi - a divider
          composed of stakes in the ground; Tosfos - a wall with
          windows). 'The wall' teaches that they must build a
          proper wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> They build the wall in the middle...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It must teach about when one neighbor persuaded
          the other neighbor to build it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that he agreed only to (a
               thin wall, which entails a loss of) air (circulation
               and light), but not to a thick wall, which
               diminishes the usable area in his Chatzer. The
               Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>QUESTIONS AGAINST THE OPINION THAT HEZEK RE'IYAH IS CONSIDERED DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> And similarly in a garden...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> A garden is different, for R. Aba's reason.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> One may not look at another's field
               when it is laden with crops (due to Ayin ha'Ra'ah,
               i.e. jealousy, which arouses harsh judgment from
               Heaven)).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> It says 'similarly'! (This implies that it is
          for the same reason.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This refers to (area needed for each of) the
          building materials.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If the wall of a Chatzer fell,
          they must rebuild it to four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> A wall that fell is different (Rashi - because
          they already agreed to have a wall; Tosfos - because they
          are used to doing things in the Chatzer that require
          privacy).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> (The answer is obvious.) Why didn't the one
          who asked anticipate this answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He thought that the law is the same even if
          there was never a wall there, and the case was taught due
          to the Seifa;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa):</font></b> (Even if the wall was originally more
               than four Amos,) we do not force him to rebuild it
               more than four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> We force partners in a Chatzer
          to build a Beis Sha'ar (a wall to stop people from
          looking in through the gate) and door for the Chatzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that Hezek Re'iyah is considered
               damage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, that only shows that Hezek Re'iyah to the
          masses (who walk nearby) is damage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #4 (Mishnah):</font></b> We split a yard only if each
          partner will receive four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If each will receive four Amos, they
               divide it with a wall!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, they make a simple divider in between.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #5 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one wants to build a wall
          opposite his neighbor's window, the wall must be at least
          four Amos above or below the window, and (if it is
          higher) at least four Amos away from the window.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We require four Amos above, lest he
               crouch down from his wall and look into the window.
               We require four Amos below, lest he stand on his
               wall and see through the windows. We require four
               Amos away, so he will not block light.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We are more stringent about Hezek Re'iyah in a
          house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #6 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If Reuven's roof overlooks
          Shimon's yard, he must build a four Amos wall on his
          roof. (This shows that Hezek Re'iyah is damage!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That case is different. Shimon constantly
          needs to use his yard. He does not know when he must
          beware, for Reuven goes on his roof at irregular times.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE PARTNERS WHO WANTED TO MAKE A 'MECHITZAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> According to the opinion that the 'Mechitzah' mentioned in the Mishnah refers to a wall (and not a mere division), the Gemara asks why the Mishnah does not say, 'Bonin <i>Oso</i> b'Emtza.' Why does it have to repeat the word 'Bonin Es <i>ha'Kosel</i>' if it already mentioned that the partners build a wall ('Mechitzah')? The Gemara answers that if it would have said 'Bonin <i>Oso</i>,' one might have misunderstood the Mishnah to mean not that the partners agreed to build a wall but that they agreed to make a division ('Chalukah') and they build 'it' ('Oso'), meaning a simple fence ('Mesipas'), to demarcate the border when they divide the Chatzer. (This is how Rashi (DH Havah Amina) explains the Gemara's answer.)
</p><p>
The Mishnah therefore uses the word 'Kosel' to teach that the partners agreed to build an actual wall and not merely to make a division. If one partner does not agree to build a wall, the other cannot force him to build it because 'Hezek Re'iyah' is not considered Hezek.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Why is the Tana of the Mishnah concerned that one might misunderstand the Mishnah in such a manner? Even if one would understand the Mishnah to be saying that if the partners agree to split the Chatzer they must build a Mesipas, it still would be evident that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek since it suffices to build a simple Mesipas! (<b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
(b) How could one possibly misunderstand that the Mishnah refers to building a Mesipas and not a full-fledged wall? The Mishnah continues and says that if the local custom is to build with 'Gevil' bricks or other types of brick, then the partners must build the wall in such a manner. This clearly refers to a proper wall and not a Mesipas (which is comprised merely of poles thrust into the ground, as Rashi (DH v'Ta'ama) writes)! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Havah Amina; Tosfos explains the Gemara differently from Rashi because of this and other questions.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM</b> answers that it is true that the alternate reading would also teach that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek. However, it would not teach the second point of the Mishnah, which the Gemara emphasizes in the next Sugya. The Mishnah is teaching that if one of the partners prevails upon the other to agree to build a wall, the second partner cannot claim that he agreed only to help build the wall but not to have it take up any space in his part of the land. Rather, they must build the wall equally on both of their portions of land. This point can be derived from the Mishnah only if the Mishnah is discussing a partner who persuades the other partner to build a thick wall (which takes up space) and not just a Mesipas (which takes up virtually no space). That is why the Mishnah emphasizes that they must 'build a <i>wall</i> (Bonin Es <i>ha'Kosel</i>) in the middle.'
</p><p>
The Maharam gives a second answer and says that if the Mishnah would have said that when they agree to divide the land a Mesipas suffices, there would have been no indication from the Mishnah that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek. Perhaps the reason why a Mesipas suffices is that the reluctant partner may claim that he agreed to have the land divided (even though it is 'Ein Bo Kedei Chalukah') but that he did not agree to share the expenses of building a wall. However, when the Chatzer <i>is</i> large enough for one partner to force the other to divide ('Yesh Bo Kedei Chalukah'), perhaps one partner may force the other to build a wall because of Hezek Re'iyah. The Mishnah therefore emphasizes that even when the Chatzer has 'Kedei Chalukah,' each partner must agree to build the wall (because Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek).
</p><p>
Another approach might be that Rashi does not mean that if the Mishnah would have said 'Oso' then the word 'Mechitzah' would have been understood to mean a 'division.' As Tosfos asks, this opinion already rejected the possibility of translating 'Mechitzah ' as 'division.' Rather, 'Mechitzah' still would mean a physical partition, but it would not refer to a solid partition like a wall but to a minimal partition like a Mesipas (see <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>). Consequently, there would have been no indication from the Mishnah that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek, since the reason it is not necessary to build a wall is because both of the partners agreed that a Mesipas would suffice.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers the second question by saying that according to Rashi, had the Mishnah not said 'Bonin Es <i>ha'Kosel</i>,' one would have understood the words of the Mishnah, 'in a place where the custom is to build with Gevil...,' to refer to a different case from the case discussed in the beginning of the Mishnah. In the beginning of the Mishnah, the Mishnah refers to a case in which the partners agree only to divide the land, but not to make a wall between them. In that case a Mesipas suffices. The second case of the Mishnah refers to where they agree to build a wall between them. In such a case, they must build the type of wall that is customary built in that place. (According to this answer, the second part of the Mishnah teaches that they build the wall in the middle even in a case where the partner's agreement is necessary in order to build the wall. This is a weakness in the first answer of the Maharam, who says that one would <i>not</i> have been able to learn this Halachah from the Mishnah had it not said 'Kosel' in the Reisha.)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HEZEK RE'IYAH IS CONSIDERED DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2:</font></b> We are thinking that 'Mechitzah' means
          division, as in 'Mechetzas ha'Edah';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Once the partners agree to divide, they must
               build a wall! This teaches that Hezek Re'iyah is
               considered damage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps Mechitzah means wall, as in the
          following Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If the Mechitzah of a vineyard breaks,
               we tell the owner to repair it. If it breaks again,
               we tell him to repair it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he decided not to repair it, the grapes and
                    grain become forbidden; and he must pay for the
                    grain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that they
               wanted to build a wall. If not, they could not force
               each other. This teaches that Hezek Re'iyah is not
               considered damage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> If so, the Mishnah should have said 'they build
          it', and not 'they build the wall'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Counter-question:</font></b> If Mechitzah means division, the
          Mishnah should have said 'who want to divide', and not
          'that want to make a division'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is the way of people to say 'come, let us
          make a division'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If Hezek Re'iyah is considered damage, even
          if they don't want, one should be able to force the
          other!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> The Mishnah refers to a small yard.
          They divide only if both want (for each half is small and
          not so useful).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is the Chidush that they may divide if they
          want? Another Mishnah teaches that!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> When the partners want, they may
               divide even a small yard (or field...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a Mesifas suffices.
          Our Mishnah teaches that they must build a proper wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Since we needed to teach our Mishnah, why do
          we need that Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The end of that Mishnah teaches that partners
          in a Sefer (Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim) may not split it,
          even if they want.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If our Mishnah discusses a small yard, even
          if they wanted to divide, they can always retract!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> The case is, they made a Kinyan
          committing themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> A Kinyan, of words (there is no transfer of
          ownership) is not binding!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> The Kinyan was that Reuven will get the 
          north half, and Shimon will get the south half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Each one made a Chazakah in his
          portion.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MATERIALS USED FOR BUILDING WALLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> They build as the local custom, with Gvil,
          Gazis, Kefisin, and Levenim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Gvil are uneven stones. Gazis are even stones - 'these
          are heavy stones, the size of Gazis.' Kefisin are half-
          bricks. Levenim are bricks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Question (Rabah brei d'Rava):</font></b> How do we
          know that Gvil are uneven stones, and the extra Tefach is
          because they jut out?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps they are half-stones, and the extra
               Tefach is for plaster between the halves, just like
               we give one extra Tefach for half-bricks, for the
               plaster between the halves!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> How do you know that
               Kefisin are half-bricks?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must have a tradition for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Similarly, a tradition teaches that
          Gvil are uneven stones.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Question (R. Acha brei d'Rav Avya):</font></b> How do
          we know that Kefisin are half-bricks, and the extra
          Tefach is for the plaster between the halves?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps they are uneven stones (Rashi - bricks);
               the extra Tefach is because they jut out, just like
               we give one extra Tefach for uneven stones!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> How do you know that
               Gvil are uneven stones?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must have a tradition for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Similarly, a tradition teaches that
          Kefisin are half-bricks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> We learn from our Mishnah that a Tefach of
          plaster is needed between half-bricks.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> This refers only to plaster. With
               Richsa (a cement of small stones and mud), more is
               needed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> This refers only to Richsa. With
               plaster, less is needed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW WIDE THE WALL MUST BE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> A wall four Amos tall need not be five
          Tefachim wide to endure!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Traksin (the wall in the Heichal between the
               Kodesh and Kodshei ha'Kodoshim) was 30 Amos tall and
               only six Tefachim wide, and it endured!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The required width is not a fixed fraction of
          the height. Six Tefachim suffice for 30 Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why was there no Traksin in the second
          Mikdash?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Six Tefachim suffice for 30 Amos, but not for
          more. (The second Mikdash was taller.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How do we know that the second Mikdash was
          taller than the first?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Gadol Yihyeh Kavod ha'Bayis ha'Zeh ha'Acharon
          Min ha'Rishon.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav or Shmuel):</font></b> The height will be greater.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A CLAIM OF 'HEZEK RE'IYAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Rishonim rule in accordance with the second version ('Lishna Achrina') of the Gemara that Hezek Re'iyah is considered Hezek. Accordingly, when partners divide their property, one may force the other to build a wall between their portions.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah in a case in which partners divide the property but do not build a wall, and then a few years later one of the partners insists that the other one should share in the expense of building a wall to prevent Hezek Re'iyah? The Gemara later teaches that a person is able to procure a Chazakah to use his property in a way which disturbs his neighbor (6a; see Hagahah in Rashi, DH Achzik l'Hurdi). Will such a Chazakah work with regard to Hezek Re'iyah as well?
</p><p>
The Rishonim write that a Chazakah will <i>not</i> help to counteract a claim of Hezek Re'iyah, and they offer a number of reasons.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:2) and the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Rashba) write that a Chazakah will not be effective because each of the neighbors damages the other in an equal manner. Therefore, each neighbor may claim that the reason he did not protest the Hezek Re'iyah earlier is 'because I did not want to provoke my neighbor to protest the Hezek Re'iyah that I was causing, so instead I waited for him to register his protest of Hezek Re'iyah until I registered my protest.' According to this explanation, if only one of the two neighbors is causing Hezek Re'iyah, such as where one's roof is adjacent to his neighbor's courtyard, where the owner of the courtyard suffers Hezek Re'iyah, then the perpetrator of the Hezek Re'iyah is able to make a Chazakah if the victim does not protest.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIF</b> (in a Teshuvah cited by the Rashba) and the <b>RAMBAN</b> write that there is no Chazakah for Hezek Re'iyah since it is a constantly occurring damage and it is not possible for one neighbor not to see what the other is doing. Therefore, it is comparable to causing smoke to go into his neighbor's property, a form of Hezek for which a person can never make a Chazakah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> writes that a Chazakah can be obtained only through an action, such as by building a window into one's wall opposite his neighbor's property. Hezek Re'iyah does not involve an action which changes the status quo, since both neighbors continue to use the Chatzer as it is, and therefore it cannot be considered a Chazakah.
</p><p>
The Teshuvas ha'Rif cites proof to the ruling that a Chazakah does not work in the case of Hezek Re'iyah from the first version ('Lishna Kama') of the Gemara. The Gemara (2b) asserts that if the word 'Mechitzah' in the Mishnah means a wall, then the law that the neighbors must agree to build a wall (and cannot force each other to build it) is proof that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek, because otherwise they could force each other to build a wall. If a Chazakah can be made to counteract a claim of Hezek Re'iyah, then the Mishnah might be referring to a situation in which both partners do not protest the other's Hezek Re'iyah, and therefore they each have a Chazakah. Since they each have a Chazakah, that is why they do not have to build a wall unless both consent to do so. It must be that it is impossible to make a Chazakah for Hezek Re'iyah, and one neighbor can always force the other to help build a wall because of Hezek Re'iyah (according to the view that Hezek Re'iyah is considered Hezek).
</p><p>
The Rishonim do not seem to view this as an irrefutable proof. They do not explain, however, how the proof can be refuted.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (2a) explains that the refutation might be from the second part of the Mishnah. The Mishnah says, 'v'Chen b'Ginah,' which means that in a Ginah, even if the partners do not agree to build a wall, they may force each other to do so because of 'Ayin ha'Ra' (as the Gemara explains on 2b). If the Reisha of the Mishnah is discussing neighbors who each had a Chazakah to do Hezek Re'iyah and that is why they cannot force each other to build a wall, then why does the Mishnah differentiate between the wall of a Chatzer and the wall of a Ginah? It is clear that a person can obtain a Chazakah for Hezek Re'iyah in a Ginah as well! This might be why the Gemara assumes that the Reisha of the Mishnah is not discussing a situation in which a Chazakah was obtained, but rather it is discussing neighbors who are now dividing the Chatzer and have not made any Chazakah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) BUILDING A THIN WALL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Rishonim rule that Hezek Re'iyah is considered Hezek. Consequently, neighbors may force each other to build a six-Tefach thick wall between their two portions of land when that is the customary practice of that place ('Minhag ha'Medinah').
</p><p>
The Gemara discusses a case in which the partners build the wall equally on both of their portions of land. What is the Halachah in a case in which one of the partners offers to build the entire wall in his portion, but to make it much thinner than the local custom in order to save the land and expenses of building a thick wall?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:5) writes that one is permitted to build a thin wall (even a wooden fence) in one's own lot, thereby avoiding the expenses of a thick wall. He explains that the logic of why each of the neighbors may force the other to build a thick wall in accordance with the customary practice in that place is because he could say that he does not agree to give up space in his lot unless he feels that the wall be a strong and enduring one. If the wall is not being built in his yard, he may not protest the fact that the wall that his neighbor builds is not strong and enduring.
</p><p>
The Rosh proves this from the Gemara earlier (2b) that says that when a person has a roof adjacent to his neighbor's Chatzer, the owner of the roof must make a '<i>Ma'akeh</i>' four-Amos high. Why does the Gemara call this partition a 'Ma'akeh' and not a 'Kosel'? It must be that since only one person is building this partition (since the owner of the Chatzer is not damaging the owner of the roof with Hezek Re'iyah), he is not required to build it in accordance with the required thickness of the wall as described by the Mishnah.
</p><p>
The Rosh cites a second proof from the Beraisa which teaches that the owner of a wheat field may force his neighbor, the owner of a vineyard, to build a wall between the two fields. The Beraisa does not say that such a wall must be built according to the measurements described in the Mishnah. (This proof might be refuted by suggesting that there never was a Minhag ha'Medinah to build such thick walls in a vineyard.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that even if one neighbor builds the entire wall in his lot, he still must build it in accordance with the customary practice (i.e. six Tefachim thick). If that would not be the Halachah, but rather a person could choose to build a thin wall in his own property, then who would ever agree with his neighbor to build half (three Tefachim) of a thick wall on his lot when he could avoid the expense by building a very thin wall on his own property?
</p><p>
(The Rosh alludes to the answer to this question. A person might not want to build a thin wooden fence on his property, because ultimately he will not save money since it will collapse more easily and he will have to bear constant expenses to rebuild it.)
</p><p>
The Rashba defends his ruling on logical grounds. He says that if one neighbor wants to build a thin wall, the other neighbor may insist that a thin wall is not sufficient because it will easily collapse and he will constantly have to bring his neighbor to court to force him to rebuild it.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (2a), in the name of his brother, cites proof for the view of the Rashba from the Gemara's first version ('Lishna Kama'). Why does the Gemara conclude that if partners must agree to build a wall then it must be that Hezek Re'iyah is not considered Hezek? Perhaps the Mishnah states that they must agree to build a wall because if they do not agree, it is not necessary to build it in accordance with the Minhag ha'Medinah, because one may build a thin wooden fence in his own portion of the Chatzer!
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva Eiger refutes this proof in the same way that he refutes the Rif's proof (as mentioned in the previous Insight). If the Mishnah is discussing a situation in which one of the neighbors wants to build a thin wall in his own portion of land, then why does it imply that this would not be permitted in the case of the wall of a Ginah? If the neighbor of a Ginah agrees to build a wall in his own domain which is not in accordance with the measurements of the Minhag ha'Medinah, then he should be permitted to do so, just as he is permitted to build such a wall when two Chatzeros neighbor each other (according to the Rosh). Since the Mishnah <i>does</i> differentiate between a Ginah and a Chatzer, it is evident that it is not discussing a situation in which one of the neighbors wants to build the wall by himself.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (The other of Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> It will last
               longer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Both are true.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> They should have made a wall of 30 Amos, and
          the rest a curtain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Six Tefachim suffices for 30 Amos only if the
          wall reaches a ceiling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> They should have made a wall as high as it
          can stand without a ceiling, and the rest a curtain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> A tradition teaches that the entire
          divider must be either a wall or a curtain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learn from Bayis Rishon that a wall is
               permitted. We learn from the Mishkan that a curtain
               is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Are the thicknesses listed in the Mishnah
          with the plaster, or without it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Presumably, they are
          with. If they were without, the Mishnah would teach how
          much must be allotted for it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Really, additional width is needed for the
          plaster. The Tana omitted it because it is less than a
          Tefach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Regarding bricks, he taught that each must
          give a Tefach and a half! (He did not omit the half
          Tefach!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> When each neighbor gives a half Tefach,
          together there is a Tefach. The combined width for the
          plaster is less than a Tefach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> The beam (to permit carrying in an
          alley) must be wide enough to hold half of a three-
          Tefachim brick. (No plaster is needed there. This shows
          that the brick is three Tefachim without the plaster!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That Mishnah discusses bigger bricks (that are
          a full three Tefachim). Our Mishnah discusses bricks that
          are three Tefachim with the plaster.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support:</font></b> That Mishnah says 'a three-Tefachim brick.'
          This implies that there are smaller bricks.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DESTROYING A SYNAGOGUE TO BUILD A NEW ONE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda):</font></b> We may not destroy a synagogue before
          building another one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Opinion #1:</font></b> This is because we are concerned for
          negligence (lest they not build a replacement).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Opinion #2:</font></b> This is because we need a place to pray
          until a replacement is built.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these
          opinions?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They argue about a case in which there is
          already another place to pray.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	In the area of Mereimar and Mar Zutra, they had one
          synagogue for summer (with much ventilation) and another
          for winter. They destroyed and rebuilt the summer one in
          winter, and the winter one in summer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> If they already have money to build
          another, are we concerned for negligence?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are concerned lest the money be
          (justifiably!) used to redeem captives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> If bricks and ceiling beams are
          ready to be assembled, are we concerned?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are concerned lest they be sold
          in order to redeem captives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> If so, even if the new synagogue is
          built, we should be concerned lest it be sold to redeem
          captives!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> People do not sell residences (to
          redeem captives).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda's law applies only if we do not see
               cracks. If we see cracks, we destroy and build.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Ashi saw cracks in the synagogue of Masa
               Nachsiya. He destroyed it and moved his bed there
               (to make people zealous to build the new one) until
               (it was completed, and even) the gutter pipe was
               installed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Bava ben Buta counseled King Herod (Hordus)
          to destroy and rebuild the Mikdash. According to Rav
          Chisda, this is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> He saw cracks in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (According to Opinion #1):</font></b> We are not
          concerned lest a king reconsider.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If the kingdom says that it will uproot
               a mountain, it will do so. It will not retract!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>KING HEROD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Herod was a slave of the Chashmonai kings. He desired a
          certain girl from the royal family. He heard a voice from
          Heaven saying 'any slave who rebels today will succeed'.
          He killed all his masters, except for that girl. She
          understood that he intended to marry her. She went up to
          the roof, and proclaimed that she, the last true member
          of the house of Chashmonai, is about to kill herself, and
          anyone claiming to be from the house of Chashmonai (i.e.
          Herod and his seed) is really a slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Herod preserved her corpse in honey for seven years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> This was to satisfy his lust with her
               body.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> This was to make people think that he
               had married her (to justify his claim to reign).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Herod knew that Chachamim expound 'mi'Kerev Achecha
          (amidst your brothers, i.e. someone born to a Bas
          Yisrael) you will appoint a king' (disqualifying
          himself), so he killed them. He only left Bava ben Buta,
          for a counselor.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) DISMANTLING A 'BEIS HA'KENESES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara gives two reasons for the prohibition against destroying one Beis ha'Keneses before a new one is built. It is prohibited either because of the fear that the people will neglect rebuilding the new Beis ha'Keneses, or because they will not have a place to pray in the meantime. The Gemara then relates that Mereimar and Mar Zutra would dismantle and rebuild the summer Beis ha'Keneses in the winter and the winter Beis ha'Keneses in the summer.
</p><p>
Since they did not rebuild the new Beis ha'Keneses before they dismantled the old one, why were they not concerned that the synagogue that they dismantled might not be rebuilt?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (see <b>MAHARSHA</b>) explains that their construction project did not involve building a different Beis ha'Keneses. Rather, they made structural modifications to the existing building in order to accommodate it for the conditions of winter or summer as necessary. The Gemara says that when a weakness is found in the structure of a Beis ha'Keneses, it is permissible to dismantle it in order to correct the structural deficiency, even before building a substitute Beis ha'Keneses. Here, too, the fact that the present Beis ha'Keneses was not fit to tolerate the weather conditions of the season was considered as though the Beis ha'Keneses had a structural deficiency and thus they were permitted to dismantle it.
</p><p>
(b) The Tosfos Yeshanim suggests further that when there is another Beis ha'Keneses available, there is no concern that the people will neglect building a new one, since there is still a Beis ha'Keneses in which to pray. This answer is consistent with the Girsa cited by the Mesores ha'Shas, which states that there is concern for neglect even when there is a 'place to pray,' meaning an unoccupied house or other building (but not a Beis ha'Keneses). If, however, there is another fully-operative Beis ha'Keneses available, then there is no concern for neglect in rebuilding the old one.
</p><p>
This is also the answer of the <b>RAMAH</b>. The Ramah adds that even when there is no other comfortable place to pray, an existing Beis ha'Keneses should not be dismantled unless it is during a season in which it is not used. This is why the Gemara emphasizes that Mereimar and Mar Zutra dismantled the summer Beis ha'Keneses <i>in the winter</i> -- they would not have dismantled it in the summer when it was in use.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> and Tosfos Yeshanim suggest further that the opposite might be true. The concern for neglect applies only when there is another fully-operative Beis ha'Keneses in which to pray. Since the people already have another comfortable Beis ha'Keneses in which to pray, they might be neglectful about rebuilding the second Beis ha'Keneses. However, when the other Beis ha'Keneses is not as comfortable as the one that needs to be rebuilt, as in the case of Mereimar and Mar Zutra (where the existing Beis ha'Keneses would have been uncomfortable in the summer), there is no concern that the people will neglect to rebuild the old Beis ha'Keneses. (This is consistent with the other Girsa printed in the Gemara, which says that there is concern for neglect when there is 'another Beis ha'Keneses,' referring to a fully-operative Beis ha'Keneses.)
</p><p>
(The Tosfos Yeshanim suggests a fourth answer which the <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> strongly rejects.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:4) writes that Mereimar and Mar Zutra indeed maintain that the only reason why a new Beis ha'Keneses must be built before the old one is dismantled is in order that there be a place to pray. Since they had another Beis ha'Keneses, they were permitted to dismantle the winter Beis ha'Keneses during the summer.
</p><p>
Is this the Halachic opinion? Is there indeed no concern for neglect when there is another Beis ha'Kenes in which to pray?
</p><p>
The Rosh and other Rishonim write that the Gemara later seems to favor the first opinion, that there <i>is</i> concern for neglect. Ravina suggests that perhaps it is permitted to dismantle a Beis ha'Keneses if the money and building materials for the new Beis ha'Keneses are already prepared. If the problem with dismantling the old Beis ha'Keneses is that there might not be a place to pray, then what difference does it make if the building materials are prepared? The problem with dismantling an old Beis ha'Keneses before building a new one is the concern that the rebuilding of the new Beis ha'Keneses will be neglected. That is why there is no concern for neglect when the construction of the new Beis ha'Keneses has begun (by preparing the building materials).
</p><p>
The <b>RAMAH</b> writes that the same conclusion may be drawn from the conclusion of the Gemara in which the Gemara says that Bava ben Buta was correct in telling Hurdus (Herod) to dismantle the Beis ha'Mikdash before reconstructing the new structure, since 'Malchusa Sha'ani d'Lo Hadra Bei' -- the king does not change his mind. However, when the Beis ha'Mikdash was dismantled, there was no other place in which to offer Korbanos. What difference does it make if the king will not change his mind? It still should be prohibited to dismantle the Beis ha'Mikdash even temporarily, because there would be no place to offer the Korbanos in the interim! It must be that the concern is only for neglect in rebuilding it, and in the case of a king there is no concern for neglect.
</p><p>
The <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> and <b>RASHASH</b> do not agree with this reasoning. Even during the three years during which the Beis ha'Mikdash was dismantled, the Korban Tamid was still offered. The Gemara in Megilah (10a) teaches that 'Makrivin Af Al Pi she'Ein Bayis' -- when building the Heichal it is permitted to offer the Korbanos as long as the Korbanos are brought in the place of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Ramah might mean that although most Korbanos may be brought in the manner described in Megilah (10a), some annual Korbanos cannot be brought in that manner, such as the Par and Se'ir of Yom Kippur, the blood of which must be sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, on the Paroches, and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores. At the moment that the Beis ha'Mikdash was dismantled, there was no place to bring those Korbanos until it was rebuilt.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE WHIM OF ROME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that Bava ben Buta permitted Hurdus to dismantle the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to rebuild it without first building a substitute, because 'Malchusa Sha'ani d'Lo Hadra Bei' -- the king does not change his mind. Thus, there was no risk that Hurdus would not complete his plans.
</p><p>
How could they be so certain that Hurdus would finish the project that he started? The Gemara later relates that Hurdus was subject to the whims of the Roman Empire, and he was able to get away with the rebuilding the Beis ha'Mikdash only because he built it before Rome found out about it. It seems that the principle that a king does not change his mind is not applicable here, since Hurdus did not have unlimited power. (<b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The reason why a king always completes what he starts is that he realizes that if he does not keep his commitment, his power over the kingdom will be weakened. For this reason, Hurdus would never have begun a project unless he was absolutely certain that he would be able to complete it and that he would not be stopped by the powers in Rome. The Gemara means that Bava ben Buta felt comfortable leaving the decision to reconstruct the Beis ha'Mikdash in the hands of Hurdus, because he knew that Hurdus would not begin the project and dismantle the Beis ha'Mikdash unless he was absolutely certain that he would be able to complete the project and not risk weakening his power over the kingdom. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HETERIM TO EAT OR SLEEP IN A BEIS HA'KENESES OR BEIS MEDRASH</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Ashi saw cracks in the Beis ha'Keneses of Masa
               Nachsiya. He destroyed it, and (to make people
               zealous to build it quickly) moved his bed there
               until (even) the gutter pipe was installed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Megilah 28b (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not eat or drink in a
               Beis ha'Keneses. We do not enter a Beis ha'Keneses
               to avoid heat or rain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Asi:</font></b> Batei Kenesiyos in Bavel are made on Tanai
               (a stipulation). Nevertheless, we do not act in them
               frivolously, i.e. to make calculations;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Chachamim are permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rava was teaching Ravina and Rav Acha bar Masnah. A
               torrential rain came; they entered a Beis
               ha'Keneses. They did not enter to avoid the rain,
               rather, for the sake of learning, which requires
               clarity.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Berachos 25a (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> One may learn Torah if
               there is a bad smell without a source. Look at the
               mattresses of the Beis Medrash. Some Talmidim learn
               while others sleep (and pass wind).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Sanhedrin 71a (R. Zeira):</font></b> 'U'Kra'im Talbish Numah' -
               if one sleeps in a Beis Medrash, his Torah becomes
               fragmented (he remembers only parts).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pesachim 101a:</font></b> Shmuel requires Kidush to be in the 
               place where one eats. He holds that we make Kidush
               in the Beis ha'Keneses for visitors who eat, drink
               and sleep in the Beis ha'Keneses. They are Yotzei
               through it.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif and Rosh (Megilah 9a and 4:7) bring the
               Gemara in Megilah. Their text of the Beraisa
               discusses Batei Kenesiyos <i>and Batei Medrashos</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> Even though Batei Kenesiyos in Bavel are made 
               on Tanai, we do not permit frivolity. Rather, the
               condition helps for when they are desolate.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Berachos 16b and 3:47):</font></b> ...In the Beis
               Medrash some Talmidim learn while others sleep...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 19b and 10:5):</font></b> Kidush in the
               Beis ha'Keneses is Motzi visitors who eat, drink and
               sleep there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ran DH Le'afukei):</font></b> Even though we do not eat or
                    drink in a Beis ha'Keneses, perhaps for
                    visitors it is considered a Mitzvah of the
                    Rabim, for they are fed by the Tzedakah box of
                    the city. Alternatively, they eat in rooms next 
                    to the Beis ha'Keneses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 11:6):</font></b> Chachamim may eat or
               drink in a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash b'Dochak
               (it is difficult to do so elsewhere).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Kesef Mishneh (7):</font></b> The Tanai allows benefit
                    from them (even while they are in use), but not
                    lightheadedness, i.e. calculations.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 29:8):</font></b> We make Kidush in the
               Beis ha'Keneses to be Motzi visitors who eat there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishnah:</font></b> The visitors hear Kidush and eat
                    in houses <i>next to</i> the Beis ha'Keneses, for
                    one may not eat in a Beis ha'Keneses.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Maimoniyos (5):</font></b> This is unlike Rashi
                    (28b DH Tanai), who says that the Tanai allows
                    benefit from them (even while they are in use).
                    One may eat and sleep in a Beis ha'Keneses for
                    its sake (e.g. to guard it), or even for the
                    sake of other Mitzvos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ran (DH Batei):</font></b> The Ramban explains that the
                    Tanai allows the city to feed or lodge poor
                    people there, if necessary. Also, Chachamim may
                    benefit from them, but only if necessary. They
                    may not enter merely to avoid rain. A Beis
                    Medrash is 'Bei (the house of) Rabanan', for
                    they learn there all day. A Beis ha'Keneses is
                    not Bei Rabanan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi teaches
                    that a Beis Medrash is 'Bei Rabanan'. All the
                    more so a Beis ha'Keneses, which (he himself
                    holds) is less Kodesh is Bei Rabanan.
                    Nevertheless, we needed to answer why they
                    entered during the rain. This teaches that even
                    Chachamim may benefit from a Beis Medrash only
                    when there is no alternative.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Basra 1:4):</font></b> Rav Ashi did not really move
               his bed into the Beis ha'Keneses. We may not eat or
               sleep in a Beis ha'Keneses! Rather, he moved in
               nearby, where guests eat and sleep, like it says in
               Pesachim. Rashi says that Batei Kenesiyos in Bavel
               are made on Tanai, and permits doing all needs there
               even when they are settled. He can say that Rav Ashi
               moved his bed into the Beis ha'Keneses itself. This
               is difficult, for we needed to explain that Rav Papa
               and Rav Ada did not enter merely to escape the rain!
               Rather, the Tanai helps for after they become
               desolate.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 151:1):</font></b> We do not eat or drink in
               a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash. Chachamim may eat
               or drink there b'Dochak
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Rabeinu):</font></b> The Rambam permits
                    Chachamim to eat and drink in a Beis ha'Keneses
                    b'Dochak. He learns from Rava and his Talmidim.
                    The Gemara needed to justify why they entered
                    during the rain, for escaping the rain is not
                    considered Dechak. Many people walk in the
                    market in the rain. Or Zaru'a (in Hagahos
                    Ashri) allows without Dechak. He says that Rava
                    and his Talmidim were stringent on themselves,
                    and that anyone may eat and drink in a Beis
                    ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash. The Tur permits
                    Chachamim. It appears that he holds like Tosfos
                    and the Rosh that this is only b'Dochak, even
                    for Batei Kenesiyos in Bavel, which are on
                    Tanai. He did not specify so because he holds
                    that this is obvious
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (2):</font></b> Surely the Heter for
                    Chachamim to eat and drink in a Beis ha'Keneses
                    is to avoid Bitul Torah of returning home
                    whenever they needed to eat. If they do not
                    learn there, it is forbidden. Also Chachamim
                    are commanded to fear the Mikdash! The Or
                    Zaru'a agrees. He permits only in Bavel,
                    because their Batei Kenesiyos are on Tanai.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (5):</font></b> Similarly, the city may
                    feed or lodge poor people there if necessary.
                    This applies only in Chutz la'Aretz, and some
                    forbid even in Chutz la'Aretz.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (6):</font></b> Chachamim may eat or drink
                    or sleep there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some permit a Beis Medrash to Chachamim even
               not b'Dochak.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Yesh):</font></b> The Ran allows
                    Chachamim even to enter escape bad weather,
                    since it is their house (but frivolity is
                    forbidden). This does not apply to a Beis
                    ha'Keneses, even b'Dochak. The Rema did not
                    specify. It seems that he holds like the
                    Rambam, who allows only eating and drinking.
                    Presumably, other needs are included.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (9):</font></b> One who learns all day in
                    a Beis Medrash may rely on the Rema.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (13):</font></b> Acharonim are lenient even
                    if it is not b'Dochak. A Chacham may rely on
                    them. It is as if the Beis Medrash was built on
                    this Tanai. Perhaps 'b'Dochak' means to avoid
                    Bitul Torah. Even a Chacham should not eat in a
                    Beis ha'Keneses unless there is a great need,
                    e.g. he cannot learn otherwise. The same
                    applies to smoking.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (9):</font></b> Even water is forbidden in a
                    Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash, except for a
                    Chacham who learns there. Today the custom is
                    to be lenient about water for one who is
                    learning, even if he is not a Chacham, to avoid
                    Bitul Torah.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (12):</font></b> Some permit visitors to eat
                    even in a Beis ha'Keneses of Eretz Yisrael. The
                    Isur to eat there applies only to residents of
                    the city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (3):</font></b> One may not sleep in a Beis
               ha'Keneses, even Arai (casually). It is permitted in
               a Beis Medrash.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (15,16):</font></b> A Chacham may sleep
                    Arai in a Beis ha'Keneses, and even Keva (in a
                    fixed way) in a Beis Medrash. The Shulchan
                    Aruch discusses others. They may sleep Arai in
                    a Beis Medrash. R. Akiva Eiger was hesitant
                    about this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (30):</font></b> The Heter for Chachamim
                    applies equally to a Beis ha'Keneses, perhaps
                    even more so, for it is less Kodesh.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (29):</font></b> It is even worse to sleep
                    during the Drashah. 'One who averts hearing
                    Torah, his Tefilah is detested.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (4):</font></b> For the needs of a Beis
               ha'Keneses or another Mitzvah, one may eat and sleep
               there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source (Beis Yosef):</font></b> The Yerushalmi says that
                    we must check a Beis ha'Keneses for Chametz
                    because people eat there for Ibur Shanah (when
                    they add a month to the year).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (17):</font></b> The Magen Avraham forbids
                    bringing a bed in, just like it is not proper
                    to bring beds into the Mikdash (Tamid 26b).
                    Others permit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (18):</font></b> Semak  permits a Seudas
                    Mitzvah only like that of Ibur Shanah, which
                    consisted of bread and legumes, for there is no
                    frivolity. He excludes a Seudah with
                    drunkenness; it is forbidden even in a Beis
                    Medrash. We do not protest those who are
                    lenient about a Seudas Siyum ha'Shas, for no
                    other place is big enough.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>KEDUSHAS BEIS HA'KENESES AND BEIS MEDRASH </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ADVISING HEROD TO REBUILD THE MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Herod poked out the eyes of Bava ben Buta (Benyahu (ben
          Yehoyada) - he put a crown of herbs on him to subtly
          blind him), and tested him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> Do you see what that lowly slave (Herod)
               did?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> What should I do?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> Curse him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> 'Gam b'Mada'acha Melech Al
               Tekalel.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> He is not really a king!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> He is no less than a rich person
               or Nasi. It says 'u'Vchadrei Mishkavecha Al Tekalel
               Ashir' and 'v'Nasi v'Amecha Lo Sa'or.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> 'V'Amecha' refers to one who acts like one
               of your nation. Herod does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> I fear him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> He will not find out. No one else is here!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> 'Ki Of ha'Shamayim Yolich Es
               ha'Kol.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> I am Herod. Had I known that Chachamim are
               so careful, I would not have killed them! What
               should I do to correct my mistake?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> You destroyed (Chachamim,) the
               light of the world - 'Ki Ner Mitzvah v'Sorah Ohr.'
               Go fix (the Mikdash,) the light of the world -
               'v'Naharu Elav Kol ha'Goyim.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Herod:</font></b> I fear the kingdom (of Romi)!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava ben Buta:</font></b> Send them a messenger asking
               permission to destroy and rebuild it. The messenger
               will tarry one year on the way, one year in Romi, 
               and a year on the way back. By then, you will have
               finished it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Herod did so. Romi answered:</font></b> if you did not yet destroy
          it, do not. If you already destroyed it, do not rebuild
          it. If you already rebuild it, that is lowly, to ask
          permission after the fact!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We know that you are really a slave who killed
               his masters!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	One who did not see the rebuilt Mikdash never saw a
          beautiful building.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> He used grayish-brown marble and white
               marble.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Some say that he also used blue stones.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He staggered the rows, to leave room for plaster
               in between.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He thought to cover it with gold. Chachamim said
               that it is better as it is. It looks like waves and
               delights the eye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why did Bava ben Buta counsel him this way?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Daniel was punished for counseling
               the evil Nevuchadnetzar (to do a Mitzvah) -
               'v'Chata'ach b'Tzidkah Feruk (redeem your sin
               through Tzedakah)...Teheve Archah li'Shlevsach (and
               you will have serenity for a long time);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Nevuchadnetzar's Tzedakah delayed his punishment
                    for 12 months!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Herod was a slave, who is obligated to keep
          the Mitzvos, therefore he gave this counsel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> The only one who could rebuild the Mikdash
          was (Herod,) the king.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How do we know that Daniel was punished?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> 'Va'Tikra Esther la'Hasach' - Hasach
          is Daniel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that (the name
          Hasach hints that) Chatchuhu (they cut him from his
          importance).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that (it hints that) all
               royal matters are Nechtachin (decided) by him, how
               can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> He was thrown into a lion's den.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EVERYTHING FOLLOWS THE LOCAL CUSTOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b>  Everything is according to the local
          custom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It includes a place where they make walls of
          Lulav or laurel branches.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Therefore, if the wall falls, the area it
          occupied and the stones belong to both neighbors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It must teach about when it fell into the
          property of one neighbor, or one neighbor took the rocks
          into his property;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that now he is Muchzak,
               the other must bring proof to get the rocks. The
               Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, in a garden, in a place where
          people make a wall, one neighbor can force the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> Only in a place where people make walls in
          gardens, one neighbor can force the other. Normally, he
          cannot force him;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> In a valley, in a place where people
          don't make a wall, one neighbor cannot force the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Normally, he can force him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> If normally, one cannot
               force his neighbor to build a wall between gardens,
               all the more so between fields in a valley!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah means that normally, a
          garden is considered a place where people make a wall, so
          one neighbor can force the other;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, a valley is considered a place where
               people don't make a wall, so one neighbor cannot
               force the other.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SIGN PROVING THAT ONE BUILT THE WALL HIMSELF</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If he wants to build the wall himself, he
          builds on his side, and makes a Chazis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is a Chazis?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> He builds the top of
          the wall bent towards the neighbor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why doesn't he build it leaning towards
               himself?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Also his neighbor could do so (and people
               would think that both built the wall).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Also according to Rav Huna, perhaps the
               neighbor will cut off the Chazis and claim that he
               built half!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If it is cut, this is recognizable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> He builds the top of
          the wall bent towards himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why doesn't he build it leaning towards
               his neighbor?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> His neighbor could cut it (and claim that
               he helped build the wall).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Also according to Rav Huna, perhaps the
               neighbor will make a Chazis and claim that he built
               half!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If he does so (after the wall is already
               built), this is recognizable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that he makes a Chazis on
          the outside!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	This is left difficult. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> To make a Chazis, one plasters a Tefach
          of the wall on the outside.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE EYE OF THE WORLD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Hurdus sought advice from Bava ben Buta about how he might be able to do Teshuvah for killing the Chachamim of that generation, Bava ben Buta told him, 'You extinguished the light of the world (Torah) and blinded the eye of the world (the Chachamim). Therefore, you must do a Mitzvah with that which brings light into the world and which is the eye of the world (the Beis ha'Mikdash).'
</p><p>
Why is the Beis ha'Mikdash referred to as 'light' and as an 'eye'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) A number of sources teach that light radiated forth from the Beis ha'Mikdash to the entire world. The Midrash says that the reason why the windows of the Beis ha'Mikdash were wider on the outside than on the inside was in order for the light to go from inside the Beis ha'Mikdash and spread forth into the world, instead of light going from outside into the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (22b, DH v'Chi) writes that despite the draping over the Mishkan which prevented light from the outside from coming in, the Kohanim did not need to bring any candle or lamp into the Mishkan since it was illuminated by the radiance of the Shechinah.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (in <b>KAD HA'KEMACH</b>) writes that the presence of light indicates the Divine Presence, just as the presence of candles in the king's chambers give honor to the king.
</p><p>
Light also symbolizes the wisdom of Hash-m as expressed in the Torah, and the attribute of having the proper worldview. When people came to the Beis ha'Mikdash, they were overcome with a love of Hashem's ways and a desire to follow those ways, as Tosfos in Bava Metzia (21a, DH Ki) quotes from a Midrash.
</p><p>
The Beis ha'Mikdash is referred to as an 'eye' as well since the eye is the part of the body that is able to perceive light and to transmit what it sees to the rest of the body. Likewise, the Beis ha'Mikdash is the place which is able to receive the light of Hash-m and spread it to the entire world. (From the perspective of what the Beis ha'Mikdash provides to the world, it is called 'light.' From the perspective of what it receives from Above, it is called 'eye.')
</p><p>
(b) The Chachamim allude to the same theme when they teach that Olam ha'Zeh is compared to night, and Olam ha'Ba is compared to day (Bava Metzia 83b, Pesachim 2a). In Olam ha'Zeh, the presence of Hash-m is veiled, and thus this world is compared to nighttime, during which there is an absence of light. In Olam ha'Ba, Hash-m will reveal His presence, and thus Olam ha'Ba is compared to the brightness of day (see Avodah Zarah 3a).
</p><p>
The Chachamim allude to this further when they expound the verse, 'Hash-m called the light 'day' and He called the darkness 'night'' (Bereishis 1:5). The verse does not mention the Name of Hash-m with regard to night because Hash-m does not place His name with something associated with evil (Tosfos to Ta'anis 3a, DH v'Ilu). The Midrash does not mean that night is evil, but that darkness represents the lack of clarity in man's perception of Hashem's presence in the world.
</p><p>
(c) Based on this understanding, <b>RAV YITZCHAK HUTNER</b> zt'l explains the choice of words in the Mishnah at the beginning of Pesachim. The Mishnah there refers to the night of the fourteenth of Nisan (the night of Bedikas Chametz) as 'Or l'Arba'ah Asar.' The Gemara there explains that although the Mishnah means to say the <i>night</i> of the fourteenth and not the day, it uses the word 'Or' (which literally means 'light'), because that it is a more refined expression.
</p><p>
What is more refined about using the word 'light' to refer to night, and why is that word used to mean 'night' only in the beginning of Pesachim (and in Kerisus 1:6)?
</p><p>
The answer is that the quality of the Yom Tov of Pesach is that it reveals the light that is hidden in the darkness of night. Even in times of Galus, when Hashem's presence is less apparent, when the Jews relive the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim they see more clearly the guiding hand of Hash-m in this world and during Galus. Both Olam ha'Zeh and Galus are compared to night. This is why Maseches Pesachim begins by calling the night, 'Or.'
</p><p>
(d) The source for Rav Hutner's insight may be found in a comment of the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> in his commentary to the Hagadah regarding the question, 'Why is this night (ha'Lailah ha'Zeh) different from all other nights?' In Hebrew, nouns are classified as either masculine or feminine. Masculine nouns must be modified by masculine adjectives and pronouns, while feminine nouns must be modified by feminine adjectives and pronouns. Although there is no fixed rule that determines the gender of a particular noun, there is one principle that is constant: when a noun ends in the vowel 'Kamatz' followed by a silent letter 'Heh,' that word is of feminine gender. When, then, is the word 'Lailah' (night), which is a feminine noun, always modified by masculine adjectives and pronouns (such as 'ha'Zeh')?
</p><p>
The question of 'Mah Nishtanah' is why 'Lailah,' night, is modified by the word 'Zeh,' a masculine pronoun. It should be referred to as 'ha'Lailah <i>ha'Zos</i>,' with the feminine pronoun!
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on adds than not only would it be grammatically proper for 'Lailah' to be feminine, it would also be logically consistent. Night, he notes, is feminine in its very essence. It is for this reason that many positive commandments must be performed exclusively during the daytime. (Examples of these are blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah, holding the Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos, and wearing Tzitzis and Tefilin.) This is in accordance with the 'feminine' nature of the night. Just as women are exempt from fulfilling these positive commandments (see Mishnah, Kidushin 29a), so, too, the night, with its feminine element, is 'exempt' from these Mitzvos.
</p><p>
(The source for the Vilna Ga'on's comment that night is 'feminine' may be found in the Zohar (Bereishis 20b) which asserts that daytime is when <i>man</i> actively provides for the family's livelihood, as the verse says, 'The sun shines... and men go out to do their work until evening' (Tehilim 104:22-23). The woman, on the other hand, provides for her family at night. As the verse says, 'She arises while it is still night, and she prepares sustenance for her household...' (Mishlei 31:15). In the words of the Zohar, the man 'rules' during the daytime and the woman 'rules' during the nighttime.)
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on explains that inherent in this understanding of night as feminine is an even deeper meaning to the Hagadah's question. Although time-related Mitzvos Aseh normally apply only during the day, there are a small number of exceptions. The exceptions are the Mitzvos performed on the Seder night: the eating of Matzah, Maror, and, in the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Korban Pesach, and the Mitzvah of relating the story of the Exodus. The Torah specifically commands that these Mitzvos be performed <i>exclusively</i> at night.
</p><p>
The question of the Hagadah is why the night <i>of Pesach</i> is even more 'masculine' ('ha'Zeh'), than other nights, as it is laden with positive Mitzvos. (According to this interpretation, the four questions can be understood to correspond to the four positive Mitzvos of Pesach night; see the Mishnah's version of the four questions in Pesachim 116a (M. Kornfeld). See also <b>SHELAH</b> in his commentary 'Matzah Shemurah' on the Hagadah, who makes a similar point in his commentary on the words 'Kol Oso ha'Lailah,' and see also <b>GAN RAVEH</b> to Shemos 12:42.)
</p><p>
This night's masculine character must somehow be related to the broader question mentioned above: Why does the word 'Lailah' in general display a certain duality? Although it has the feminine 'Kamatz-Heh' ending, it is consistently described with masculine modifiers.
</p><p>
If this is the intention of the Hagadah's question, then what is the answer to the question? The Vilna Ga'on does not elaborate on this, but the answer may be explained as follows (based on the words of the Shelah and Gan Raveh mentioned above).
</p><p>
The trials and tribulations of this world are compared to the night because, in the present world, man is often blind to Hashem's presence in and control of the world. The radiant, joyful period of the world of the future in times of Mashi'ach is compared to the day, because then Hash-m will make His majesty clear for all to see. In retrospect, all events that occurred in this world will be clearly seen to have been for the best. This is the meaning of the Midrash (Shemos Rabah 18:11) that states that during the future redemption the nighttime will be lit up like the day.
</p><p>
This means that at the dawn of the era of Mashi'ach, it will become abundantly evident that even when man does not 'notice' Hashem's presence during the 'night' of Olam ha'Zeh, it is there all the same. When one sees things in the proper perspective, the guiding Hand of Hash-m is 'as clear as day.' Femininity denotes privateness (since it is characteristic of women to be less conspicuous than men; see Yevamos 77a). Night may 'look' feminine (as denoted by the 'Kamatz-Heh' ending) but it is in fact masculine in nature; Hashem's Hand can be seen if one just looks at it in the proper perspective, that of one who has witnessed Yetzi'as Mitzrayim: 'Anochi Hash-m... Asher Hotzeisicha me'Eretz Mitzrayim.' This explains the duality of the word 'Lailah.'
</p><p>
The Zohar (2:38a) teaches that the night of the redemption from Mitzrayim was lit up as bright as day. During that time of miraculous redemption, night 'became day.' The reason why the night of Pesach is imbued with such a masculine character is that it commemorates the night of the Exodus, during which Hashem's presence was 'as clear to us as day.' This is why the Torah, which usually assigns positive Mitzvos to the daylight hours, makes an exception in this instance. On this night, the Torah designates the nighttime for the performance of such Mitzvos.
</p><p>
May we merit to witness the ultimate manifestation of Hashem's Glory and the end to all suffering, speedily in our days.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE OWNERSHIP OF STONES OF A WALL THAT FELL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that since the two neighbors must share in the expenses of building a wall between them, if the wall between them later falls they divide the stones and the place upon which the wall stood. It is assumed that the wall was built by both of them on land contributed by both of them.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah needs to teach that the two neighbors divide the stones. It should be obvious that they divide them, since the stones fell on the properties of both neighbors (<b>RASHI</b> DH Peshita)! The Gemara answers that the Mishnah's ruling is necessary in a case where the stones fell mainly on the property of <i>one</i> of the neighbors.
</p><p>
(a) Why is it obvious that if the stones are spread over both properties that the two neighbors divide them? This case should be comparable to the case in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (2a) which teaches that when two people are holding a Talis and each one claims it belongs to him, they divide it only after they each make a Shevu'ah. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (7a) teaches that even if the hands of each of the two claimants are grasping an entire half of the Talis, they still may not divide it without first making a Shevu'ah (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Metzia 7a, DH Machvei). The Mishnah here is teaching a great Chidush when it says that the two neighbors divide the stones without a Shevu'ah! Why, then, does the Gemara ask that this is obvious?
</p><p>
(b) How does the Gemara's answer explain why the Mishnah needs to teach that not only the stones but even the land upon which the wall was built belongs to both of them? Even though it is possible that all of the stones fell on the property of only one neighbor, the land upon which the wall stood cannot be transferred to the possession of one of the neighbors!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara in Bava Metzia (5b) concludes that the reason why the claimants holding the Talis must make a Shevu'ah before they divide it is that if they did not need to make a Shevu'ah, everyone would go and seize someone else's object and claim that it was his. This concern applies when a person is physically holding an object together with another person. If an object is resting in the Chatzeros of two people, there is no concern that a Chatzer will 'seize' a person's object, and therefore they divide it without a Shevu'ah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (2a, DH Lefichach) explains that the Mishnah mentions only tangentially ('Agav') that the land on which the wall was standing is divided when it mentions the primary Halachah that the stones are divided.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD RAMAH</b> questions the answer of Tosfos and says that the Mishnah should have mentioned first that the stones are divided. Instead, the Mishnah mentioned first that the land is divided, indicating that this Halachah is also part of the Chidush of the Mishnah.
</p><p>
The Yad Ramah answers instead that with regard to the land, the Mishnah is teaching that even if one neighbor claims that the <i>entire</i> area beneath the wall is his, and the other neighbor claims that <i>half</i> of it is his, they split the area. The claims are not judged like the case in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (2a), in which one claims that the entire Talis is his while the other claims that half of it is his, in which case they divide half of it, and the one who claims that all of it is his takes the other half. Here, there is no doubt that they built the wall on both properties, and the one who is claiming that half is his is telling the truth.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> writes that the same point could have been taught with regard to the stones. The Gemara could have answered that the Mishnah is teaching that even if one says that all of the stones belong to him and the other says that half belong to him, they still divide them. Why does the Gemara not give this answer? Perhaps since stones are Metaltelin, the Gemara was able to give a simpler answer and say that all of the stones fell into the property of one of the neighbors.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE OWNERSHIP OF STONES THAT FELL INTO ONE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that since the two neighbors must share in the expenses of building a wall between them, if the wall between them later falls they divide the stones and the place upon which the wall stood. It is assumed that the wall was built by both of them on land contributed by both of them.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah needs to teach that the two neighbors divide the stones. It should be obvious that they divide them, since the stones fell on the properties of both neighbors (<b>RASHI</b> DH Peshita)! The Gemara answers that the Mishnah's ruling is necessary in a case where the stones fell mainly on the property of <i>one</i> of the neighbors.
</p><p>
Why, though, would one have thought that the stones are <i>not</i> divided in such a case? The Rishonim offer various approaches to this question.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains the Gemara in a simple manner. Had the Mishnah not taught that the stones are divided, one might have thought that the one in whose property the stones fell has a Chazakah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (2a, DH Lefichach) rejects this explanation because the Gemara (4b) says that if two people build a wall together in a field of grain ('Bik'ah') between their properties, it is not necessary for either of them to make a 'Chazis.' This implies that when no proof is present, it is assumed that the wall was built by both neighbors, and if it falls there is no concern that the one in whose field the stones have fallen will claim that he built the wall himself.
</p><p>
The Rashba rejoins that this is not a question, and that Rashi answers this question in his commentary later (4b, DH v'Lo Ya'asu). The Gemara does not mean that the lack of proof allows for the division of the wall when it falls. Rather, it means that when a wall in a Bik'ah has no 'Chazis' on either side, it is considered <i>proof</i> that the wall was built jointly and not by either neighbor independently. This proof does not apply to the wall of a Chatzer (the subject of the Reisha of the Mishnah), because a 'Chazis' cannot be used as proof of ownership in a Chatzer, as the <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> (cited by the Rosh) writes.
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>RASHI</b> (DH Peshita) in a Hagahah in the name of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains the Gemara differently. He writes that one would have thought that the neighbor in whose property the wall fell could claim that the stones belong to him, since his neighbor did not protest the fact that his stones are resting in another person's domain. The Mishnah teaches that since the two neighbors owned the wall jointly when it was built, they give permission to each other to store the stones of the wall in the domain of the other. Therefore, it is as if the stones fell into jointly-owned property, in which case no one would expect either of the neighbors to protest about the location of his stones (as in Bava Metzia 116b, and Rashi there, DH Lo Kapdi). This is also how the <b>YAD RAMAH</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> (1:6) explain the Gemara.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Chananel does not explain the Gemara in the straightforward manner that the Rashba suggests -- that when the stones fall into the domain of one of the neighbors, that neighbor should have a Chazakah and be able to claim that he built the wall originally by himself. Instead, it is assumed that the wall was built by both of the neighbors, and the one in whose property the wall fell has no Chazakah. Why is this?
</p><p>
Rabeinu Chananel's reasoning seems to be that such a Chazakah is considered to be a 'Tefisah Achar she'Nolad ha'Safek,' an act of seizing an item after a doubt about its ownership has already arisen, which is not an acceptable Chazakah, as Tosfos writes (2a, DH Lefichach). Proof for this understanding may found in Bava Metzia (6a), where the Gemara teaches that when two disputants are holding a Talis together, and one of them snatches it away from the other in front of Beis Din and the other party protests, it is not considered a Chazakah since there was already a doubt about the ownership of the Talis before one party snatched it away.
</p><p>
The Rashba, on the other hand, differentiates between a case in which the object was snatched after it was brought to court, and a case in which the object was snatched before it was brought to court. In the latter case, it would be considered a Chazakah if not for the fact that a wall between two Chatzeros <i>must</i> be built by both neighbors.
</p><p>




</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AYIN HA'RA REGARDING PROPERTY</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 2a (Mishnah):</font></b> Partners who split a garden make a
               wall in the middle.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The wall is obligatory, due to Hezek
               Re'iyah (invasion of privacy).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, it is required in a garden for a
               different reason:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> One may not look at another's field
                    when it is laden with crops (due to Ayin ha'Ra
                    (envy), which can ruin one's good fortune).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 4a (Rava):</font></b> Normally, a valley is considered a place
               where people don't make a wall, so one neighbor
               cannot force the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 5a (Mishnah):</font></b> If the wall of a Chatzer fell, they
               must rebuild it to four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 30a (Beraisa):</font></b> If one found a sheet, he
               may not spread it on a bed, nor on a peg for his
               needs. If guests came, it is forbidden for his needs
               and its sake together.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> This is lest it be lost due to Ayin ha'Ra, or lest
               it be stolen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pesachim 50b (Beraisa):</font></b> If one seeks to profit
               through sticks or bottles he will never be blessed
               through them. Since they have a big volume (it looks
               like the owner has much merchandise), Ayin Ra'ah
               prevails over them.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzia 16a and 2:20):</font></b> One may not
               spread out a sheet (an Aveidah) when guests came,
               due to Ayin ha'Ra, or lest it be stolen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 12:1):</font></b> 'Ki Savo b'Kamas
               Re'echa' refers to a worker. If not, who permitted
               him to come to another's vineyard or crops?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Matisyahu Strason (Bava Basra 2b DH d'Omar):
                    Perhaps the Rambam hints to the law that one
                    may not look at another's field laden with
                    crops. Alternatively, the Rambam normally omits
                    laws that depend on Ayin ha'Ra, Ru'ach Ra'ah,
                    Shedim...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashi (Bava Basra 2a DH Asur):</font></b> One may not look at
               another's crops lest he harm them through Ayin
               ha'Ra.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 2:16):</font></b> Partners who split
               a garden can force each other to make a wall 10
               Tefachim tall.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Chachmei Lunil):</font></b> The Gemara in Bava
                    Basra connotes that there is more Hezek Re'iyah
                    in a garden than in a Chatzer. If so, the wall
                    should be four Amos tall, like for a Chatzer!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Teshuvas ha'Rambam (brought in Migdal Oz):
                    Hezek Re'iyah is great damage. Concern for Ayin
                    ha'Ra is only Midas Chasidus. The Gemara said
                    that it is the reason for a wall in a garden
                    merely to repel the proof. The Halachah is not
                    concerned for Ayin ha'Ra. Ayin ha'Ra is
                    greatest in a valley (there are more crops),
                    and we do not require a wall there!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Lechem Mishneh:</font></b> The question and answer both
                    require a wall in a garden! The one who
                    answered that a garden wall is due to Ayin
                    ha'Ra agrees that the Mishnah exempts a valley!
                    Tosfos says that there is more Ayin ha'Ra in a
                    garden, in which different species grow
                    throughout the year. Ayin ha'Ra in a valley is
                    only one month a year (when the crops are
                    grown). It seems that the Rambam holds that the
                    question and answer are both unlike the
                    Halachah, for we rule like Rav Nachman in
                    monetary laws; he says that Hezek Re'iyah does
                    not apply to a roof, and all the more so to a
                    garden.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (CM 158:3):</font></b> What was the question from a
                    garden? Perhaps it refers to when they agreed
                    to make a wall! The Rambam holds that we
                    conclude that the wall is when one sold half of
                    his garden. It is not for Hezek Re'iyah,
                    rather, so it will be clear that one who
                    crosses the border intends to steal. It cannot
                    apply to partners, for they did not suspect
                    each other until dividing!
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 378:5):</font></b> If looking will damage
               someone, it is forbidden. Therefore, one may not
               stand by another's field laden with crops.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (4):</font></b> The Tur and Shulchan Aruch discussed
                    specifically damage through Ayin ha'Ra, not
                    Hezek Re'iyah (CM 154:3). They discuss only
                    Ayin ha'Ra here. 'Therefore' connotes that it
                    is forbidden only because it itself damages.
                    Other Hezek Re'iyah does not itself damage, it
                    only causes damage, i.e. he cannot do his needs
                    became he can be seen. However, all the more so
                    Hezek Re'iyah is forbidden, for one opinion in
                    the Gemara forbids Ayin ha'Ra only due to Midas
                    Chasidus.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahah (in Friedman Shulchan Aruch):</font></b> Teshuvas
                    ha'Rambam says so. No opinion in the Gemara
                    explicitly says so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (EH 62:3):</font></b> If there are two Chasanim
               together, we make one Birkas Chasanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that we do not bless two Chasanim
               together, due to Ayin ha'Ra. The custom is to make a
               separate Chupah for each. However, we may make a
               meal for many Chasanim together, and bless only
               once.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source:</font></b> Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Ishus
                    10:3), brought in Darchei Moshe (3).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Drishah (6):</font></b> Similarly, due to this opinion we
                    do not bless on and circumcise two babies
                    together, due to Ayin ha'Ra. This is even
                    though one could distinguish: we could bless
                    once and circumcise in two places in the Beis
                    ha'Keneses, for then Ayin ha'Ra does not apply
                    so much.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 265:5):</font></b> If one has two babies to
               circumcise, he blesses once for both of them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Taz (11):</font></b> Teshuvas ha'Rosh (26:4) says so, and
                    also regarding two Chasanim. Why did the Rema
                    disagree only regarding Chasanim? It seems that
                    to make one Berachah for two Chasanim, since
                    they are obligated, they must be together at
                    the Berachah, and Ayin ha'Ra applies. The
                    babies need not be near the Berachah, so Ayin
                    ha'Ra is not a problem.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pischei Teshuvah (YD 116:6):</font></b> Adnei Paz (25, 34)
                    permits calling brothers the same name.
                    However, it is proper not to, due to Ayin
                    ha'Ra.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>CONCERN FOR AYIN HA'RA </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why doesn't he do so on the inside?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Also his neighbor could do so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Also according to R. Yochanan, perhaps
               the neighbor will peel off the Chazis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That would be recognizable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What sign can one make for a wall of Lulav
          branches?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He tilts the branches towards
          his neighbor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why doesn't he tilt them towards
               himself?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Also his neighbor could do so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Also according to Rav Nachman, perhaps
               the neighbor will cut them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He plasters them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The neighbor can peel it off!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This would be recognizable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> No sign will help. He must write a
          document saying that he built the wall himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If they both build the wall (they build in
          the middle, and make signs on both sides).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava of Parzika):</font></b> Neither should make a sign!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The case is, one already made a
          sign;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the other does not also, people will think
               that his neighbor built it himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava of Parzika):</font></b> Does the Mishnah teach how
          to deal with liars?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> (Rav Ashi): Also the Reisha is
               an enactment due to liars!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava of Parzika):</font></b> The Reisha teaches a
               law (if one wants to build himself, he builds on his
               property). Then, it teaches how to prevent the other
               side from lying;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Seifa is no Chidush, that if both build
                    together they build n the middle. Did it come
                    only to teach how to deal with liars?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The Chidush of the Seifa is that a
          Chazis works on a Lulav wall, unlike Abaye.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A FIELD SURROUNDED BY A NEIGHBOR'S FIELDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven's field was surrounded by Shimon's
          field on three sides and Shimon built walls on all three
          borders, Reuven need not share the cost;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi says, if he (we shall explain who) fenced the
          fourth side, Reuven must pay for everything (half of all
          the walls).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi,
          who says that if he fenced the fourth side, Reuven must
          pay for everything;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The law is the same whether Reuven or Shimon
               built the fourth wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> Reuven must pay half the cost of the wall
          built.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Chiya bar Rav):</font></b> He pays half the cost of a cheap reed
          wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven's field was surrounded by Shimon's
          field on three sides and Shimon built walls on all three
          borders, Reuven need not share the cost.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> If Shimon fenced the fourth side, Reuven
          must pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Seifa - R. Yosi):</font></b> If he fenced the fourth side, Reuven
          must pay for everything.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	According to Rav Huna, we understand the argument (when
          he fenced the fourth side) - Chachamim (the first Tana)
          obligate only the cost of a cheap reed wall, R. Yosi
          obligates half the cost of the wall built.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to Chiya bar Rav, what do they
          argue about?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Chachamim do not obligate the cost of reed
               walls, what must Reuven pay?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> The money he saves since he need not guard
          his field (because it is surrounded by walls).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Reuven must share the cost of only the last
          wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> They argue about Reuven's liability if
          Shimon builds the fourth wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> Chachamim hold that if Reuven builds
               the fourth wall, he must share the cost of all the
               walls, but if Shimon builds the fourth wall, Reuven
               only shares the cost of the last wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi holds that in either case, he must share
               the cost of all the walls.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> Chachamim hold that even if Shimon
               builds the fourth wall, Reuven must share the cost;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi holds that if Reuven builds the fourth
               wall, he must share the cost of all the walls, for
               he shows that he wants walls around his property;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  But if Shimon builds the fourth wall, Reuven
                    does not pay anything.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RAVINA AND RUNYA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Ravina surrounded Runya on all four sides and asked for
          compensation; Runya refused to share even the cost of a
          reed fence or the savings of not having to guard his
          field. One day Runya fenced his date trees; Ravina asked
          his sharecropper to bring some of Runya's dates. Runya
          screamed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> You show that you want your trees
               guarded. Without a wall, even goats could take the
               fruit!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Runya:</font></b> It suffices to scream at goats to stop
               them from eating.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> You would have to hire a guard to scream
               at them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava (to Runya):</font></b> Give Ravina enough to satisfy
               him. If not, I will make you pay according to Rav
               Huna according to R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> Runya bought a field bordering on
          Ravina's property; Ravina thought that he has first
          rights to buy it, due to the law of Bar Metzra (when one
          sells land, the neighbor has first rights to buy it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Safra):</font></b> The law of Bar Metzra is due to 'v'Asisa
          ha'Yashar v'Hatov b'Einei Hash-m.' Runya is poor, so it
          is proper to let him buy it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (R. Tam):</font></b> Runya bought a field bordering on
          his field. It also bordered on three of Ravina's fields,
          which made Ravina think that he has precedence to buy it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Safra):</font></b> It is just as advantageous for Runya to
          buy it as for you, therefore he keeps it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #3 (R. Avraham):</font></b> Runya was Ravina's
          sharecropper. He bought a field bordering on Ravina's
          property. Ravina thought that he has first rights to buy
          it, due to the law of Bar Metzra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Safra):</font></b> Because he works your field, he is like
          one who borders on the property. He keeps what he bought.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS ONE BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE ALREADY PAID?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If the wall of a Chatzer fell, they must
          rebuild it to four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (If Reuven built it himself,) we assume that
               Shimon paid, unless Reuven can prove that Shimon did
               not pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If the wall was originally more than four Amos, neither
          can force the other to rebuild it more than four Amos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven built it more than four, and Shimon
               built a wall near it (fitting to put a ceiling
               resting on the two walls), even though he did not
               yet make the ceiling, Shimon must share the entire
               cost of the wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We assume that Shimon did not pay unless he can
               prove that he did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Reish Lakish):</font></b> If Levi fixed a time to pay
          his debt to Yehudah, and claims that he paid within the
          time, he is not believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are happy if people pay on time. We do not
               believe that he paid early!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye and Rava):</font></b> He is believed. Sometimes one gets
          the money and is eager to pay, lest he lose the
          opportunity!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PAYING FOR AN ADDITION TO THE WALL BEFORE BENEFITING FROM IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when one neighbor raises, at his own expense, the dividing wall to more than four Amos high, and then the other neighbor builds a wall in his own property the same height with intention to use the dividing wall as support for a roof beam, he is obligated to pay for half of the expenses of raising the dividing wall to its present height even before he actually places his roof beam on it, because he shows that he is pleased with the addition and wants to use it for himself.
</p><p>
Why, though, must he actually pay for the addition to the wall even before he benefits from it? (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, even if he does benefit from the addition to the wall, why is he obligated to pay for it? It should be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser' -- the second neighbor benefits from the addition to the wall, while the first neighbor loses nothing, in which case the Halachah is that the one who benefits does not have to pay. (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DHAf Al Pi) answers that merely by showing that he is content with the wall's additional height, he must pay. This also seems to be the explanation of <b>RASHI</b> (DHMegalgelin). Presumably, the basis for the obligation to pay is that the second neighbor will benefit from the wall in the future.
</p><p>
What sort of obligation is this? Why must he pay before he has actually benefited?
</p><p>
Moreover, how does this answer the question of Tosfos, that it is a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser'?
</p><p>
The <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b> cites <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'GA'ON RAV NAFTALI TROP</b> who answers that he is obligated to pay once it is evident that he wants the wall, because it is considered as though the neighbor who built the addition to the wall did so upon the request of the other neighbor, as his Shali'ach.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> gives a different answer and explains that the reason why the second neighbor must pay for the addition is that in this case, the first neighbor <i>is</i> losing, and it is a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Chaser.' The reason why he built the addition to the wall was his greater sensitivity to 'Hezek Re'iyah.' Therefore, the second neighbor is obligated to pay when he benefits from the wall (or when he shows that he will benefit in the future, as above in answer (a)). (Tosfos seems consistent with his opinion elsewhere (Bava Kama 20b), where he states that the 'Chisaron' in a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Chaser' does not have to be from the very way in which the other person is Neheneh, but can be unrelated to the Hana'ah. The <b>RASHBA</b> earlier (4b), however, explains that when the 'Chisaron' is not a result of the Hana'ah of the other person, it is not a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Chaser.')
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU GERSHOM</b> writes that although the neighbor did not yet place the roof beam on the wall, he still benefits from the wall since it now serves as a wall to his house in which he can live (albeit without a roof yet). According to Rabeinu Gershom, it seems that the neighbor indeed is <i>not</i> obligated to pay until he actually benefits from the wall. (This answers the question of the Ritva. Regarding the question of Tosfos of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser,' we must rely on one of Tosfos' answers.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes), the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>, and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that by building a wall of equal height adjacent to the dividing wall, the second neighbor shows that he is pleased with the presence of the additional height of the dividing wall, and since half of that wall is built on his property he thereby acquires half of the addition through Kinyan Chatzer. Consequently, he has a debt to pay for that share of the wall. This is also the explanation of the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> and <b>YAD RAMAH</b> (#8).
</p><p>
The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (158:6) writes that according to this explanation, the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DHAf Al Pi) is no question. Tosfos asks why the neighbor should be obligated to pay for half of the expenses if it is a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser' -- the second neighbor benefits from the addition to the wall while the first neighbor loses nothing. According to these Rishonim, this is not a question. His obligation to pay is not due to the fact that he benefits from the wall (indeed, he has not yet benefited from it), but rather it is due to the fact that he acquired part of the wall through Kinyan Chatzer.
</p><p>
Why does Tosfos not accept this explanation? The <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b> suggests, based on the words of <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (on the Mishnah) and <b>CHIDUSHEI REBBI SHIMON SHKOP</b> (4:3), that Tosfos maintains that the neighbor does <i>not</i> want his Chatzer to acquire part of the wall for him (for he could benefit from the wall without paying anything). Therefore, it must be that the reason why he must pay is that he is not allowed to benefit from someone else's property without paying for that benefit. Once he must pay, it is assumed that he wants to acquire his share of the wall. That is why Tosfos asks that it should be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser,' and thus he should be allowed to benefit without paying and it cannot be assumed that he has intention for his Chatzer to acquire a share of the wall for him.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST MINOR ORPHANS PAY A DEBT THAT WAS NOT DUE YET?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the wall of a Chatzer fell, they must
               rebuild it to four Amos. (If Reuven built it
               himself,) we assume that Shimon paid, unless Reuven
               can prove that Shimon did not pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Reish Lakish):</font></b> If Levi fixed a time to pay his debt
               to Yehudah, and claims that he paid within the time,
               he is not believed. We are happy if people pay on
               time. We do not believe that he paid early!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> He is believed. Sometimes one gets
               the money and is eager to pay, lest he lose the
               opportunity!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that we assume that
               Shimon paid, unless Reuven proves otherwise. If he
               says that he paid in the proper time, surely we
               assume that he did! Rather, he says that he paid
               early, and that one is believed to say that he pays
               before the proper time!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This case is different, because he cannot
               wait to pay. The payment is due for each row of
               bricks when it is built!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> In practice, Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav
               Yehoshua ruled like Abaye and Rava. Mar bar Rav Ashi
               ruled like Reish Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Reish Lakish,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b>We apply the Chazakah even against orphans. (If a man
               died before the time to pay his debt, the lender
               collects from the orphans without swearing.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> Even though (normally) one collects from orphans
               only through an oath, here is different, for the
               Chazakah is that one does not pay before the time.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 33a - Rava bar Sharshom:</font></b> I took land for Mashkanta
               from Ploni. He owed me also other money as well; he
               died. After the Mashkanta ended, I did not return
               the land, lest I need to swear to collect from
               orphans. I hid the Mashkanta document, to eat the
               Peros until I collect the other loan as well. Migo I
               could claim that I bought the land, I am believed to
               say that they owe me the money.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> You have no Migo, for people know that it the
               orphans'. You must return the land. When they grow
               up, you will claim your debt from them.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Erchin 22a (Rav Asi):</font></b> Beis Din collects from minor
               orphans' property only to pay off a loan (from a
               Nochri) on Ribis.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They collect also to pay a widow's
               Kesuvah (to exempt the orphans from feeding her).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rav Asi - Mishnah):</font></b> We auction off
               orphans' property for 30 days. (A Nochri creditor
               would not consent to wait 30 days!)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the Nochri agreed to follow the
               laws of Yisrael regarding auction, but not regarding
               Ribis.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (1:9):</font></b> The Halachah follows Reish
               Lakish, even against orphans. Normally, one does not
               collect from orphans without swearing. This is an
               exception, for one does not pay before the time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> This is even from minor orphans.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (5b DH v'Afilu):</font></b> We can bring a proof from
               Erchin 22a, which strained to find a case when Beis
               Din collects from minor orphans' property, to answer
               for Rav Asi. It did not say that we collect from
               them within the time! Presumably, he and R.
               Yochanan, who adds only a Kesuvah, hold like the
               Halachah, i.e. like Reish Lakish. Also, Rava said
               that we rule like Reish Lakish against R. Yochanan
               in only three (other) places! Even though Rava rules
               unlike Reish Lakish, the Gemara often cites Rava's
               teaching (for it is true).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Gra CM 78:3):</font></b> The Gemara did not want to
               give an answer unlike Abaye, Rava, Rav Papa and Rav
               Huna. We often rely on Rava's rule, but not where
               the Gemara explicitly says that the Halachah follows
               Reish Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Malveh 12:2):</font></b> We collect
               from minor orphans' property through a Migo (33a.
               Abaye rejected the Migo only because it was known
               that it is not his land.) Since we did not resolve
               whether or not a Migo helps against a Chazakah, also
               Chazakah helps to collect from minor orphans!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 14:1):</font></b> One who collects from
               a minor or adult heir collects only through an oath
               like a mid'Oraisa oath. If the debt was for a time
               and he demanded payment before the time, he collects
               without an oath. After the time, he collects only
               with an oath.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Lechem Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam (12:1-3) says that
                    from minor orphans we collect only a Kesuvah.
                    Indeed, here he means only that a Kesuvah can
                    be collected from a minor orphan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (ibid., citing the Ramban):</font></b> Rav Hai Gaon says
               that one must swear to collect a document from
               buyers before the time. Perhaps there the concern is
               greater than when collecting from orphans, for had
               their father paid, he would have said so before he
               died. If one says 'I paid within the time', even
               though he is not believed, the creditor must swear
               Heses, since the borrower has a Vadai claim. Orphans
               do not obligate an oath due to Safek.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> The creditor needs to swear only
                    if the borrower demands that he swear.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> Admission that a loan was not
                    paid does not allow collecting from buyers, for
                    we are concerned lest it is a scheme. We rely
                    on such admissions to uproot inheritance, for
                    he has no need to lie. He has other ways to
                    uproot inheritance! Regarding the Chazakah that
                    one does not pay within the time, there is no
                    reason to distinguish buyers from heirs.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mordechai (467,468):</font></b> A case occurred in which
                    Avraham hired a scribe. The scribe did part of
                    the job, and was killed. His widow claimed food
                    and her Kesuvah from the wages for what he
                    wrote. Avraham said that he paid for more than
                    the scribe wrote. Gedolim ruled that he is
                    believed. Even though the Halachah follows
                    Reish Lakish, that one does not pay before the
                    time, and Sechirus is paid only at the end, the
                    Gemara said that the money for each row of a
                    wall is due when it is completed. Here also,
                    money for each treatise is due when it is
                    finished, even if he was hired to write many.
                    There is no difference if he or his heirs
                    demands his wages. Even if the scribe demanded
                    his wages, Avraham has a Migo, for he could say
                    'I stipulated to pay you within the time.' For
                    every unsettled monetary law, ha'Motzi
                    mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 78:1):</font></b> If a time was fixed for a
               debt, and Reuven demanded payment before the time,
               and Shimon said 'I paid you', he is not believed.
               There is a Chazakah that one does not pay before the
               time. This is even from orphans. If Shimon died
               within the time and left orphans, even minors,
               Reuven collects without an oath. This is if there
               was a loan document, or even if it was a Milveh Al
               Peh and Reuven took Shimon to Din and the testimony
               was accepted in front of Shimon.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> If
                    testimony was not accepted in front of their
                    father, he could not collect until they mature,
                    for testimony must be in front of the
                    defendant, and a minor is as if he was not
                    here. The Rashba (3:200) says that if payment
                    was not due in their father's lifetime, we
                    appoint an Apotropos to pay Reuven without an
                    oath. Even though testimony must be in front of
                    the defendant, we validate a document in the
                    borrower's absence. When a document is
                    validated, it is as if the signatures were
                    validated from when they signed. If the
                    property is in a different place than the
                    orphans, we appoint the Apotropos where the
                    property is.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (4):</font></b> Chachamim were lenient only about
                    validation of documents (to allow it in the
                    defendant's absence), for it is only
                    mid'Rabanan, but not for acceptance of
                    testimony.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (2):</font></b> Most Poskim say that this is even
                    for minor orphans. This is primary. They cannot
                    say 'we hold like Maharshach, who says that we
                    do not take money from minor orphans, since
                    Poskim argue about this.' Maharashdam says that 
                    we collect from minor orphans only when the
                    payment date was set from the beginning, but
                    not if the date came in the borrower's
                    lifetime, and the lender graciously pardoned
                    him and granted an extension. I disagree. Since
                    it is within the time, in every case he
                    collects.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>IS ONE BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE PAID HIS DEBT EARLY? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We assume that Shimon paid, unless Reuven
          can prove that he did not pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he says that he paid in the proper time,
               obviously, we assume that he did!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Rather, he says that he paid before he had to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that one does pay before the proper
               time!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This case is different, because he cannot
          wait to pay. The payment is due for each row of bricks
          when it is built!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Seifa):</font></b> We assume that Shimon did not pay unless he
          can prove that he did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he says that he paid in the proper time, he
               should be believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Rather, he says that he paid before he had to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that one does not pay before the
               proper time!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This case is different. Because he does not
          think that he must pay, he would not pay early.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  	In practice, Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua
          ruled like Abaye and Rava;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  	Mar bar Rav Ashi ruled like Reish Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Reish Lakish;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	We apply the Chazakah even against orphans. (If a man
          died before the time to pay his debt, the lender collects
          from the orphans without swearing.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, one does not collect from orphans
               without swearing. This is an exception, for Chazakah
               says that a man does not pay before the time.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) A 'MIGU' VERSUS A 'CHAZAKAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks a general question about the power of a 'Migu' ('Mah Li l'Shaker'). When a person has a Migu but that Migu is countered by a Chazakah, does the Migu prevail or does the Chazakah prevail? The Gemara asks this question in the specific case of a lender who demands repayment of the loan after the time the loan became due, and the borrower says that he paid back the loan before the time that it was due. On one hand, the borrower has a Migu: if he is lying he would have said a better claim that certainly would have exempted him; he would have claimed that he paid <i>after</i> the time the loan was due (in which case a borrower is believed about a Milveh Al Peh, a loan that is not written in a Shtar). Hence, with this Migu he should prevail with his present claim that he paid before the time the loan became due. On the other hand, a Chazakah counters his Migu: there is a Chazakah that a person does not pay back a loan before it is due. Do we follow the Chazakah and require him to pay, or do we follow the Migu and exempt him from paying?
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The Chazakah certainly is stronger than the Migu. There is a general principle that a Migu that would enable a person to extract money from someone else ('Migu l'Hotzi') is <i>not</i> a valid Migu. In contrast, a Chazakah that would enable a person to extract money from someone else <i>is</i> a valid Chazakah, as is evident from this case itself: if the lender demands repayment <i>before</i> payment is due, and the borrower claims that he repaid already, the Chazakah that a person does not pay back a loan before it is due determines that the borrower is not telling the truth and thus the lender can extract money from him based on this Chazakah. Why, then, is there any question about whether a Migu is stronger or whether a Chazakah is stronger? A Chazakah certainly is stronger because it may be used to extract money! (<b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to the opinion of the <b>RASHBA</b> later in Bava Basra (32b), that a Migu to extract money ('Migu l'Hotzi') <i>is</i> a valid Migu, the Gemara's question is straightforward, because a Chazakah which can be used to extract money is no stronger than a Migu which also can be used to extract money.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> explains that the Gemara's question is not simply whether a Migu prevails against a Chazakah. A Migu alone would <i>not</i> prevail against a Chazakah. Rather, the Gemara's question is whether a Migu <i>combined with a different Chazakah</i> -- the Chazakah that the borrower is presently in possession of the money in question (i.e. a 'Chezkas Mamon') -- overrides a Chazakah that a borrower does not pay back a loan before it is due.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, there are two ways of understanding the Gemara's question about whether a Migu (combined with a Chezkas Mamon) overrides a Chazakah. The Gemara might be asking whether the borrower's Migu actually combines with the borrower's Chezkas Mamon to give the borrower's claim the added strength of <i>two</i> powers -- that of a Migu and that of a Chezkas Mamon. On the other hand, perhaps the two do <i>not</i> combine, because the nature of how they work differs. A Migu works because it <i>clarifies</i> (to some degree) what actually happened; it gives credence to the person's claim that he is the rightful owner of the money (for, if he wanted to lie, he would have said a bigger, more effective lie), suggesting that what he claims is indeed what happened. In contrast, a Chezkas Mamon does not clarify the issue in question. Rather, it merely says that in lieu of any proof, Beis Din cannot extract money from the person presently in possession of it. It does not suggest that the person with the Chezkas Mamon is the rightful owner. Therefore, perhaps the two do not combine with each other to give the borrower's claim added power. (See <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b>.)
</p><p>
A second way to understand the Gemara's question is that even though a Chazakah is stronger than a Migu alone, the Migu (with a Chezkas Mamon) perhaps serves to weaken the power of the Chazakah; the Migu that lends credence to the borrower's claim that he paid back the debt weakens the Chazakah that people do not pay back debts before they are due. The Gemara is asking whether or not a weakened Chazakah still enables a person to extract money from someone else. (See <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b>.)
</p><p>
(c) Other Rishonim, however, do not learn like the Shitah Mekubetzes, that the Gemara is asking whether a Migu combined with a Chezkas Mamon overrides a Chazakah. This is clear from <b>TOSFOS</b> (DHMi Amrinan) and other Rishonim who ask questions from the Gemara in Shevuos and in Yevamos which, according to the Shitah Mekubetzes' approach, are not questions. How, then, do these Rishonim explain the Gemara's question?
</p><p>
The <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b> quotes the <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> (EH 42), who cites the <b>SHACH</b> (CM 108:7; see also <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> 108:4) who explains that the Gemara is not referring to a normal type of Migu, where there is reason to believe the claimant because if he were lying, he would have said a better lie. Rather, it is referring to a stronger type of Migu, the Migu of 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' (see Insights to Yevamos 119:1, end of answer (a)) -- had the claimant did made any claim, he would have prevailed. By making a claim, he created a reason <i>not</i> to believe him, and therefore Beis Din accepts the rest of his claim that he is the rightful owner of the money. In this case, there are two parts to the borrower's claim: first, that he repaid, and second, that he repaid before the loan was due. He did not need to say the second part, that he repaid before the loan was due. By saying that he paid back before it was due, it is like 'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir.'
</p><p>
The Shach, however, seems to retract this answer. He says that a 'Peh she'Asar' type of Migu is also not able to override a Chazakah. Moreover, if the Migu in this case is a 'Peh she'Asar,' then the questions of Tosfos here would not be questions.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in Bi'ur ha'Gra CM 78:8) maintains that the Gemara's question is whether this Chazakah -- that a person does not pay back his debt before it is due -- has the strength of the testimony of witnesses (i.e. the strength of an 'Anan Sehadi') or whether it is less powerful than witnesses. (He gives this explanation in the context of a question on a ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch there (CM 78) writes that when a borrower claims (before the payment date has arrived) that he paid already, he is 'Huchzak Kafran' (assumed to be a liar) in Beis Din and is no longer believed to claim that he paid back the debt, even when he claims <i>after</i> the payment date that he paid. Even though a person normally becomes 'Huchzak Kafran' only when witnesses contradict him, in this case the Chazakah that a person does not repay a debt before the due date is considered like witnesses that he did not pay. The Vilna Ga'on asks, therefore, how can the Shulchan Aruch rule that the Chazakah <i>is</i> like witnesses, when the Gemara here is in doubt about it.)
</p><p>
(The <b>MAHARIT</b> (Teshuvos, Even ha'Ezer #276), <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (#207), and <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos #136) also write that if this Chazakah is stronger than a Migu, it is because it is an 'Anan Sehadi' with the strength of witnesses. See <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b>, #75 and #85.)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MIGO AGAINST A CHAZAKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If Shimon claimed payment from Reuven after
          the set time, and Reuven said that he paid before the set
          time - what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we believe Reuven due to a Migo (if he wanted
               to lie, he could have lied better, and said that he
               paid on the set day), even though this opposes a
               Chazakah (that people do not pay before the set
               time)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, do we not believe a Migo that opposes a
               Chazakah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> We assume that both paid unless
          one can prove that the other did not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If Levi claimed payment after the time, and
                    Yehudah says that he paid on the proper day,
                    this is obvious!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Levi claimed payment after the
               time, and Yehudah says that he paid before the
               proper day;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This shows that we believe the Migo against the
                    Chazakah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This case is different, for he cannot wait
          to pay. He owes him once each row of bricks is laid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If the wall was originally more
          than four Amos, neither can force the other to rebuild it
          more than four Amos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven built it more than four, and Shimon
               built a wall near it... we assume that Shimon did
               not pay for it unless he can prove that he did.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If Levi claimed payment after the time, and
                    Yehudah says that he paid on the proper day, he
                    should be believed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Levi claimed payment after the
               time, and Yehudah says that he paid before the
               proper day;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This shows that we do not believe the Migo
                    against the Chazakah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This case is different. Since he does not
          think that he must pay, he would not pay early.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> If Shimon claimed that Reuven owes
          him, and Reuven admitted, and Shimon demanded the money
          the next day:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven says 'I paid you', he is exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven says 'I do not owe you', he is liable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> 'I paid you' means 'I paid on the day
               due.' 'I do not owe you' means 'I paid before the
               day due' (and he is not believed)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No. 'I do not owe you' means 'I never borrowed
          from you';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> That is like an admission that he never paid.
               (Since he admitted earlier that he did owe, he must
               pay.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHAZAKAH OF USAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> ...If Shimon built a wall near it, he must
          share the entire cost of the wall (that Reuven built).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> Building a wall close to half the wall is
          like building a wall near all of it (he must share the
          expense of the whole wall).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> He shares the expense only of the part
          of the wall that he built near.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Rav Huna agrees when a cornerstone was placed. (It
          shows that the wall will not be continued. He pays only
          for the part he built near.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rav Nachman agrees when holes were made in the wall for
          holding beams. (This shows that a second story will be
          added. He pays for the additional height.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If Shimon built a tall wall dividing
          between his yard and Reuven's, holes (for holding beams)
          in a wall (on Reuven's side) are no proof that Reuven
          paid his share of the extra height, even if Shimon has
          boards near the holes to support beams;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	Shimon can say 'I expected that you will later pay your
          share, and it would weaken the wall if the holes were
          made later.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A Chazakah for (Reuven
               to rest) light beams (on Shimon's wall) is not a
               Chazakah for heavy beams. A Chazakah for heavy beams
               is a Chazakah for light beams;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even a Chazakah for light beams is a
               Chazakah for heavy beams.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A Chazakah for light
               beams is a Chazakah for heavy beams, and vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A Chazakah for dripping
          (rainwater drips off Reuven's roof into Shimon's yard) is
          a Chazakah for gushing (a pipe collects the water, and it
          will gushes in one place). A Chazakah for gushing is not
          a Chazakah for dripping;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even a Chazakah for gushing is a Chazakah
          for dripping.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A Chazakah for dripping is a
          Chazakah for gushing, and a Chazakah for gushing is a
          Chazakah for dripping but not to drip off a roof of
          willow branches (for the drops are very close to each
          other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is even a Chazakah to drip off a roof
          of willow branches.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yosef ruled in a case according to his
               teaching.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman citing Rabah bar Avuha):</font></b> If one rents an
          apartment in a big building, he may use the ledges and
          walls up to four Amos (Rashi - past the length of his
          house; Rambam - up to a height of four Amos), where that
          is the custom;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KOL HA'OMER LO LAVISI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks whether Beis Din may apply the principle of 'Migu' ('Mah Li l'Shaker') to lend credibility to a litigant's claim when there is a Chazakah that counters his claim. The Gemara cites proof from a Mishnah in Shevuos (38b). The Mishnah there discusses a case in which a lender claims that a person owes him a Manah and the borrower admits in front of witnesses that he owes a Manah. The following day, the lender demands that the borrower give him the Manah that he owes. If the borrower claims, 'I already paid it,' then he is believed, but if he claims, 'Nothing of yours is in my possession,' then he is not believed and he must pay.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that the case of the Mishnah in which the borrower says, 'I already paid it' means that the borrower claims that he paid the Manah <i>after</i> the date on which payment was due. The claim that 'nothing of yours is in my possession,' on the other hand, is a claim that he paid the Manah <i>before</i> the date on which payment was due. The Gemara thus infers that a 'Migu' is <i>not</i> believed when a Chazakah counters it (because in that case, there is a Chazakah that a borrower never pays before the due date).
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects that proof from that Mishnah, and asserts that the borrower's claim that 'nothing of yours is in my possession' really means that <i>he never borrowed</i> any money from the lender. This claim is not believed because of the rule that 'when a person says 'I did not borrow,' it is as if he says 'I did not pay back'' -- 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara have to give this reason ('Kol ha'Omer...') to explain why the borrower is obligated to pay? Since the borrower admitted (in front of witnesses) that he owes a Manah, he certainly should not be believed afterward when he claims that he never borrowed!
</p><p>
The principle of 'Kol ha'Omer...' applies in a situation in which a person denies that he ever borrowed any money, and then witnesses testify that they saw him borrow money and that they saw him pay it back. When the borrower says, 'I never borrowed,' he contradicts the witnesses who say that he borrowed, and thus he is not believed. Even though the witnesses say that he repaid the loan, he himself says that he never borrowed, which is akin to saying that he never repaid the loan. Since he effectively admits that he did not repay the loan, he is obligated, due to the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami.'
</p><p>
In the case of the Gemara here, however, this principle should not be necessary, because the borrower himself admits (in front of witnesses) that he borrowed money. (<b>TOSFOS</b>, <b>RA'AVAD</b> in the Shitah Mekubetzes, <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
The Rishonim (other than Tosfos and the Ramban) add that in this case, there is another reason not to believe the borrower. The borrower is 'Huchzak Kafran' with regard to this money; he has been shown to be lying, and thus he should not be believed.
</p><p>
Why, then, is it necessary for the Gemara to quote the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> answer that it indeed is necessary for the Gemara here to invoke the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer....' Without this principle, the borrower might have been able to explain his words with the claim, 'When I said that I did not borrow money, I did not mean that I did not borrow money at all. Rather, I meant that it is <i>as if</i> I did not borrow, since I had already paid back the money.' He would then be believed to claim that the debt was paid, since he would not be contradicting his earlier admission. However, due to the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer...' he cannot explain his words in that manner, because when he stated that he did not borrow the money, it was as if he said that he did not pay it back at all.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> answers that in this case, the borrower is not 'Huchzak Kafran,' because the witnesses who contradict him do not testify that they actually saw him borrow the money; rather, they testify merely that they heard him <i>say</i> that he borrowed it. In such a case, when the borrower later says that he did not borrow the money, he is not 'Huchzak Kafran' since he can claim that when he originally admitted that he borrowed money, his memory failed him due to his many business activities, and now that he has thought about it he remembers that he never borrowed money from this claimant. Since the witnesses can testify only about his previous admission and he agrees that he made that admission, his current claim is not in contradiction to the witnesses' testimony, and therefore he is not 'Huchzak Kafran.'
</p><p>
A person is 'Huchzak Kafran' only when he claims that he did not borrow money and witnesses testify that they saw him actually borrow the money. In such a case, the defendant is not believed if he later claims that he paid the money, because his initial claim was contradicted explicitly by witnesses.
</p><p>
(c) The Ra'avad answers further that a person is 'Huchzak Kafran' only when witnesses contradict a claim that he made in Beis Din. When witnesses contradict a claim that a person made outside of Beis Din, this does not make him 'Huchzak Kafran.' The reason is that when a person makes a claim outside of Beis Din, it is normal for him not to say every part of his claim.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> answer further that the Gemara here had to invoke the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami' because without that principle, the borrower would be exempt if witnesses testify that he borrowed the money <i>and</i> paid it back. The Gemara here wants to teach that even if witnesses testify that he paid back his debt, he is still obligated, because he himself admits that he did not pay it back (because 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami'). (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'HODA'AS BA'AL DIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara rejects the attempted proof from the Mishnah in Shevuos (38b) that a Chazakah overrides a 'Migu.' The Gemara explains that in the Mishnah in Shevuos, the borrower's claim that 'nothing of yours is in my possession,' does not mean that he repaid the debt before the due date; rather, it means that <i>he never borrowed</i> any money from the lender. Such a claim is not believed because of the rule that 'when a person says 'I did not borrow,' it is as if he says 'I did not pay back'' -- 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami.'
</p><p>
This principle -- that whenever a borrower says that he did not borrow money (and there are witnesses who contradict him) it is as if he said that he did not repay the debt -- poses a difficulty for one interpretation of another common principle. There is a rule that 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din k'Me'ah Edim Dami' -- the admission of a litigant (who admits that he owes money) is like the testimony of one hundred witnesses, and his word is believed. One way of understanding this principle is that when a person admits that he owes money, Beis Din accepts his word and believes that he really owes the money. The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (34:4), however, cites the <b>MAHARI BEN LEV</b> who gives another explanation for how 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din' works. According to the Ketzos ha'Choshen's understanding, the Mahari ben Lev says that when a person admits that he owes money, his obligation to pay that money results not from the fact that his admission has credibility ('Ne'emanus'), but rather he is obligated to pay because his admission is a form of committing himself to give a gift ('Hischaivus'), and a person has the right to obligate himself to give a gift.
</p><p>
The Ketzos ha'Choshen questions this explanation from the principle of the Gemara here, that 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami.' This principle is consistent with the simple explanation of 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din k'Me'ah Edim Dami' -- that a person has credibility to admit that he owes money. According to that approach, when a person claims that he never borrowed money and witnesses testify that he borrowed money but repaid it, he is obligated, because when he said that he never borrowed the money it was considered as if he admitted that he never repaid it (since witnesses testify that he borrowed). Even though the witnesses also say that he paid back the money, his admission, a 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din,' is believed over that portion of the witnesses' testimony.
</p><p>
However, according to the view that 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din' is accepted because a person may obligate himself to give a gift (but not because Beis Din actually believes him that he owes money), why should he be obligated against the witnesses' testimony? When a person's admission that he did not repay a debt is derived from a claim that he never borrowed the money, he should be exempt, because he clearly does not intend to obligate himself to give a gift. After all, he did not actually say that he owes money; on the contrary, he claimed that he never borrowed it! Why, then, does the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami' obligate him to pay? Even if there is a 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din,' such an admission should not create any monetary obligation.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SEFER MAR'EI MEKOMOS</b> (Rav Chanoch Henoch Karelenstein zt'l) suggests an answer to this question based on the words of <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos #149). Rebbi Akiva Eiger discusses the reasoning behind the principle of 'Kol ha'Omer Lo Lavisi, k'Omer Lo Parati Dami.' Why, in fact, is the statement that 'I did not borrow money' akin to a statement that 'I did not repay'? There are two possible explanations. One explanation is that when a person claims that he did not borrow money (and there are witnesses who say that he did), his words are considered an open admission that he did not pay. Alternatively, there may be an 'Anan Sehadi' (an assumption that Beis Din makes based on compelling circumstantial evidence) that the borrower did not pay, because if he had paid, he would have claimed that he paid (instead of claiming that he did not borrow the money). Thus, Beis Din can deduce that he did not repay, <i>not</i> by virtue of his own admission but because his actions indicate that he did not pay.
</p><p>
According to the second approach, the Halachah of this Sugya can be reconciled with the approach of the Mahari ben Lev. The borrower's obligation to pay does not stem from the ordinary Halachah of 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din' which, in fact, would not be applicable here. Rather, Beis Din obligates him to pay because of an 'Anan Sehadi' that he has not yet paid the debt. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS ONE BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE PAID HIS DEBT EARLY?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Basra 5a (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If Levi fixed a time
               to pay his debt to Yehudah, and claims that he paid
               within the time, he is not believed. We are happy if
               people pay on time. We do not believe that he paid
               early!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> He is believed. Sometimes one gets
               the money and is eager to pay, lest he lose the
               opportunity!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> We assume that Shimon paid, unless Reuven
               can prove that he did not pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If he says that he paid in the proper
               time, surely we assume that he did!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, he says that he paid before he had
               to. This teaches that one does pay before the proper
               time!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This case is different, because he cannot
               wait to pay. The payment is due for each row of
               bricks when it is built!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> In practice, Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav
               Yehoshua ruled like Abaye and Rava. Mar bar Rav Ashi
               ruled like Reish Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Reish Lakish.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (1:9):</font></b> The Halachah follows Reish
               Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> Reish Lakish discusses when in front of
               witnesses, a time was set for payment. Even though
               we say that a Stam loan is for 30 days (Makos 3b),
               we do not consider this to be within the time.
               People often pay within 30 days. If a time was set
               not in front of witnesses, the borrower would be
               believed to say that he paid within the time, Migo
               he could have said that no time was set. Or, we
               would learn from here that we do not apply Migo
               against a Chazakah! (The Gemara asked about this,
               and did not resolve it.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> If one says 'I paid within the time', even
               though he is not believed, the creditor must swear
               Heses, since the borrower has a Vadai claim. Orphans
               do not obligate an oath due to Safek.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> The creditor needs to swear only
                    if the borrower demands that he swear.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 14:1):</font></b> In the following
               cases, one collects only through an oath like a
               mid'Oraisa oath: a loan document was partially paid;
               one witness testifies that it was paid; he seeks to
               be paid in the borrower's absence; a creditor
               collects land bought from the borrower, or from a
               minor or adult heir. If the debt was for a time and
               he demanded payment before the time, he collects
               without an oath. After the time, he collects only
               with an oath.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> Why does he include a loan
                    document that was partially paid? The lender
                    admits that the Chazakah does not apply!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Lechem Mishneh):</font></b> The Tur (84) says
                    that Rav Hai Gaon obligates an oath to collect
                    a partially paid document even within the time.
                    If so, why didn't the Gemara (Shevuos 41a)
                    mention this difference between a partially
                    paid document and one that is fully owed?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (R. Akiva Eiger Drush v'Chidush Kesuvos
                    87a):</font></b> The Gemara asked against Rav Papa, who
                    holds that one pays within the time. The Gemara
                    asked from a Beraisa, and not from a Mishnah
                    about partial payment of a Kesuvah, for Rav
                    Papa could agree that one does not pay within
                    the time something he might never need to pay.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishneh l'Melech:</font></b> If the Magid Mishneh holds
                    that the lender should need to swear, this is
                    good. If he holds that the borrower should be
                    exempt regarding a Milveh Al Peh, because the
                    Chazakah did not apply (to the part he paid),
                    also a document should not be collected, for
                    the Chazakah 'if you paid, why do I still have
                    the document' does not apply (he paid part and
                    left the document with him)! Perhaps partial
                    payment destroys the Chazakah, but we can say
                    that they intended to write a receipt, but
                    failed to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 7:3):</font></b> If a renter says 'I
               paid the rental I owe', and the landlord says that
               he did not receive it, whether the rental was with a
               document or through witnesses, if he demanded
               payment within 30 days, the renter must prove that
               he paid. The landlord swears Heses. If he demanded
               payment after 30 days, even on the 30th day, the
               landlord must bring a proof.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri (Bava Metzia 8:31):</font></b> R. Tam says
                    that the Chazakah applies only to a loan. One
                    does not pay it early, for it was given to be
                    spent. One may not touch a deposit, so even if
                    it was given for a set time, he can say 'I
                    returned it within the time.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (467,468):</font></b> A case occurred in which
                    Avraham hired a scribe. The scribe did part of
                    the job, and was killed. His widow claimed
                    wages for what he wrote. Avraham said that he
                    paid for more than the scribe wrote. Gedolim
                    ruled that he is believed. Even though the
                    Halachah follows Reish Lakish, that one does
                    not pay early, and Sechirus is paid only at the
                    end, we say (regarding a wall) that the money
                    for each row is due when it is completed. Here
                    also, money for each treatise is due when it is
                    finished. The same applies to every job divided
                    into discrete parts; ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav
                    ha'Re'ayah ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
                    I say that Avraham is believed due to a Migo.
                    He could say that he promised to him only his
                    expenses; this is often done. Also, here the
                    Chazakah is flimsy, for one often gives to a
                    scribe or teacher some of the wage before the
                    Melachah is finished. R. Yehonason says that
                    'Sechirus is paid only at the end' applies only
                    to something limited. Also, (perhaps) the
                    Chazakah that one does not pay before the time
                    is only when both of them claim Vadai. Here,
                    the widow is unsure, and claims due to the
                    Chazakah. The defendant is Vadai, he has
                    Chezkas Mamon and a Migo that he stipulated to
                    pay him before the time. Therefore, he is
                    believed. Also, time passed after the scribe
                    died. This is like one who claimed after the
                    time, and the borrower said that he paid within
                    the time, which was never settled. There is no
                    difference if he or his heirs demands his
                    wages. Even if the scribe demanded his wages,
                    Avraham has a Migo, for he could say 'I
                    stipulated to pay you within the time.' For
                    every unsettled monetary law, ha'Motzi
                    mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 78:1):</font></b> If a time was fixed for a
               debt, and Reuven demanded payment before the time,
               and Shimon said 'I paid you', he is not believed.
               There is a Chazakah that one does not pay before the
               time.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (1):</font></b> This is only when he fixed a time, for
                    then the borrower showed that he needed the
                    money until that time.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Nimukei Yosef (3a
                    DH ha'Kove'a) says that the same applies to
                    rental, which is paid only at the end. If he
                    said 'I paid within the time', he is not
                    believed. Bava Metzia 102b proves this. The
                    same applies to Pidyon ha'Ben.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>SMA (2):</font></b> The Mordechai and Darchei Moshe say
                    that this is only when the claimant is Vadai,
                    but not if he is unsure.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (1):</font></b> The Mordechai was unsure about this.
                    He did not rely on this alone to exempt
                    Avraham; he combined it with other reasons. It
                    seems that the Chazakah applies even when the
                    claimant is unsure. In a Teshuvah (brought in
                    the Tur 71:21) the Rosh applies the Chazakah to
                    heirs (with an unsure claim), but witnesses of
                    payment override the Chazakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Similar, he cannot say 'you pardoned me.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rema:</font></b> Some say that this Chazakah applies only
                    to a loan, but if he had a deposit of money and
                    uses it for their needs, it is like any
                    deposit. He is believed to say that he returned
                    even within the time. Sechirus is like a loan.
                    It is paid only at the end, and one is not
                    believed to say that he paid within the time.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Source (Darchei Moshe 2, citing Mahariyo 89):
                    The Chazakah is only when the borrower benefits
                    from the loan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (8):</font></b> It seems that the Rosh (Teshuvah
                    86:1) and Tur (108:7) disagree. (They say that
                    one is not believed to say that he returned an
                    Iska (half-loan, half-deposit) within the time.
                    However, perhaps there, since he is not
                    believed to say that he returned the loan half
                    within the time, he is not believed to say so
                    about the deposit half. Also, there he benefits
                    from the deposit, for there is a lien on it to
                    compensate losses in the loan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (9):</font></b> Mahara Sason says that the Chazakah
                    does not apply to paying merchandise. Hagahos
                    Ashri and Mahariyo connotes that it does not
                    apply to only when one may not touch the
                    deposit, but it applies whenever one benefits
                    from it, e.g. paying merchandise.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MUST MINOR ORPHANS PAY A DEBT THAT WAS NOT DUE YET? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  	One may not hang things on walls surrounding the
          special garden of the building.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman himself):</font></b> One may use walls of the special
          garden, but not the area in back of the building.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> One may even use in back of the building.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ravina):</font></b> If Reuven placed beams (of a hut made for
          shade) on Shimon's wall, if they are there over 30 days
          and Shimon does not protest, Reuven has a Chazakah to
          leave them there permanently. (Rashi - we assume that he
          bought the rights to leave them there);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  	If he left a Sukah made for the Mitzvah after Sukos
          ends, until seven days, he has no Chazakah. After seven
          days, he has a Chazakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  	If he fixed the beams with mud, he has a Chazakah
          immediately.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>LOSS OF PRIVACY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven and Shimon have houses on opposite
          sides of a Reshus ha'Rabim (public road) (which goes
          north-south), each makes a wall (four Amos tall) on the
          side of the roof facing his neighbor, more than half the
          length of that side. One builds on the north half, and
          one builds on the south half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why is this only if a Reshus ha'Rabim is in
          between? The law should apply even to a private path!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is a bigger Chidush regarding a Reshus
          ha'Rabim. One might have thought that Reuven can say 'I
          need not build, for even without me, you have no privacy
          due to people on the road!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye teaches that this is not so. Shimon can say
               'they see me only by day. You see me also at night;
               '
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, he can say 'they only see me when I stand.
               You see me even when I sit';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Or, he can say 'they see me only when they look.
               You see me automatically!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why did Abaye teach that each builds on half
          his roof? This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is not obvious when Reuven built half a wall
          before consulting Shimon. One might have thought that
          Shimon can say 'finish the wall and I will share the
          expense';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye teaches that this is not so. Reuven can say
               'you didn't build it because you don't want the
               weight to weaken the wall of your house. Also I
               don't want a full wall for that reason!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> If Reuven's roof overlooks
          Shimon's yard, Reuven must build a four Amos wall on his
          roof;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If they have adjacent roofs, no wall is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman himself):</font></b> A four Amos wall is not needed,
          but a ten Tefachim divider is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this divider do?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If for privacy, four Amos are needed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If to prevent one neighbor from trespassing, even
               if he crosses a wall shorter than ten Tefachim, he
               shows himself to be a thief!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If it is due to goats or lambs, a divider that
               stops them from sticking their heads across
               suffices!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, it is to prevent trespassing. If he
          crosses a short wall, he could say 'I was retrieving
          something that I dropped';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot claim this regarding a ten Tefachim
               wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven's yard was above Shimon's
          roof, he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He is exempt from building anything.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No. He need not build a four Amos wall, but he
          must build a ten Tefachim wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If Reuven's yard borders Shimon's yard, but
          is higher than it, Shimon builds below, until he reaches
          the level of Shimon's yard, and they build four more Amos
          together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda):</font></b> Reuven must share the cost also of the
          wall below.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven's yard borders Shimon's
          yard, but is higher, Reuven must share the cost of the
          wall below;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven's yard is higher than Shimon's roof, he is
          exempt.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) 'HEZEK RE'IYAH' ON ROOFS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye says that when two people on opposite sides of a street own two homes that face each other, each homeowner is obligated to build a wall along the edge of his roof. The length of each wall must be just over half of the length of the roof. This will prevent each owner from being able to see onto the other's roof.
</p><p>
This ruling seems problematic. In the Gemara later, Rav Nachman says in the name of Shmuel that when the roof of a person's home is immediately adjacent to his neighbor's Chatzer, the homeowner must build a wall four Amos high on his roof in order to prevent him from seeing his neighbor's private activities. Between two roofs, however, there is no requirement to build a wall, because people do not engage in private activities atop their roofs, and thus there is no concern of a breach of privacy. Only when one might be able to see into his neighbor's <i>Chatzer</i> -- where one <i>does</i> engage in private activities -- is there concern for a breach of privacy. Why does Abaye say that when two homes face each other, each owner must build part of a wall to prevent a breach of privacy?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> (see also <b>HASAGOS HA'RA'AVAD</b>, Hilchos Shechenim 3:6) cites those who answer that Abaye's ruling refers to roofs that are level, while Shmuel's ruling refers to roofs that are built on an incline. Flat roofs are used for private activities, while slanted roofs are not fit to be used for private activities.
</p><p>
The Rashba questions this answer. In both cases the Gemara uses the word 'Gagin' ('roofs') without any qualification. This implies that both statements refer to the same type of roof.
</p><p>
The Rashba asks further that if Shmuel's ruling refers to slanted roofs, then why does he require the roof owner to build a wall four Amos high when his roof is adjacent to his neighbor's Chatzer? If the roof is slanted, the owner will never stand on it to use it for any purpose, and thus the neighbor will not suffer any loss of privacy, even if there is no wall! (The Rashba answers this question with the suggestion that although a person does not use a slanted roof frequently, nevertheless he may go up to the roof occasionally to use it and he may store some of his wares there, and therefore there is still a risk of a breach of the neighbor's privacy.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> gives a different answer, which is also the answer of <b>TOSFOS</b>. Abaye's ruling refers specifically to roofs that are at a distance from each other (as he says, 'on two sides of Reshus ha'Rabim'). Since the roofs are not near each other, each owner will not notice when the other is on his own roof, and he will not know that he should cease his private activities. Therefore, Abaye says that they must build walls to protect each other's privacy. In contrast, when two roofs are adjacent to each other, each owner is aware when the other ascends to his roof, and he will know when to cease his private activities. Therefore, Shmuel says that there is no need to build a wall between two adjacent roofs.
</p><p>
(The Rashba explains that according to this answer, the reason why a roof next to a Chatzer needs a wall is that the usage of a Chatzer is frequent and regular, and thus it is not possible for the neighbor in the Chatzer to stop his activities every time he hears his neighbor going up to the roof.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE NEED NOT SUFFER TO HELP ANOTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Reuven lived in the upper story of a house, and Shimon
          lived on bottom. The walls sank. Shimon suggested that
          they rebuild the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> I have no problem!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> I will destroy it and rebuild it myself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> No. I would have no place to live in the
               meantime!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> I will rent a place for you.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> I don't want the bother of moving. If you
               bend down, you can use your house!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chama):</font></b> Reuven's claim is accepted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if the roof is at least 10 Tefachim
               above the ground. If not, Reuven is occupying
               Shimon's domain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is only if they did not stipulate from the
               beginning (that if the wall falls, they must rebuild
               it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If they had stipulated, how high do they
          rebuild it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman citing Rav
          Nachman):</font></b> A Mishnah (about one who was contracted to
          build a house) teaches that it must be half the combined
          length and width of the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava citing Rav Nachman):</font></b> It must be like
          people normally live.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How much is that?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is so that Shimon can enter with a load of
          long reeds and turn around.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Levi was building a wall in back of Yehudah's window.
          Yehudah complained that this blocks his light.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levi:</font></b> I will seal your window and make a window
               for you above my wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudah:</font></b> No. That would weaken my wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levi:</font></b> I will destroy the top of your wall (until
               the window), and rebuild it with a window above my
               wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudah:</font></b> No. A wall that is half-new and half-old
               is not sturdy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levi:</font></b> I will destroy the entire wall, and rebuild
               it with a window above my wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudah:</font></b> No. A house with a new wall and old
               walls is not sturdy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levi:</font></b> I will destroy your house, and rebuild it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudah:</font></b> No. I would have no place to live in the
               meantime!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levi:</font></b> I will rent a place for you.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudah:</font></b> I don't want the bother of moving!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chama):</font></b> Yehudah's claim is accepted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is just like the previous case! (Why did
          we need to teach both?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Even if Yehudah uses his house only for storing
          straw and wood, his claim is accepted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Reuven and Shimon divided property; Reuven took a nice
          hall (that is open on one side). Shimon took the garden
          next to it, and he started building a wall in between.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> This will block my light!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> I build on my own property!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chama):</font></b> Shimon's claim is accepted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>RIGHTS OF BROTHERS WHO DIVIDE AN INHERITANCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why is this different than the
          following?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Levi and Yehudah divided an
               inheritance, and Levi took a vineyard, and Yehudah
               took a grain field, Levi may enter four Amos into
               Yehudah's field (to tend to his vines). This is an
               understood condition of the division.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> That is when Levi compensated
          Yehudah for the amount that a vineyard is worth more than
          a grain field.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This implies that Shimon did not get
          compensated. Is he a fool, to give up a hall and take a
          garden without compensation?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He was compensated for the extra bricks and
          beams that Reuven took. There was no compensation for
          rights to air and light.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why can't Reuven say 'I compensated you on
          condition to receive a nice hall, not a dark room!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Simi bar Aba):</font></b> It is still called a hall,
          even if it is unlike standard halls.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Levi said to Yehudah 'I sell to you
               a Beis Kor (the area of land in which a Kor of seed
               is planted) of dirt (i.e. the entire area is
               farmable)', if people call it a Beis Kor, the sale
               stands, even if the area is only half of that;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is because he sold a field called a Beis
                    Kor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'I sell to you a vineyard (or an
               orchard)', if people call it that, the sale stands,
               even if has no vines (or trees) (like above);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is different!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, the seller can say 'I sold to you
               something called a Beis Kor (or vineyard...)' Here,
               Reuven can say 'I took the hall on condition to live
               in it like our fathers did!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Chisda:</font></b> Rav
          Chama holds like Shmuel, who was also from Neharda'a;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A HOUSE THAT SINKS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates an incident in which a two-story house began to sink into the ground. The owner of the ground floor demanded that the owner of the upper floor help him rebuild the house, and the owner of the upper floor refused. Rav Chama ruled that the owner of the upper floor was not required to help the owner of the lower floor restore his dwelling, nor was he required to move to a different house -- even at the expense of the owner of the lower floor -- in order to let the owner of the lower floor repair his dwelling at his own expense. However, if the house had sunk into the ground so much that the upper floor was within ten Tefachim of the ground, the owner of the lower floor would be able to force his upstairs neighbor to help him restore the house, since those ten Tefachim are the exclusive domain of the owner of the lower floor. The <b>ROSH</b> explains that in such a case the owner of the lower floor can force the upstairs neighbor to help him demolish the structure and rebuild it anew (before it sinks entirely into the ground).
</p><p>
Even though ten Tefachim is the minimum height necessary for living space (as the Gemara says in Sukah 3a), why does the owner of the lower floor have no recourse until he no longer has ten Tefachim? If he originally had, for example, twenty Tefachim of height for his living space, all of that space should be his exclusive domain. Once the upper floor enters the space within twenty Tefachim, the downstairs neighbor should be able to force the upstairs neighbor to help restore the house. Indeed, when the house is demolished and then rebuilt, the downstairs neighbor is entitled to rebuild his home at its original height. This indicates that the entire space that the lower floor originally occupied <i>does</i> belong to the downstairs neighbor. Why, then, can he not force the upstairs neighbor to help him rebuild the house as soon as the upper floor begins to sink? (<b>ME'IRI</b>, <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> cites the opinion of the '<b>CHACHAMIM HA'TZARFATIM</b>' that in the case of the Gemara, the two owners stipulated when they originally built the house that if it would sink, then the upstairs neighbor would be entitled to live in the space that belongs to the downstairs neighbor. (This condition still does not entitle the upstairs neighbor to use the ten Tefachim of height from the ground, because then the downstairs neighbor will have nowhere to live.)
</p><p>
The Me'iri rejects this answer because the Gemara gives no indication that any condition of that sort was made.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>AYELES HA'SHACHAR</b> answers that since the foundation of a house frequently sinks a little into the ground, it is not practical to force the upstairs neighbor to demolish the house and rebuild it every time it sinks a little into the ground. Rav Chama therefore rules that only if it sinks so much that the downstairs neighbor no longer has ten Tefachim may he force the other owner to rebuild. (See <b>YOSEF DA'AS</b>.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) OBSTRUCTION OF LIGHT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates an incident in which two brothers (Reuven and Shimon) divided property that they inherited. Reuven took a hall, and Shimon took the garden next to the hall. Shimon began to build a wall between the garden and the hall. Reuven complained that the wall would block his light, while Shimon claimed that he was entitled to build the wall because it was on his own property. Rav Chama ruled that Shimon was entitled to build the wall.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that even if Reuven had compensated Shimon only for the value of the stones and building materials that he received, and not for the right to have his hall open to air and light, Reuven still should have been able to claim that he initially accepted the hall with the understanding that it would be useful and have light, and now he will have only a dark room.
</p><p>
Rav Simi bar Ashi answers that even a darkened hall is still called a hall, and thus Reuven will have the same thing that he initially received. The Gemara cites a Beraisa to support this assertion. The Beraisa says that if a person sells an 'orchard' to a purchaser and it turns out that there are no fruits growing in the orchard, the sale is binding when such a field is called an 'orchard.'
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> asks that the Beraisa does not support Rav Simi bar Ashi's answer. In the case of the Beraisa, the seller initially sold the orchard without any fruit in it. In contrast, in the Gemara's case Reuven initially received a hall with light, and only afterwards did Shimon take that light away by building a wall. The Rashba argues that this is comparable to a case in which a person sells an orchard <i>with</i> fruit and then goes and picks all of the fruit. In such a case, the fruit certainly belongs to the buyer, even if a field without fruit is also called an orchard. Here, too, Reuven acquired the right to have light in his hall, and Shimon should not be permitted to take it way from him. How, then, does the Gemara support Rav Simi bar Ashi's answer from the Beraisa?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that the comparison to the case of the Beraisa is accurate. In the case of the brothers who inherited a hall and a garden, Shimon, the brother who received the garden, did not actively take away light that Reuven had already received. Rather, he indirectly caused the light not to reach the hall. Hence, the hall was effectively the same hall that Reuven received initially.
</p><p>
The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> adds that this explanation of the Rashba answers the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> on <b>RASHI</b> here. Rashi (DH bed'Nafsha'i) writes that Shimon, the owner of the garden, was permitted to build his wall because Reuven, the owner of the hall, did not have a Chazakah of three years to have light in his hall. Tosfos asks how this could be a reason to permit Shimon to completely darken Reuven's hall. The Kovetz Shi'urim explains that Tosfos' question is that the brother who built the wall actively damaged ('Mazik b'Yadayim') the other brother's property by blocking the light, even though he built the wall on his own property.
</p><p>
Rashi, in contrast, agrees with the view of the Rashba who explains that blocking light is not considered 'Mazik,' but rather is an indirect result of building a wall. Therefore, the owner of the garden was allowed to build the wall as long as the owner of the hall had not established a Chazakah that entitled him to have his wall exposed to the light. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> If brothers split an
               inheritance, neither has any of the following
               rights: windows (to prevent the other from blocking
               light to them), to fix a ladder in the Chatzer (to
               get to an upper story), or to dig a trench through
               the other's field so that water will flow from the
               irrigation ditch.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Brothers have such rights.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	Orphans had a loan document (of their father). A
          receipt said that it was paid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Chama:</font></b> We do not let the orphans collect, nor do we
          tear their document.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They do not collect, for perhaps it really was
               paid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We do not tear their document. Perhaps when they
               grow up, they will show that the receipt is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Whom does the Halachah
          follow?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Ravina):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav Chama in
          all the above laws, except for the case of the receipt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not suspect that witnesses would sign a
               false receipt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari):</font></b> Also here the
          Halachah follows Rav Chama. If it was a good receipt, it
          should have been seen in the father's lifetime!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since it was not seen before, we suspect that it
               was forged.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF A CHATZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Members of a Chatzer can force each other to
          build a Beis Sha'ar (a place for a watchman to stay, and
          to stop people from looking into the Chatzer) and a door
          for the Chatzer;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, some Chatzeiros are not
          fitting for a Beis Sha'ar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	People of a city can force each other to build a wall
          with a door and bolt (to lock it);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, some cities are not fitting
          for a wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	One who has lived in the city 12 months is considered a
          resident (and must contribute to city projects);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he bought a dwelling, he is considered a
               resident immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah implies that a Beis
          Sha'ar is a good thing;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, Eliyahu used to speak with a certain
               Chasid regularly, until the Chasid built a Beis
               Sha'ar (it muffles the cry of poor people asking for
               Tzedakah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> If it is in the Chatzer, it is bad. If it is
          outside (and has no door), it is good, (for it gives
          privacy, and the poor can enter and be heard).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> A Beis Sha'ar outside the Chatzer is bad if
          it has a door. It is good if it has no door.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> A Beis Sha'ar with a door outside the
          Chatzer is bad if the key is not there. It is good if the
          key is left there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4:</font></b> A Beis Sha'ar with a door and key (outside
          the Chatzer) is bad if it can be opened only from the
          inside. It is good if a poor person can open it from the
          outside.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Members of a Chatzer can force each other to
          build a Beis Sha'ar and a door for the Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> A Chatzer is fitting
          for a Beis Sha'ar only if it is near the Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue, because even if it is not close,
               sometimes the Reshus ha'Rabim is crowded, and people
               enter the Chatzer.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTS OF A CITY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> People of a city can force each other...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> A city is fitting
          for a wall only if it is close to the border (of Eretz
          Yisrael).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue, for even if it is not close,
               sometimes troops pass by.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> When they collect,
          does every person pay the same amount, or do people pay
          according to their wealth?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They pay according to their
          wealth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> When they collect,
          does one pay according to how close he is to the wall
          (one who is closer is in bigger danger; he needs it
          more), or do people pay according to their wealth?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One pays according to how close
          he is to the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah Nesi'ah collected for needs of a wall. He
          said that Chachamim must also pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Reish Lakish):</font></b> Chachamim do not need to be guarded (so
          they need not pay)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'Esperem me'Chol Yirbun' - who is more
               numerous than the sand?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It cannot be Tzadikim, for all of Yisrael is
                    likened to the sand!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the deeds of Tzadikim are more
               numerous than the sand.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A small amount of sand is like a protecting
                    wall surrounding the sea. All the more so, the
                    deeds of Tzadikim protect them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is not the source! Rather, 'Ani
          Chomah' refers to Torah; 'v'Shodai ka'Migdalos' refers to
          Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish did not learn from here, for he
               expounds like Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> 'Ani Chomah' refers to the congregation
               of Yisrael. 'V'Shodai ka'Migdalos' refers to
               synagogues and Batei Medrash.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) SPEAKING WITH ELIYAHU HA'NAVI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that a certain Chasid built a Beis Sha'ar, an outer gatehouse, outside of his courtyard (which prevented people from entering his courtyard). The Beis Sha'ar prevented poor people from entering the courtyard to collect charity. As a result, Eliyahu ha'Navi stopped speaking to the Chasid.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara need to point out that Eliyahu stopped speaking to the Chasid? The Gemara could have said simply that it is not proper to build a Beis Sha'ar which prevents poor people from entering.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (4:7) explains that the Gemara mentions this incident in order to teach that when a person reaches the level of Chasidus in his Avodas Hash-m, he merits that Eliyahu reveals himself to him and speaks to him regularly. Conversely, if a Chasid acts uncharacteristically and does some act that causes a loss to poor people, Eliyahu refrains from speaking to him.
</p><p>
(b) The Chazon Ish writes further that had the Gemara not mentioned this incident, logic would have indicated that a person is not required to refrain from building a Beis Sha'ar and thus suffer a loss of privacy ('Hezek Re'iyah') for the sake of poor people (so that they should be able to enter his courtyard). Logically, the obligation of Tzedakah would not require a homeowner to allow poor people into his courtyard at the expense of his privacy. This, in fact, was the reasoning of the Chasid. Eliyahu taught him that it is Midas Chasidus to refrain from building a Beis Sha'ar that will cause poor people to suffer, even if not having a Beis Sha'ar will cause a loss of privacy to the homeowner (see <b>YOSEF DA'AS</b>). (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXEMPTIONS OF CHACHAMIM FROM TAXES AND CITY OBLIGATIONS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah Nesi'ah collected for needs of a wall. He
               said that Chachamim must also pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan):</font></b> Chachamim do not
               need to be guarded (so they need not pay)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda imposed a tax on
               Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> You transgressed Torah,
               the Nevi'im and Kesuvim! It says 'Af Chovev Amim Kol
               Kedoshav b'Yadecha', 'Gam Ki Yisnu va'Goyim Atah
               Akabetzem', 'Minda Velo va'Halach La Shalit Lemirma
               Aleihom';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Mindah is the king's tax. Balu
                    is head-tax. Halach is Arnona.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> All must contribute towards doors for
               the walls, even orphans, but not Chachamim, for they
               do not need protection. All must contribute towards
               digging Pasya, even Chachamim. This is only if they
               hire others to dig. If they themselves dig,
               Chachamim are exempt (it is below their dignity).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi):</font></b> Everyone must contribute for planks (for
               the wall), even orphans, but not Chachamim, for they
               do not need protection.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The Kaiser imposed a tax on the city of Tiverya in
               order to buy a crown. The Amei ha'Aretz asked Rebbi
               to obligate Chachamim to pay also, and they
               threatened to leave otherwise. Rebbi refused, and
               half of them left. The Kaiser pardoned the city from
               half the original demand. The remaining Amei
               ha'Aretz demanded that Chachamim also pay, and
               threatened to leave. Rebbi refused, and they all
               left, except for one launderer. The officers imposed
               the entire tax on him. He left, and the Kaiser
               totally pardoned the city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nedarim 62b (Rava):</font></b> A Chacham may say 'I will not
               pay the head-tax.' 'Mindah, Balu, and Halach will
               not be placed on them (Kohanim)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Sanhedrin 27b:</font></b> Rav Papi brilliantly saved Bar Chama
               from a dreadful punishment. Bar Chama paid Rav
               Papi's head-tax for the rest of his life.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> Arnona is conscription (the king takes things
               for his service), or a meal that people must make
               for the king when he passes by.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rashi (8a DH Arnona and DH l'Karya):</font></b> Arnona is
                    an annual tithe of all animals and produce.
                    Pasya is wells for water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 6:6):</font></b> We collect all needs
               of guarding the city from all residents, even from
               orphans, but not from Chachamim. They do not need to
               be guarded. The Torah guards them. Chachamim do pay
               for fixing roads and streets. If everyone goes out
               himself to fix it, Chachamim do not go with them.
               They should not disgrace themselves in front of Amei
               ha'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 6:10):</font></b> Chachamim are
               exempt from conscription and from any tax, whether
               it is on the entire city or on each individual.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (1:26):</font></b> All must contribute towards digging
               Pasya, i.e. fixing the city square, even Chachamim.
               R. Yosef ha'Levi learns from our Gemara that
               Chachamim are exempt from all taxes and conscription
               imposed on the Tzibur, whether or not they are
               fixed. This is only if Torah is his profession. If
               not, he is liable. It seems that if a Chacham has a
               small profession or does a little business to
               support himself, but not to become rich, and
               whenever he is free he returns to Torah and learns
               constantly, this is called that Torah is his
               profession.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 163:4):</font></b> We collect all needs of
               guarding the city from all residents, even from
               orphans, but not from Chachamim. The Torah guards
               them. Chachamim pay for fixing roads, but if
               everyone goes out himself to fix it, Chachamim do
               not go, lest they be disgraced in front of Amei
               ha'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 243:1):</font></b> Chachamim do not go out
               themselves to build or dig things needed for the
               city, lest they be disgraced in front of Amei
               ha'Aretz. Since they are exempt, they need not hire
               others in their place.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (CM 163 DH v'Chosav Nimukei):</font></b> The
                    Nimukei Yosef (Bava Metzia 64a) exempts
                    Chachamim even from hiring others in their
                    place, and says that Tosfos agrees. The
                    Mordechai (Bava Basra 475) says oppositely in
                    the name of Maharam.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (2):</font></b> This is when everyone goes out
               himself. If they do not, rather, they hire others in
               their place, or they collect from residents to do
               it, if it is needed for living, e.g. wells for
               water, Chachamim must give their share.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If at first they went themselves, and
               afterwards they retracted and hired others,
               Chachamim must give their shares.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> Chachamim need not give at
               all for things needed to guard the city, such as
               walls, towers, and guards' wages. The Torah guards
               Chachamim. Therefore, they are exempt from all taxes
               and conscriptions, whether they are on the entire
               city or on each individual, whether or not they are
               fixed. The other residents must pay for them, even
               what is upon every individual.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Ran):</font></b> We exempt
                    Chachamim when the king imposes a sum of money
                    on the Tzibur for the head tax, land tax or
                    Arnona of all the residents together,
                    regardless of the population, and the Tzibur
                    must divide it among them. Then, Chachamim are
                    exempt. If the king fixes a head tax, land tax
                    or Arnona for each resident, then Chachamim
                    must pay. We find in Sanhedrin that Rav Papi
                    used to pay head tax. Also R. Chananel and the
                    Ramban say so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH Aval and CM 163 DH DH
                    veha'Ramban):</font></b> The Rosh says that R. Yosef
                    ha'Levi totally exempts Chachamim. In a
                    Teshuvah (15:8) he says so in the name of the
                    Ramah. The Tzibur pays even for rich Chachamim.
                    They are exempt due to Torah, not due to
                    poverty. Also the Rambam says so. I say that
                    there is no proof from Rav Papi. Perhaps the
                    Tzibur used to pay for him, and Bar Chama
                    accepted to pay for him, so he would not have a
                    debt of gratitude to the Tzibur. Or, Rav Papi
                    used to do business to get wealthy, and Torah
                    was not his profession, therefore he was not
                    exempt from head tax! Or, Rav Papi was very
                    wealthy, and voluntarily paid head tax, and Bar
                    Chama accepted to do so for him!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (ibid., DH v'Lich'orah):</font></b> The Tur
                    says that R. Yosef ha'Levi and the Rambam hold
                    like the Rosh, who always exempt Chachamim in
                    every case. Perhaps this is not so. They exempt
                    when the tax is fixed, i.e. on the Tzibur, but
                    not when a sum is fixed for every individual!
                    However, R. Yosef and the Rambam did not
                    distinguish. It seems that they always exempt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Rashbatz, citing the
                    Rashbatz):</font></b> If a city hired a Chacham and many
                    need him and he ignores all his affairs to do
                    their needs, even R. Chananel and the Ramban
                    exempt him from head tax.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (3):</font></b> The Nimukei Yosef and Ramban say
                    that Rebbi did not have power to force the Amei
                    ha'Aretz to pay. If not, he would not have
                    allowed them to leave.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (3):</font></b> The episode with the crown proves that
                    Chachamim are exempt even from a tax that is
                    not fixed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Gra (4):</font></b> There is no proof from Rav Papi. The
                    Tzibur used to make him pay improperly, just
                    like the Amei ha'Aretz fled to avoid paying the
                    Chachamim's share of the crown. This is why Rav
                    Papi was not concerned for bribery, like the
                    Rosh (Sanhedrin 3:17) says.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Even if the king said that Chachamim
               themselves must give, the Tzibur must pay for them.
               If the Tzibur made a Cherem obligating Chachamim to
               pay, the Cherem is Batel. A Chacham may make a
               Cherem and excommunicate to force the Tzibur to pay
               for him, whether he is rich or poor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> This refers only to a Chacham
               whose Torah is his profession. If not, he is
               obligated. However, if he has a small profession or
               does a little business to support himself, but not
               to become rich, and whenever he is free he returns
               to Torah and learns constantly, Torah is his
               profession.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (7):</font></b> This is not only if he finances 
                    himself minimally, rather, just to support
                    himself, but not to become rich. R. Tam is
                    lenient about taking Ribis from Nochrim, for
                    nowadays 'everything is needed to survive', for
                    the king taxes us. This does not apply to a
                    Chacham who does not pay taxes!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chasuv):</font></b> The exemption is only
                    for 'Kedoshav', but if he disgraces Mitzvos and
                    lacks Yir'as Shamayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> He need not head a Yeshiva; he must be
               established to be a Chacham in his generation who
               knows how to debate in Torah, and understands by
               himself most places in Talmud, its Perushim and
               rulings of the Ge'onim, and Torah is his profession.
               Even though nowadays there is no Chacham to receive
               a litra of gold (if one embarrasses him), we are not
               so particular about exempting from taxes. In any
               case, the custom in some places is to exempt
               Chachamim from taxes, and in other places the custom
               is not to exempt them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (8):</font></b> This is as long as he is a Chacham
                    in his city. He need not be important among
                    Chachamim elsewhere (Binyamin Ze'ev 252).
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CHACHAMIM AND ORPHANS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda imposed a tax on Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> You transgressed Torah, the
          Nevi'im and Kesuvim (the Writings)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Torah - 'Af Chovev Amim Kol Kedoshav b'Yadecha' -
               Moshe requested that even when You endear nations
               and allow them to rule over Yisrael, the Kedoshim of
               Yisrael should be in Your hand (to protect them);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'V'Hem Tuku l'Raglecha' refers to
                    Chachamim, who go from city to city and from
                    province to province to learn Torah
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> 'Yisa Midabrosecha' - in order to engage in
                    Hashem's teachings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Nevi'im - 'Gam Ki Yisnu va'Goyim Atah
               Akabetzem';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> (The word Yisnu) in this verse is
                    Aramaic (it means 'they will learn'). Hash-m
                    promises that if all of Yisrael will learn
                    (while in exile), He will gather them speedily.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> 'Va'Yachelu Me'at mi'Masa Melech Sarim' -
                    if only some learn, the king will not conscript
                    them for his work.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Kesuvim - 'Minda Velo va'Halach (various taxes) 
               La Shalit Lemirma Aleihom (the king will not be able
               to impose on them)';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Minda' is the king's tax.
                    'Velo' is the head tax. 'Halach' is a tithe of
                    yearly animals and Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Rav Papa imposed a tax on city residents, including
          orphans, to dig a new well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> Perhaps they will
          not find water (and the money was wasted. Others can
          pardon this, but orphans cannot!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> I will collect the money. If we
          don't find water, I will return their money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Everyone must contribute towards doors
          for the walls, even orphans, but not Chachamim, for they
          do not need protection.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Everyone must contribute towards digging wells
               for water, even Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is only if they hire others to dig. If they
               themselves dig, Chachamim are exempt (it is below
               their dignity).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	In famine years, Rebbi opened his storehouse (of food)
          to anyone who learned written Torah, Mishnah, Gemara,
          Halachah or Agadah, but not to an ignoramus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yonasan ben Amram forced his way in and
               requested food. He said that he had not learned even
               written Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebbi:</font></b> If so, why should I support you?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yonasan:</font></b> Please support me, just like Hash-m
               feeds dogs and ravens.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Rebbi gave to him. Later, he regretted that he
               gave his food to an ignoramus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon (Rebbi's son):</font></b> Perhaps it was your
               Talmid R. Yonasan, who never wants to benefit from
               his Torah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Rebbi investigated, and found that this was so.
               He announced that all may take food (so no one would
               need to benefit from Torah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	This is like Rebbi said (elsewhere), that all
          punishments come to the world due to ignoramuses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Kaiser imposed a tax on the city of Tiverya
               in order to buy a crown. The ignoramuses asked Rebbi
               that Chachamim should also pay, and they threatened
               to leave otherwise. Rebbi refused, and half of them
               left.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Kaiser pardoned the city from half the
               original demand. The remaining ignoramuses asked
               that Chachamim should also pay, and threatened to
               leave. Rebbi refused, and they all left, except for
               one launderer. The kings' officers imposed the
               entire tax on him. He left, and the Kaiser totally
               pardoned the city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebbi:</font></b> This teaches that punishments come only
               due to ignoramuses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One who has lived in the city 12 months is
          considered a resident...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If a caravan of donkey-drivers
          or camel-drivers lodged in a city (that became an Ir
          ha'Nidachas, i.e. it must be destroyed because most of
          the people served idolatry) and were enticed to serve
          idolatry, they are stoned, and their heirs inherit their
          money (like individuals who served idolatry);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If they were in the city for 30 days (and were
               enticed with it), they are killed by the sword and
               their property is destroyed (like residents of the
               city).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> Regarding Ir ha'Nidachas, it says
          'Yoshevei (those who stay in) ha'Ir.' After 30 days, one
          is considered to be staying there;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For other matters, one is not considered to be (a
               resident) of the city until 12 months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one vows not to benefit from people
               of a city, he is forbidden to benefit from people
               that have lived there for 12 months;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he vows not to benefit from Yoshevei ha'Ir,
                    he is forbidden to benefit from people who have
                    lived there for 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is it really true that for other matters, one
          is not considered to be (a resident) of the city until 12
          months?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> After (living in a city for) 30 days,
               one must contribute to the Tamchuy (food for the
               poor of the city). After three months, he must give
               (money) to the Kupah (for the poor). After six
               months, he must contribute for their clothes. After
               nine months, he must contribute for their burial.
               After 12 months, he must contribute for planks (used
               to support the wall).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> Indeed, the Mishnah teaches that
          after 12 months he is a resident regarding planks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Asi):</font></b> Everyone must contribute for planks, even
          orphans, but not Chachamim, for they do not need
          protection.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> Everyone must contribute for the following,
          even orphans, but not Chachamim (they do not need
          protection): the wall, a guard who rides around the wall,
          and someone to watch the weapons.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The general rule is, orphans must contribute to
               anything they benefit from.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  	Rabah imposed Tzedakah on the orphans of Bar Meryon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught that we do
               not impose Tzedakah on orphans, even to redeem
               captives!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabah:</font></b> I did so for their prestige.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>REDEEMING CAPTIVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	The mother of Shevor Malka (the Persian king) sent
          money to Rav Yosef to use for a 'big Mitzvah.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> What is a big Mitzvah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught that we do
               not impose Tzedakah on orphans, even to redeem
               captives. This implies that redeeming captives is a
               big Mitzvah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REBBI'S POLICY OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Rebbi opened the storehouses to support the poor during a time of famine, he distributed food to those versed in Mikra, Mishnah, Gemara, and Agadah, but he did not distribute food to Amei ha'Aretz.
</p><p>
Why did Rebbi not distribute food to Amei ha'Aretz? After all, there is an obligation to provide even for poor Amei ha'Aretz! (<b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara in Gitin (61a) says that there is a requirement to support Nochrim who are poor (because of Darchei Shalom), so certainly Rebbi should have helped support poor Jews who were Amei ha'Aretz. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> answers that there was not enough food for all of the poor people. In such a situation, a Talmid Chacham takes precedence over an Am ha'Aretz (as the Mishnah says in Horayos 13a). This is also the explanation of the <b>RITVA</b> cited by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 251). The Ritva says that if Rebbi had given food to the Amei ha'Aretz, there would not have been food left for the Talmidei Chachamim.
</p><p>
The Kovetz Shi'urim rejects this answer. He reasons that if Rebbi did not give food to the Amei ha'Aretz only because there was not enough food for everyone, then the Gemara would not have said that 'Rebbi was acting in accordance with his own view, for Rebbi said, 'Troubles (such as famine) come to the world only on account of the Amei ha'Aretz.'' If there was not enough food for everyone, then Rebbi would not have given food to the Amei ha'Aretz even if he did <i>not</i> maintain that troubles come to the world on their account. It must be that there <i>was</i> enough food for all of the poor people, and still Rebbi did not give food to the Amei ha'Aretz because of his position that they were the cause of the famine. The original question, however, still stands. Even if the Amei ha'Aretz were the cause of the famine, there still is an obligation to support them. How could Rebbi have disregarded that Halachah?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that in the incident that the Gemara discusses, the entire world was suffering from famine. The Gemara in Ta'anis (11a) teaches that when an entire community suffers, even individuals who are not personally affected by the calamity should join in the suffering of the community. Hence, the Gemara states that 'he who starves himself during a time of famine will be saved from a gruesome death,' and 'it is prohibited for a person to engage in marital relations during a time of famine.' Amei ha'Aretz do not follow this dictum and they do not join in the suffering of the community; instead, they continue to eat their fill during a time of famine, while Talmidei Chachamim refrain from eating. In accordance with the Gemara in Ta'anis, Rebbi did not want to feed the Amei ha'Aretz, so that they would join in the suffering of the community with everyone else. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WHEN MUST ONE PLACE A MEZUZAH ON A RENTED DWELLING</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that if a person makes a Neder that prohibits him from receiving benefit from 'Anshei ha'Ir,' the '<i>people</i> of the city,' he may not receive benefit from anyone who has lived in the city for at least twelve months. If a person makes a Neder that prohibits him from receiving benefit from 'Yoshvei ha'Ir,' the '<i>residents</i> of the city,' he may not receive benefit from anyone who has lived in the city for at least thirty days.
</p><p>
The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> points out that the same guidelines apply with regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah on a rented dwelling. A person who rents a house for less than thirty days is not required to affix a Mezuzah. A person who rents a house for more than thirty days must affix a Mezuzah. However, the Acharonim discuss whether he must affix the Mezuzah right away (even before he has lived there for thirty days), or whether he is required to affix the Mezuzah only after he has lived there for thirty days.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> infers from the Gemara here that a person's status with regard to his residency in a home is not determined based on how long he intends to remain there, but on how long he actually has lived there. Hence, if a person makes a Neder prohibiting himself from benefiting from 'Yoshvei ha'Ir,' he <i>may</i> receive benefit from someone who intends to remain in the city for thirty days, as long as that person has not actually lived there yet for thirty days. Similarly, it seems that one is not required to affix a Mezuzah to a rented dwelling until he has actually lived there for thirty days.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MORDECHAI</b> (#477), however, quotes <b>RABEINU BARUCH</b> in <b>SEFER HA'CHOCHMAH</b> who writes that when a person moves to a city and intends to stay there for an extended period, he is comparable to a person who has bought a home in the city, and he has the status of a full-fledged resident of the city (as the Mishnah (7b) says with regard to one who buys a home in a city). Accordingly, the Sefer ha'Chochmah might also maintain that if a person intends to stay in a rented dwelling for a long time (more than thirty days), he is obligated to affix a Mezuzah as soon as he moves in. (See Kovetz Shi'urim.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY ONE USE TZEDAKAH TO REDEEM CAPTIVES?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 3b (Rav Chisda):</font></b> We may not destroy a synagogue
               before building another one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #1:</font></b> The concern is negligence (lest they not
               build another).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #2:</font></b> We need a place to pray until a
               replacement is built.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> They argue in a case in which there is already
               another place to pray.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if they already have money to build
               another, we are concerned lest the money be used for
               Pidyon Shevuyim (redeeming captives). Even if bricks
               and ceiling beams are ready to be assembled, we are
               concerned lest they be sold for Pidyon Shevuyim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ravina):</font></b> If so, even if the new synagogue
               is built, we should be concerned lest it be sold for
               Pidyon Shevuyim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> People do not sell residences.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 8a (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught that we do
               not impose Tzedakah on orphans, even for Pidyon
               Shevuyim. This implies that Pidyon Shevuyim is a big
               Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar Mari):</font></b> We learn from 'whoever deserves to
               die (on his bed) will die (that way. Whoever
               deserves to die) by the sword (will die) by the
               sword, by hunger through hunger, la'Shevi (for
               captivity) la'Shevi';
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The latter punishments in the verse
               are harsher than the earlier ones.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> Captivity is the worst, for it includes all of them.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Erchin 6a (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If one said 'this coin is
               for Tzedakah', it is permitted to change it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this coin is for Tzedakah,'
               it is permitted to change it before the Gabai
               (overseer of Tzedakah) received it, but not
               afterwards.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Yanai was a Gabai. He borrowed Tzedakah
               and repaid!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That benefited the poor. He did so to induce
               people to give more Tzedakah. (He could tell them
               that there is no Tzedakah for the poor.)
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:11):</font></b> If people of
               the city collected to build a Beis ha'Keneses, and a
               Mitzvah arose, they may use the money for the
               Mitzvah. If they bought wood and rocks for the Beis
               ha'Keneses, they may sell them only for Pidyon
               Shevuyim. If they built, they finish it, and do not
               sell the Beis ha'Keneses. They collect for Pidyon
               Shevuyim from the Tzibur.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 252:1):</font></b> No Mitzvah is as great as
               Pidyon Shevuyim. Therefore, if money was collected
               for any Mitzvah, they can change it for Pidyon
               Shevuyim. Even if they collected to build a Beis
               ha'Keneses, and even if they bought the wood and
               rocks and set them aside to build it, in which case
               one may not sell them for another Mitzvah, one may
               sell them for Pidyon Shevuyim. If they already built
               the Beis ha'Keneses, we do not sell it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Hilkach):</font></b> The
                    Rambam learns from Bava Basra 3b. He holds that
                    we use the money also for Tzedakos other than
                    Pidyon Shevuyim. The Gemara mentioned Pidyon 
                    Shevuyim because it is a Mitzvah that cannot be
                    delayed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (2):</font></b> When they collected money for a Beis
                    ha'Keneses, we are concerned lest it be used
                    for any Mitzvah. This is like the Rambam's
                    text. If they bought the wood and rocks, we are
                    concerned lest they sell them only for Pidyon
                    Shevuyim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shevus Yakov (2:84):</font></b> A case occurred in which a
                    man about to die commanded to give a certain
                    amount for Pidyon Shevuyim. Now there is Dever
                    (a plague), and many are in a dire situation.
                    It seems that even so, one may not use the
                    money to save from Dever. Pidyon Shevuyim is
                    greater than this (Bava Basra 8b)! However,
                    this was when Yisrael bestowed Chesed on each
                    other when in need. Nowadays, there is the yoke
                    of exile. Our enemies make false accusations
                    that the Dever came through Yisrael, and they
                    do not let people in or out. Some Yisre'elim
                    hid in forests and caves. If they were found,
                    they were open to be killed. This is the
                    ultimate captivity! Therefore, the money may be
                    used to save from Dever.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Lechem Yehudah (1):</font></b> I saw in Lita that
                    Yisre'elim bestow Chesed with each other.
                    However, now that most people die of
                    starvation, and they stab each other to get the
                    other's food and drink, this is just like
                    captivity.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> In any case, if one vowed to Tzedakah, Pidyon
               Shevuyim is not included. One may use the money to
               redeem only if the people of the city consent.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Bach DH Kosav):</font></b> The Maharik (7) says
                    so, for when people say 'Tzedakah', they do not
                    consider Pidyon Shevuyim to be included. He
                    proves this from Erchin 6a. If one said 'this
                    coin is for Tzedakah', he may change it for his
                    own needs, and repay later. We are not
                    concerned lest he need it for Pidyon Shevuyim,
                    even though we are concerned for this regarding
                    money given to build a Beis ha'Keneses! The Tur
                    said that money collected for any Mitzvah may
                    be used for Pidyon Shevuyim. The Maharik must
                    explain that this is when the congregation
                    collected amongst themselves, with intent for
                    what they will decide, but what individuals
                    give may not be changed from what it was given
                    for. Pidyon Shevuyim is not included in
                    Tzedakah. I disagree. We are concerned lest
                    money be needed for Pidyon Shevuyim only
                    regarding destroying a Beis ha'Keneses, even
                    though it is not so common, for if it will
                    occur, there will be no place to pray. Here, we
                    need not be concerned for Pidyon Shevuyim,
                    which is rare. Even if it will occur, they will
                    collect, pay immediately, redeem them, and no
                    calamity will result. If we were concerned for
                    this, we should require preparing money for
                    Pidyon Shevuyim. We do not find that Chachamim
                    did so. Further, there would be no limit how
                    much to collect! The simple reading of the Tur
                    connotes that any money may be used for Pidyon
                    Shevuyim, except for money for a Beis
                    ha'Keneses.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Shach 2):</font></b> The Maharik learned from
                    Erchin that one may change Tzedakah on
                    condition to repay it. One may change Tzedakah
                    before it comes to the Gabai. R. Yanai would
                    borrow, even though he was a Gabai. This is
                    good for the Aniyim, for when there is no
                    Tzedakah money around, he forces others to
                    give. However, this is bad for captives, for in
                    any case we collect for them only their
                    redemption, and they could die due to the
                    delay. Every moment that one delays
                    unnecessarily is like bloodshed! The Maharik
                    derived that Stam Tzedakah is not for Pidyon
                    Shevuyim. Even if when Chachamim refer to
                    Tzedakah it is included, Tzedakah is a vow.
                    Vows are based on how people speak (when people
                    say 'Tzedakah', they do not include Pidyon
                    Shevuyim). Do not say that it is included, but
                    we are not concerned for it for it is rare.
                    Regarding money for a Beis ha'Keneses, we are
                    concerned for it. All the more so, we must be
                    concerned for it and not use Tzedakah money for
                    Reshus! This answers all the Bach's questions.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (2):</font></b> Why does the Tur forbid selling a Beis
                    ha'Keneses for Pidyon Shevuyim? The Gemara does
                    not forbid. It just says that we are not
                    concerned for this, just like people do not
                    sell their residences. The Rambam and Beis
                    Yosef permit selling it until it is built, for
                    it is still not considered a residence.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (3):</font></b> According to the Shulchan Aruch's text
                    of the Gemara, one may not sell it after it was
                    built. Our text permits.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Aruch ha'Shulchan (2):</font></b> The Mitzvah of Beis
                    ha'Keneses is not greater than Pidyon Shevuyim.
                    Rather, makes all efforts to avoid selling his
                    residence, even for the greatest need. A Beis
                    ha'Keneses, the residence of Yisrael for Torah
                    and Tefilah, is no less. We must make all
                    efforts to collect for Pidyon Shevuyim to avoid
                    selling a Beis ha'Keneses. If we cannot
                    collect, surely we sell a Beis ha'Keneses to
                    save lives!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 153:13):</font></b> If they built and
               finished a Beis ha'Keneses, we do not sell it for
               Pidyon Shevuyim. We collect from the Tzibur.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (79,80):</font></b> Until it is finished,
                    it is like wood and rocks, which may be sold.
                    Even after it is finished, letter of the law
                    one may sell it, even without the seven leaders
                    of the city. It is a mere stringency not to
                    sell it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (118):</font></b> Some texts of the Beis
                    Yosef say 'if they built (partially), they
                    finish.' This is when it is possible to collect
                    from the Tzibur. If not, we sell even after it
                    is finished, for Pidyon Shevuyim, enabling
                    Talmidim to learn, and to marry off a man or
                    orphan girl.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MAY WE INVEST MONEY OF ORPHANS OR THE POOR? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the source that redeeming
          captives is a big Mitzvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rabah bar Mari):</font></b> 'Whoever deserves to die (on
          his bed) will die (that way. Whoever deserves to die) by
          the sword (will die) by the sword, by hunger through
          hunger, la'Shevi (for captivity) la'Shevi';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The latter punishments in the
               verse are harsher than the earlier ones.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We know that the sword is harsher than death from
               a verse, or from reasoning:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Reasoning - the body is not disgraced through
                    (normal) death, but it is disgraced by the
                    sword.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> A verse - 'dear to Hash-m is ha'Mavsah
                    (normal death) of his Chasidim.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We know that the hunger is harsher than the sword
               from a verse, or from reasoning:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Reasoning - one who starves suffers prolonged
                    pain.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> A verse - 'those killed by the sword were
                    better than those who died from hunger.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Captivity is the worst, for it includes all of
               them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>COLLECTORS OF TZEDAKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> (At least) two people must be present when
          collecting (money) for the Kupah. Three are needed to
          distribute it to the poor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Two are needed to collect, for two are needed to
               impose any authority over the congregation;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Three are needed to distribute, for this is like
               judgment of monetary cases, which requires a Beis 
               Din (to say that a certain person is entitled to
               collect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Three must be present when collecting (food) for the
          Tamchuy, and three are needed to distribute it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Because it is distributed (the same day, just)
               like it is collected, they should be ready to
               distribute it immediately (without having to find
               another person).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	The Tamchuy is (collected) each day, and the Kupah
          every Erev Shabbos (Rambam; Aruch ha'Shulchan - both are
          collected every day. This is when they are distributed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tamchuy is for all poor people. The Kupah is
               only for poor people of that city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> People of a city may change the (distribution of
               the) Tamchuy to be like the Kupah, or vice-versa, or
               to use the money for anything they want.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	People of the city may fix the measures, prices and
          wages as they see fit, and to enforce this with fines.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Beraisa said that two are needed to
          impose any authority over the congregation. What is the
          source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> (We learn from collection for the
          Mishkan -) 'v'Hem (plural) Yikchu Es ha'Zahav.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> The verse teaches that one person may not
          collect, but one is believed. This supports R. Chanina.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chanina):</font></b> Rebbi once appointed two brothers
               over the Kupah (even though they are believed only
               like one person).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why is collecting considered imposing
          authority?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The collectors may take a
          security for the Tzedakah one must give, even on Erev
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel):</font></b> 'U'Fokadti Al Kol
          Lochatzav' applies even to collectors of Tzedakah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One may take a security only from someone
          estimated to be wealthy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami to give 400 Zuz to
               Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	'Veha'Maskilim Yazhiru k'Zohar ha'Raki'a' refers to one
          who judges a case properly;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Matzdikei ha'Rabim ka'Kochavim l'Olam va'Ed'
               refers to collectors of Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veha'Maskilim Yazhiru k'Zohar ha'Raki'a'
          refers to one who judges a case properly, and collectors
          of Tzedakah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Matzdikei ha'Rabim ka'Kochavim l'Olam va'Ed'
               refers to teachers of young children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What kind of teachers does it refer to?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav):</font></b> It refers to teachers like Rav
               Shmuel Shilas.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rav once found Rav Shmuel Shilas in the garden,
                    and asked why he was not supervising the
                    children, like he always does.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Shmuel Shilas:</font></b> I have not abandoned
                    them for 13 years, and even now I am thinking
                    about (R. Chananel - overseeing) them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What will be the radiance of Chachamim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ravina):</font></b> It says 'v'Ohavav k'Tzeis
               ha'Shemesh bi'Gvuraso'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> The two who collect Tzedakah may not
          separate from (and lose sight of) each other;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One may go to the gate (to collect) and another
               to a store (if they can see each other).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	If a collector of Tzedakah finds money in the market,
          he should not put it in his own wallet (lest people think
          he is stealing Tzedakah money), rather, he puts in the
          Tzedakah box;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When he gets home, he may take what he found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If collectors of Tzedakah have no poor
          people to give to, they may exchange the (copper) coins
          with other people (for silver coins, which do not rust).
          They may not exchange them with their own coins;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If collectors of the Tamchuy have no poor people
               to give to, they may sell the food to other people.
               They may not buy it themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  	We do not count Tzedakah coins two by two, rather one
          by one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> Originally, Rabah would not sit on the
          mattresses of the synagogue, because they were bought
          with Tzedakah money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After he heard the Beraisa that permits changing
               the money to any other usage, he sat on them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> Originally, Rabah had two Tzedakah wallets,
          one for the poor of his city, and one for poor people
          from anywhere.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After he heard Shmuel tell Rav Tachlifa bar
               Avdimi to have one wallet and to stipulate (with the
               givers that you will give to whoever comes), he also
               kept one wallet and stipulated.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) AVOIDING SUSPICION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that when there are no more poor people to whom the treasurers of the Tzedakah collection can distribute money, the treasurers may not replace the small coins they have received with larger coins (of a superior metal that will last longer) of their own. Rather, they should exchange the small coins for large coins that belong to other people. This is required so that they will not be suspected of exchanging the coins for themselves at a rate that benefits themselves. Similarly, when the treasurers of the food collection have no more poor people to whom to distribute the food, they should sell the food to others and not to themselves, lest they be suspected of selling the food to themselves at an unfair price.
</p><p>
What is the basis of this obligation?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Pesachim (13a) says that the reason for this Halachah is the verse, 'You shall be vindicated from Hash-m and from Yisrael' (Bamidbar 32:22). This is in accordance with the Mishnah in Shekalim (3:2), 'A person must be vindicated in the eyes of others, just as he must be in the eyes of Hash-m, as it says, 'You shall be vindicated from Hash-m and from Yisrael.'' The Mishnah there cites additional verses as the source for this Halachah, but the Yerushalmi says that this verse is the primary source.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU YONAH</b> in Berachos (3b of the pages of the Rif) adds that this verse teaches that even when a person did no wrongdoing, he still must make every effort to avoid suspicion. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHOM WE TRUST</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> I do not need to stipulate. Anyone who
          gives, he gives on condition that I will distribute it as
          I see fit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Two slaughterers made a deal that if either works on
          the other's day, the skin of his animal will be torn.
          Reuven worked on Shimon's day, and Shimon tore the skin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Shimon must pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yemar bar Shalmiya:</font></b> The Beraisa says that
               people of the city may (fix...) and enforce this
               with fines!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rava did not answer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Papa:</font></b> Rava justifiably did not answer. When
               there is a great person in the city, fines must be
               enacted in front of him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We do not ask collectors of Tzedakah to give
          a calculation of what they collected and distributed, nor
          with overseers of Hekdesh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A hint (not a proof) of this is 'v'Lo
               Yechashevu... ve'Emunah Hem Osim' (those who built
               the Mikdash did not need to account for what they
               took).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Elazar):</font></b> Even when giving money to a trustworthy
          person, one should wrap and count the money - 'va'Yatzuru
          va'Yimnu.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If one (claiming to be poor) requests food,
          we check if he is truly poor. If he requests clothing, we
          give before checking.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can learn from a verse or from reasoning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reasoning - one without clothes is embarrassed.
               One lacking food is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A verse - 'Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha' is written
               with a 'Sin', it may be read 'Perosh' (clarify
               before giving). (Either we must say like Tosfos
               (Shabbos 55B) that the Gemara's text (of Yeshayah) 
               differs from our text, or we must change the text of
               our Gemara - see Maharsha.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  '...Ki Sir'eh Arum v'Chisiso' - as soon as you
                    see a naked person, clothe him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> We check before giving clothing, but not
          before giving food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can learn from a verse or from reasoning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reasoning - one without food is in pain. One
               lacking clothing is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A verse - 'Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha' -
               immediately;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  '...Ki Sir'eh Arum v'Chisiso' - after you see
                    that he is truly poor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> If one requests
          clothing, we check if he is truly poor. If he requests
          food, we give before checking.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH WE GIVE TO THE POOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If a poor person is traveling, we give to
          him at least a loaf bought for a Pundiyon when grain
          sells for four Sa'im for a Sela (i.e. the loaf is a
          quarter Kav, the volume of six eggs);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he will spend the night, we give to him needs of
          lodging.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> This is a bed and a pillow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If he will stay over Shabbos, we give to him food for
          three meals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one begs from door to door, we do not
          give to him from the Kupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	A poor person begging from door to door came to Rav
          Papa. He did not give to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Sama brei d'Rav Yeiva:</font></b> If you do not give to
               him, no one will, and he will die!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that we do not give to
               him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We do not give to him a large amount, but
               we give a small amount.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Asi):</font></b> One should give at least a third of a Shekel
          to Tzedakah every year - 'we established Mitzvos upon
          ourselves... Shelishis ha'Shekel b'Shanah (above the
          half- Shekel that the Torah requires) for the Mikdash.'
          (Fifty Shekalim used to be a standard annual income.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Asi):</font></b> Tzedakah is equated to all the Mitzvos -
          'v'Ha'amadnu Alenu Mitzvos (plural).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Elazar):</font></b> One who induces others to give is greater
          than one who gives himself - 'v'Hayah Ma'ase ha'Tzedakah
          Shalom'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one merits (to have a good Mazel), 'Paros
               la'Ra'ev Lachmecha' will apply to him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If not, 'v'Aniyim Merudim Tavi Vayis' (the
               kingdom of Romi, which constantly demands money,
               will take his money).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rava (to people of his city):</font></b> Do (Tzedakah) with each
          other in order that you will have Shalom with the king.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Elazar):</font></b> When the Mikdash stood, a person gave a
          half Shekel, and this was an atonement for him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Now that there is no Mikdash, if one gives
               Tzedakah, this is good;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If not, Nochrim will forcibly take his money.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even so, that is considered Tzedakah -
                    'v'Nogesayich Tzedakah.'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHICH IS WORSE: PHYSICAL PAIN OR EMOTIONAL PAIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that in certain instances, when a poor person asks for assistance his need for help must be verified before he is given what he requests. Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue about what type of needs must be verified. Rav Huna says that when a poor person asks for food, his situation should be investigated to determine if he really needs it, but when a poor person asks for clothing, his need does not have to be verified. This is because a person without clothes suffers embarrassment, while a person without food does not suffer embarrassment. Rav Yehudah argues and says that a poor person who asks for clothing must be investigated, but there is no need to investigate a poor person who asks for food. He reasons that a person who is in need of food suffers physical pain, while a person who has no clothing does not suffer pain.
</p><p>
Why do the Amora'im argue about what form of distress is greater, the distress of hunger or the distress of being unclothed? The Gemara in Sanhedrin (44b-45a) records a dispute among Tana'im about this very issue. The Tana'im there argue about whether Beis Din removes the clothes of a person who is punished with Sekilah. Their dispute revolves around the question of whether the person will suffer more from the physical pain of receiving Sekilah while he is clothed or from the emotional distress of being disgraced when his clothes are removed. Why, then, do the Amora'im here argue about a point which is already discussed by Tana'im?
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara here makes it clear that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah (that a person suffers more from the physical pain of hunger than from the disgrace of being unclothed), since a Beraisa supports his view. However, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:1) rules that when a woman is punished with Sekilah, her clothes are <i>not</i> removed. This ruling of the Rambam seems to be in accordance with the opinion that a person suffers more from the disgrace of being unclothed than from physical pain, which is contrary to the ruling of Rebbi Yehudah!
</p><p>
Also, the Gemara in Berachos (20a) teaches that one may transgress Isurim d'Rabanan to maintain the honor of a person ('Kavod ha'Beriyos'), and one may even transgress Isurim d'Oraisa which are done passively ('Shev v'Al Ta'aseh'). There is no Halachah, however, that permits a person to transgress an Isur d'Rabanan or an Isur d'Oraisa of 'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh' in order to avoid physical pain. This clearly implies that it is considered worse for a person to suffer embarrassment than to suffer physical pain. (<b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b>, Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:1)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> explains that, in essence, Rav Yehudah agrees with Rav Huna that a person suffers more from embarrassment than from physical pain. What, then, is Rav Yehudah's reasoning in his ruling here?
</p><p>
Rav Yehudah reasons that a person suffering from a lack of food certainly experiences physical pain, while a person suffering from a lack of clothing may not be suffering at all. Even if a person is not genuinely poor but starves himself in order to get money from the charity fund, he experiences the physical pain of hunger even though he caused himself to suffer. Therefore, there is no requirement to check if he is really poor, because he definitely is suffering as a result of his hunger, even if it is self-inflicted. If, however, a person removes his own clothes so that he can pretend to be poor and receive money from the charity fund, he does not experience any embarrassment at all. The sense of embarrassment is an internal feeling, and a person who values money more than he values his own honor does not experience any shame when he removes his clothes to create the image of poverty. Since it is possible that this person is not truly in need of clothing -- because he may not be suffering at all -- it is necessary to investigate if he is really poor before he can receive money from the charity fund.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> answers that when the Gemara teaches that 'Kavod ha'Beriyos' overrides certain types of Isurim, it does not mean that a specific person's honor overrides Isurim. The Torah would not permit a person to transgress an Isur in order to save himself from embarrassment. Rather, the Torah allows the transgression of certain Isurim in order to uphold the honor of <i>people in general</i>. The Kovetz Shi'urim proves this from the fact that the obligation to bury a Mes Mitzvah, due to Kavod ha'Beriyos, overrides almost all other Mitzvos and Isurim, even though the deceased person himself does not experience shame (since he is dead). The requirement to bury a Mes Mitzvah cannot be intended to protect the honor of the deceased; rather, it is to protect the honor of the living. Similarly, the importance of Kavod ha'Beriyos in general does not relate exclusively to the individual who may suffer the disgrace; rather, it relates to all people. This is also why the person who is punished with Sekilah must be dressed; it is to protect and uphold the honor of people in general (and not necessarily the honor of this particular person). This form of honor -- the honor of mankind -- certainly is more of a concern than the physical pain suffered by an individual.
</p><p>
In contrast, the obligation to give Tzedakah is not intended to uphold the general honor of mankind. Rather, people are obligated to give Tzedakah in order to help individuals in need. The Gemara questions whether an individual suffers more from his own physical pain or from his own embarrassment. Thus, the dispute between Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna is unrelated to the general issue of Kavod ha'Beriyos. The Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a person suffers more from his own physical pain than from the pain of his own disgrace. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE MUST EAT THREE MEALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a poor person is traveling... if he
               will stay over Shabbos, we give to him food for
               three meals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shabbos 117b (Beraisa):</font></b> One must eat three meals on
               Shabbos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Chidka says, he must eat four meals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Both of them expound 'Ichluhu ha'Yom
               Ki Shabbos ha'Yom la'Shem ha'Yom Lo Simtza'uhu
               ba'Sadeh.' R. Chidka holds that the three 'ha'Yom's
               allude to three daytime meals, not including the
               Shabbos night meal. Chachamim hold that the meal of
               Shabbos night is included in the three.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 118a - Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah is only like
               Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It is even like R. Chidka. The case is,
               he already has a meal with him. He will eat it for
               the fourth Shabbos meal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a fire erupted, one may save three,
               two or one meal(s), i.e. if it was Shabbos night,
               morning or afternoon, respectively.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, no matter when it was, one may save
               three meals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> The first Tana agrees that we eat three
               meals on Shabbos (but he allows saving only for
               remaining meals)! This is unlike R. Chidka.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One who has food for 14 meals
               may not take from the Kupah (money collected and
               distributed weekly to the poor).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is not like either Tana! (One eats 15 or
                    16 meals each week according to Chachamim and
                    R. Chidka, respectively.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Really, it is like Chachamim. The third
               Shabbos meal is in place of the meal normally eaten
               at night on Motzei Shabbos.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> It is like R. Akiva, who says that it is
               better to conduct on Shabbos like on a weekday (and
               have only two meals) than to take Tzedakah.
               (Regarding Shabbos meals, it can be like Chachamim
               or R. Chidka.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Shimon ben Pazi):</font></b> We learn the three Shabbos
               meals from three times it says 'Yom'. One who
               fulfills them is saved from three harsh 'Yomim': the
               birth pangs of Moshi'ach, judgment in Gehinom, and
               the war of Gog and Magog:
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesuvos 64b (Mishnah #1):</font></b> One who feeds his wife
               through an intermediary must supply at least two
               Kabim of wheat every week.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah #2 - R. Yochanan (ben Berokah)):</font></b> Bread for
               two meals (for an Eruv) is a loaf costing a 12th of
               a Dinar when a Se'ah of wheat costs a Dinar;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Shimon):</font></b> It is two thirds of a loaf of a third
               of a Kav.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Mishnah #1 cannot be R. Yochanan (if it
               were, she gets only eight meals per week). It is
               unlike R. Shimon (she gets 18 meals)!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> It is like R. Yochanan. Half the price of
               bread is the grocer's mark-up. She gets 16 meals
               each week like R. Chidka.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like Chachamim. The extra
               meal is for guests. (Likewise, our Mishnah can be
               like R. Shimon.)
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Shabbos 43b):</font></b> The Halachah follows
               Chachamim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ran (DH v'Ika):</font></b> One may complete the three
                    meals with fruits, just like one can complete
                    the 14 meals that one must eat in the Sukah
                    (according to R. Eliezer) with Targima, which
                    is fruits (Sukah 27a). Rava disagrees, but the
                    Halachah does not follow Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 30:9):</font></b> One is obligated to
               eat three Shabbos meals, one at night, one in the
               morning and one at the time of Minchah. He must be
               careful about these three meals not to detract from
               them at all. Even an Oni fed from Tzedakah eats
               three meals. If one was sick from overeating, or he
               always fasts, he is exempt from three meals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Sukah 2:13):</font></b> The Tosefta says that we bless
               Borei Minei Mezonos on Targima. Perhaps it is more
               important than meat and fish. Even though Targima
               must be eaten in a Sukah, we cannot learn from here
               that one can fulfill Seudah Shlishis through
               Targima. We learn three Shabbos meals from 'ha'Yom'
               in the verse, and manna was in place of bread!
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 291:1):</font></b> One must be very careful
               to fulfill Seudah Shlishis. Even if he is satiated,
               he can fulfill it with k'Beitzah. If he cannot eat
               at all, he need not pain himself. A Chacham plans in
               advance, and does not fill his stomach at the
               morning meal, to leave room for Seudah Shlishis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magen Avraham:</font></b> If one has enough bread for two
                    meals, and if he divides it up for three meals
                    he will not have enough for satiation at each
                    meal, it is better to eat two meals to
                    satiation (Sefer Chasidim 861). The Gemara
                    supports this. It says 'it is better to make
                    Shabbos like a weekday (and have only two
                    meals) than to take Tzedakah.' It does not
                    suggest making three meals that will not
                    satiate him. I say that if the morning meal
                    goes past midday, he should divide it into two
                    meals, for he will be satiated when he finishes
                    eating. Chidushei Anshei Shem (on Mordechai
                    Shabbos 397) and Shibolei ha'Leket say so.
                    L'Chatchilah, one should not delay until midday
                    for this, for he annuls Oneg Shabbos. However,
                    some say that one can be Yotzei Seudah Shlishis
                    even before midday, so in any case he should
                    split the morning meal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (1,2):</font></b> The Zohar says that there
                    is a great punishment for one who omits one of
                    the meals. Therefore, it is better to have
                    three meals, even not to satiation. The
                    Shulchan Aruch (Sa'if 2) does not allow Seudah
                    Shlishis before midday. The Ari Zal requires it
                    to be after Minchah, so it never helps to split
                    the morning meal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (2):</font></b> One should eat a bit more
                    than k'Beitzah, for exactly k'Beitzah is Arai
                    (haphazard) (Magen Avraham). Some say that one
                    is Yotzei with a k'Zayis. One should be
                    stringent if possible.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (2):</font></b> We learn a k'Beitzah from Sukah.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (1):</font></b> We give three meals to a
                    traveling Oni. One who must borrow for the
                    Shabbos meals should borrow for three meals.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (3,4):</font></b> The meals are for
                    pleasure, not for pain. If one eats when he is
                    stuffed, this is not considered eating.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (3):</font></b> One normally eats only once
                    during the day, so Seudah Shlishis proves that
                    he ate to honor Shabbos. One who omits Seudah
                    Shlishis proves that he did not eat to honor
                    Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If one did not eat Shabbos night, he eats
               three meals on Shabbos day.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (5):</font></b> He says the night Kidush,
                    without 'va'Ychulu...' Likewise, if one did not
                    eat on Yom Tov night, he says Kidush and eats
                    two meals on Yom Tov day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (5):</font></b> Seudah Shlishis must be with
               bread. Some allow using any food from the five
               grains. Some allow accompaniments for bread such as
               meat and fish, but not fruits. Some allow even
               fruits. The first opinion is primary, that one must
               use bread, unless he is too full.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Yesh):</font></b> The Ran and R. Yonah
                    bring an opinion that one is Yotzei with
                    Targima. Tosfos and the Rosh refuted their
                    proof. Semag requires bread for all three
                    meals.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (24):</font></b> The second opinion
                    requires food from grain on which we bless
                    Borei Minei Mezonos. The reason for the lenient
                    opinions is because this meal is not normally
                    eaten with appetite.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (DH Targima):</font></b> Rashi and the Ran say
                    that Targima is fruits. Tosfos says that it is
                    meat, fish and similar accompaniments for
                    bread; even if one is Yotzei with Targima, he
                    is not Yotzei with fruits, which do not count
                    like a meal for Sukah. The Tur relies on the
                    Rosh (that Targima is Mezonos), for the Tosefta
                    supports him. R. Yerucham, R. Yonah and
                    Shibolei ha'Leket say that one is Yotzei with
                    fruits. Rabbeinu Yehudah was particular to use
                    fruits of the seven species.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (15):</font></b> Rashi says that Targima is fruits.
                    Tosfos rejected this, based on Rava. The Ran
                    says that the Halachah does not follow Rava.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (22,23):</font></b> L'Chatchilah, one
                    should have delicacies according to his ability
                    also for Seudah Shlishis. All agree that
                    l'Chatchilah one should have bread (Sa'if 4).
                    They argue about b'Di'eved.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (29):</font></b> One should eat fish at
                    Seudah Shlishis. It is nice to have eggs, for a
                    sign of mourning over Moshe Rabbeinu (who died
                    Shabbos afternoon).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Kaf ha'Chayim (30):</font></b> It is proper to have bread
                    even when Shabbos is Erev Yom Tov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Or, (one has Targima or fruits...) when one
               cannot use bread, e.g. when Erev Pesach is on
               Shabbos one cannot eat bread after Minchah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (25):</font></b> Therefore, he should
                    fulfill Seudah Shlishis through fried Matzah
                    meal, meat and fish, or fruits.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>TAKING MONEY IN ORDER TO HONOR SHABBOS </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Sheshes (Rashi; Tosfos - Rav Achdevoy bar Ami),
          who perverted the ways of his mother (this will be
          explained)):</font></b> 'Va'Yilbash Tzedakah ka'Shiryan' - just like
          little pieces of iron join to make a big armor, also
          every Perutah of Tzedakah joins to a great sum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Chanina):</font></b> We learn this from 'uch'Veged Idim Kol
          Tzidkoseinu' - just like every thread joins to make a big
          garment, also every Perutah of Tzedakah joins to a great
          sum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW A METZORA IS METAMEI PEOPLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How did Rav Sheshes (Tosfos - Rav Achdevoy)
          pervert the ways of his mother?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He forced her to act immodestly in the
          following episode.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami):</font></b> What is the
               source that a Metzora during the seven days of
               counting (after bringing birds, until he shaves
               again) is Metamei people?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Since he makes clothing
               Tamei, he makes people Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami):</font></b> Perhaps he is
               Metamei only what he wears, but not other clothing
               or people;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  One who moves a Neveilah is Metamei what he
                    wears, but not other clothing or people!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> What is our
                    source that a rodent is Metamei people, if not
                    that it is Metamei clothing?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami):</font></b> It says
                    explicitly about rodents 'Ish Asher Yiga b'Chol
                    Sheretz'!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction - Counter-question (Rav
                    Sheshes):</font></b> Rather, what is our source that semen
                    is Metamei people, if not that it is Metamei
                    clothing?
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Achdevoy):</font></b> Also about semen, it
                    says 'O Ish', to include one who touches!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> Rav Achdevoy answered jovially. Rav Sheshes
                    was very hurt, and Rav Achdevoy became mute and
                    forgot his learning. Rav Sheshes' (Tosfos -
                    his) mother begged Rav Sheshes to pray for him;
                    he refused, until she said 'see these breasts
                    that you nursed from (and have mercy on Rav
                    Achdevoy)!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes prayed for him, and he
                    recovered.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We still did not hear the source that a
               Metzora during the days of counting is Metamei
               people!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> It says that a
               Metzora must wash (immerse) his clothes during the
               days of counting, and during the days he is Muchlat
               (absolutely Tamei);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Just like he is Metamei people when he is
                    Muchlat, also during the days of counting.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REWARD OF TZEDAKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Elazar ha'Gadol):</font></b> A covert gift of Tzedakah
          suppresses damaging angels of anger more than the prayer
          of Moshe Rabeinu!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Moshe said 'Ki Yagorti Mipnei ha'Af veha'Chemah'
               (he feared them). It says about Tzedakah given
               covertly 'Matan ba'Seser Yichpeh Af v'Shochad
               ba'Cheik Chemah Azah' (it covers them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1:</font></b> R. Yitzchak disagrees.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Covert Tzedakah suppresses Af, but
               not Chemah - 'v'Shochad ba'Cheik Chemah Azah';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even though he gives Tzedakah covertly, there
                    is still Chemah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Any judge who takes bribery
          brings harsh Chemah to the world - 'V'Shochad ba'Cheik
          Chemah Azah'. (End of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yitzchak):</font></b> One who gives a Perutah to a poor person
          gets six blessings. One who comforts him with kind words
          gets 11 blessings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who gives ('Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha') is
               rewarded 'Yibaka... (he will succeed greatly, he
               will be healed speedily, his Tzedakah will bring him
               to Gan Eden, Hashem's glory will gather him, Hash-m
               will answer his cry, and Hash-m will do his will);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One who comforts him with words ('v'Safek
               la'Ra'ev Nafshecha') is rewarded 'v'Zorach...' (his
               success will shine, he will be saved from
               afflictions, Hash-m will always guide him on the
               good path, he will not suffer hunger or thirst, his
               bones will be healthy, he will be satiated like a
               garden that is always moist, and like an unceasing
               spring, his deeds will build the ruins of the world,
               and restore the fallen foundations, and he will be
               called the one who fenced the breach, and returned
               people to Torah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yitzchak) Question:</font></b> Because one is 'Rodef Tzedakah
          v'Chesed, he will (need and) find... Tzedakah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Rather, anyone who pursues to
          do Tzedakah, Hash-m will enable him to give Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Hash-m will
          present to him fitting recipients of Tzedakah, so he will
          get reward.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This excludes the case that Rabah taught about.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah):</font></b> 'Va'Yihyu Muchshalim Lefanecha' - Yirmeyah
          asked that even when (the people who wanted to kill him)
          try to do Tzedakah, Hash-m should present to them
          unworthy recipients, so they will get no reward.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO SEEKS TO DO GOOD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that if a person is worthy, Hash-m causes people who deserve charity to come to him for Tzedakah. If a person is not worthy, people who do not deserve charity will come to him. Rabah derives this from the verse, 'May they be caused to stumble before You; at the time of Your anger, act against them' (Yirmeyahu 18:23), in which Yirmeyahu asked Hash-m to cause the sinners of the people to stumble. Rabah explains that Yirmeyahu asked Hash-m that even at a time when the people would overcome their evil inclinations and seek to do charity, Hash-m should send them recipients who do not deserve charity so that they will not receive reward for their acts of charity.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask that the Gemara in Berachos (6a) and in Kidushin (40a) teaches that when a person intends to do a Mitzvah but is prevented from doing it (due to an Ones, a circumstance beyond his control), he is rewarded as if he had done the Mitzvah. Why, then, would it help Yirmeyahu's purpose if the people gave charity to those who were undeserving of charity? The givers still had intention to do the Mitzvah of Tzedakah, and therefore they should receive reward for that intention. (<b>SUKAS DAVID</b>, <b>DEVAR MOSHE</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>DEVAR MOSHE</b> suggests that the sins of the givers themselves would make them unfit to give charity to deserving causes. Consequently, when undeserving people come to them for charity, it would not be considered an Ones, for it would be a result of the givers' own sins that they would not be able to give charity to worthy causes.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in Bava Kama (6b of the pages of the Rif) cites the <b>RAMAH</b> who explains that a person who gives charity to an undeserving recipient receives reward only when he <i>is not aware</i> that the recipient is undeserving. When the giver is aware that the recipient is undeserving, then he does not receive any reward for his act. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REWARD OF TZEDAKAH (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> One who regularly gives
          Tzedakah will merit to have children with Chachmah,
          wealth, and who know Agadah (non-Halachic teachings).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachmah - it (the above verse) says 'Yimtza
               Chayim';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Wealth - it says '(they will be able to give)
               Tzedakah';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Agadah - it says here 'v'Chavod', like it says
               'Kavod Chachamim Yinchalu' (people who expound
               Agadah are greatly respected).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa) Question:</font></b> If Hash-m loves the poor, why
          doesn't He feed them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Meir):</font></b> It is to allow people to give
          Tzedakah and escape Gehinom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Turnusrufus asked this of R. Akiva, and received the
          same answer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Turnusrufus:</font></b> Just the contrary! This is like a
               king who put his servant in jail and commanded not
               to feed him, and someone fed him. The king will be
               angry!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  You are called His servants - 'Ki Li Venei
                    Yisrael Avadim.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> This is like a king who was angry at
               his son and put him in jail and commanded not to
               feed him, and someone fed him. The king will send
               that man a gift!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We are called His children - 'Banim Atem
                    la'Shem Elokeichem'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Turnusrufus:</font></b> You are called slaves and children.
               When you do His will, you are children. When not,
               you are slaves;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Now, you are not doing His will, so you are
                    slaves!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> 'Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha' discusses a
               time such as now, when 'v'Aniyim Merudim Tavi
               Vayis', and it commands to feed the hungry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Shalom):</font></b> Just like one's income is
          fixed on Rosh Hashanah for the year, his losses
          (expenditures) for the year are fixed then;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he merits, his expenditures will be for
               Tzedakah. If not, Romi will take the money
               ('v'Aniyim Merudim').
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan Ben Zakai saw in a dream that his
               nephews would lose 700 Dinarim in the year. He
               pressed them to give Tzedakah, and induced them to
               give all but 17 of the 700. On the night before Yom
               Kipur, officers of the Kaiser came. (His nephews
               feared lest they take a great sum.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan Ben Zakai:</font></b> Don't worry. They will
                    take only the last 17 Dinarim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He explained how he knew. His nephews asked why
               he didn't tell them about the dream.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan Ben Zakai:</font></b> I wanted you to give for
                    the sake of the Mitzvah, without knowing that
                    you were destined to lose the money anyway.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Rav Papa was alighting a ladder. His leg slipped, and
          he was about to fall. He lamented that he would die from
          being cast to the ground, similar to death by stoning,
          the punishment for desecration of Shabbos or idolatry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti:</font></b> Perhaps a poor person
               came to you and you did not give to him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah):</font></b> Seeing one
               who needs Tzedakah and overlooking him is like
               idolatry:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'Beliya'al' regarding refraining from
                    lending money, like it says about idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> All Tzedakah and
          Chesed that Yisrael do in this world causes great Shalom
          with Hash-m and advocating angels.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Great is Tzedakah, for it
          brings the redemption close.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yehudah:</font></b> Ten things were created in the world that 
          are Kasheh (hard, or unyielding): a mountain is Kasheh,
          but iron can cut it; iron is Kasheh, but fire melts it;
          fire is Kasheh, but water extinguishes it; water is
          Kasheh, but the clouds bear it; clouds are Kasheh, but
          wind scatters them; wind is Kasheh, but the body contains
          it; the body is Kasheh, but fear breaks it; fear is
          Kasheh, but wine dispels it; wine is Kasheh, but sleep
          negates its effect;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Death is more Kasheh than all of these, and
               'u'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Dostai b'Rebbi Yanai):</font></b> Hashem's ways are unlike
          people' ways!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one gives a big gift to a mortal king, he is
               unsure whether the king will accept it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even if he accepts it, the giver is not sure
               whether he will get to see the king.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One who gives a Perutah to Tzedakah receives the
               Divine Presence - 'b'Tzedek Echezeh Fanecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	R. Elazar would give a Perutah to Tzedakah before
          praying - 'b'Tzedek Echezeh Fanecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does the continuation mean - 'Esbe'ah
          v'Hakitz Temunasecha?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This refers to
          Chachamim, who deny themselves sleep in this world, and
          Hash-m is Masbi'a (satiates) them with His presence in
          the world to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Malve Hash-m Chonen Dal' - if not for
          the verse, it would be forbidden to say such a thing!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m considers Himself to be like a borrower
               (who is like a slave) to one who gives Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It says 'Lo Yo'il Hon b'Yom Evrah
          u'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves'; and 'Lo Yo'ilu Otzeros Resha
          u'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why must it mention two Tzedakos?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One saves from a harsh death, and one
               saves from judgment in Gehinom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Which saves from judgment in Gehinom?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The one about which it says 'Evrah' -
               'Yom Evrah ha'Yom ha'Hu'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Giving without knowing to whom he gives, in a
                    way that the receiver does not know from whom
                    he receives, saves (Tosfos - from judgment in
                    Gehinom, and even) from a harsh death.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS THE CHILDREN OF HASH-M</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The wicked Turnusrufus argued that the Jewish practice of supporting their poor was wrong. He likened the Jewish people to a person who feeds a king's slave after the king imprisoned him and ordered him not to be fed. Turnusrufus maintained that the Jewish people are slaves to the King, Hash-m, as the verse says, 'For the Jewish people are My slaves' (Vayikra 25:55). Turnusrufus argued that just as a human king who jailed his slave would not approve if someone else provided the slave with food, Hash-m does not approve when the Jewish people provide food to the poor, whom He afflicted with poverty. Rebbi Akiva argued that the Jewish people are not like slaves, but are like children of the King, as the verse says, 'You are children to Hash-m your G-d' (Devarim 14:1). Certainly, if a king imprisoned his son and ordered that his son not be fed, he would be happy if someone disobeyed him and fed his son anyway. Turnusrufus rejoined that the Jews are considered Hashem's children only when they do His will, but when they do not abide by His will they are considered His slaves and not His children. Rebbi Akiva answered that, nevertheless, the verse instructs, 'Distribute your bread to the hungry, and bring the poor, who are cast out, into your house' (Yeshayah 58:7). The verse tells the people to 'distribute your bread to the hungry' when the poor are 'cast out,' meaning even when they do not abide by the will of Hash-m.
</p><p>
How does Rebbi Akiva's response answer the claim of Turnusrufus that the Jews are called slaves when they do not do Hashem's will, and thus the King does not wish that they be fed?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that Rebbi Akiva meant that even when Hash-m is angry with the Jews, they are still considered His children, as the Gemara in Kidushin (36a, according to Rebbi Meir) says: even when they act destructively, they are still called 'Banim,' as the verse says, 'Banim Mashchisim' (Hoshea 2:1). Rebbi Akiva cited the verse of 'the poor, who are cast out' as further proof that Hash-m wants the Jewish people to support the poor.
</p><p>
However, it is only Rebbi Meir who maintains that the Jewish people are considered the children of Hash-m even when they sin. Rebbi Yehudah (in Kidushin 36a) argues and says that when they do not act like the children of Hash-m, they are not called His children. Why did Rebbi Akiva give an answer that is true only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir?
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> (in Teshuvos, cited by Rav Chanoch Henoch Karelenstein zt'l in <b>SEFER MAR'EI MEKOMOS</b>) says that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Meir and not that of Rebbi Yehudah in this regard. Hence, Rebbi Akiva answered Turnusrufus in accordance with the Halachah. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SEVERITY OF WITHHOLDING HELP FROM THE POOR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Papa was once ascending some steps and his foot slipped and he almost fell. He lamented that since he had nearly fallen to his death, he had almost met the fate of a person who desecrates Shabbos or worships Avodah Zarah, both of which are punished with Sekilah (which can be fulfilled by falling to one's death, as in Kesuvos 30b). Chiya bar Rav suggested to Rav Papa that perhaps a poor person had come to him and Rav Papa had not supported him, for Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah teaches that a person who ignores the needs of a poor person and does not support him is considered as though he worshipped Avodah Zarah. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah derives this from a Gezeirah Shavah.
</p><p>
What is the logic behind the comparison between worshipping Avodah Zarah and not helping a poor person?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> (9a, DH Shekulah) answers that when a person gives Tzedakah, he suffers no financial loss as a result because Hash-m will replenish his funds, as the verse states, 'The one who is gracious to the poor is considered to have lent money to Hash-m, and He will pay him back for his kindness' (Mishlei 19:17). Accordingly, when a person refrains from giving to the poor, it is because he has heretical thoughts; he thinks that there is no one who will replenish his lost funds. In that sense, he denies the power of Hash-m and worships the power of money.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd (in <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>) writes that when a person worships Avodah Zarah, he does so because he believes that the idol has the ability to benefit him or to harm him. Similarly, when a person refuses to give money to the poor, it is because he believes that the money has the power to benefit him and that if he has less money he will suffer. He thus shows that he believes that his welfare depends on money and not on Hash-m. In this way, he makes money the god in whom he trusts. In truth, however, 'Wealth will not help on the day of wrath' (Mishlei 11:4), and it will not save him from hardship or punishment if such is decreed upon him. On the contrary, when a person 'suffers' as a result of giving his money to the poor, he will be saved from suffering in other ways, as is demonstrated by the incident of the nephews of Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai. The same applies when a person does acts of Tzedakah with resources other than his money, such as with his body. If a person toils and exerts himself or suffers some disgrace in order to do an act of Tzedakah or a Mitzvah, he will thereby exempt himself from a decree of toil or shame from another source. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>INCOME AND EXPENDITURES ARE DECREED</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Shalom):</font></b> Just like one's income
               is decreed on Rosh Hashanah for the year, his losses
               for the year are decreed. If he merits, he will give
               them for Tzedakah. If not, Romi will take them -
               'v'Aniyim Merudim.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan Ben Zakai saw in a dream that his
               nephews would lose 700 Dinarim in the year. He
               pressed them to give Tzedakah, and induced them to
               give all but 17 of the 700. The night before Yom
               Kipur, the Kaiser's officers came. R. Yochanan
               assured them that they will take only the last 17
               Dinarim. He had not told them about the dream
               because he wanted them to give for the sake of the
               Mitzvah, without knowing that they were destined to
               lose the money anyway.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 149a:</font></b> Isar (a convert without heirs) had deposited
               12,000 Zuz with Rava. Isar was about to die, and he
               wanted to give them to his (biological) son Rav Mari
               (who was conceived before Isar converted). Mari was
               away learning. Rava remarked that Isar has no way to
               give the money to Mari!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Ika brei d'Rav Ami):</font></b> Isar can admit
               that the money belongs to Mari. Mari will acquire
               through Odisa (an admission, even if it is false)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Word spread that Isar made an Odisa. Rava was upset
               that people counsel others in a way that causes a
               loss to Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beitzah 15b (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Chedvas Hash-m Hi
               Ma'uzchem' - Hash-m tells Yisrael 'borrow to honor
               Yom Tov, and rely on Me to pay the debt.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Tachlifa - Beraisa):</font></b> One's income is fixed,
               excluding what he spends for Shabbos and Yom Tov and
               his children's Talmud Torah. If he decreases, they
               decrease for him. If he increases, they increase for
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shabbos 118a:</font></b> R. Akiva taught that one should make
               Shabbos Chol (and eat only two meals) rather than to
               take from others.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Beitzah 8b and 2:4):</font></b> 'Chedvas Hash-m
               Hi Ma'uzchem' - borrow to honor Yom Tov, and Hash-m
               will pay the debt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 30:7):</font></b> One need not pain
               himself to be Sho'el from others to honor Shabbos. 
               Chachamim taught that one should make Shabbos like a
               weekday rather than to need to take from others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Or Zaru'a (Drashah 20):</font></b> One should not say 'I cannot
               spend to honor Shabbos', for it says 'Lihyos ba'Shem
               Mivtachecha.' However, one should not spend more
               than his ability, like we say 'make your Shabbos
               like a weekday, so you will not need to take from
               others.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Me'iri (Beitzah 15b):</font></b> Chachamim said, tongue in
               cheek, that one's income is fixed, excluding what he
               spends for Shabbos and Yom Tov. However, one should
               be careful not to need to take from others - 'make
               your Shabbos like a weekday, so you will not need to
               take from others.' However, for Kidush ha'Yom (at
               night), even one who cannot afford (wine for) it
               must strive according to his ability. Hash-m says
               'borrow (relying) on Me for Kidush ha'Yom, and I
               will pay.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Menoras ha'Ma'or 8 (Kavod Shabbosos):</font></b> The Rosh
               expounded '<i>Shalem</i> (Shin Lamed Mem) Yeshalem' - if
               one spends excessively for <i>Sh</i>abbos, <i>L</i>imud
               (learning Torah) and <i>M</i>o'adim (festivals)', Hash-m
               pays him.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (OC 242):</font></b> Even if one needs financial
               assistance, if he has some money of his own, he must
               strive to honor Shabbos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Garsinan):</font></b> One who honors
                    Shabbos receives a boundless inheritance Midah
                    k'Neged Midah, for spending without limit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Aruch ha'Shulchan (44):</font></b> We say that one should
                    borrow and Hash-m will pay, i.e. if he has an
                    income. Therefore, even if now he lacks, he can
                    borrow and hope that Hash-m will enable him to
                    profit and pay back. If one has no income, we
                    say 'make your Shabbos like a weekday, and do
                    not take from others.' The Rambam says 'one
                    need not be Sho'el from others.' This can mean
                    to request a gift; or, it means requesting a
                    loan.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</font></b> 'Make Shabbos Chol rather
               than take Tzedakah' applies only if one is very
               pressed. Therefore, one should minimize his weekday
               expenditures in order to honor Shabbos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah Berurah (4):</font></b> One's income is fixed,
                    excluding what he spends for Seudos of Shabbos,
                    Yom Tov and Mitzvos, or to teach to his
                    children Torah. Regarding these, whatever he
                    spends will be returned to him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chazon Ish (CM 21 Likutim for Daf 149):</font></b> Why did
                    Rava complain that people's counsel causes a
                    loss to him? Income is fixed from Rosh
                    Hashanah, just one must engage in wordly
                    matters (Hishtadlus). A Chacham should not seek
                    to cause a loss to Rav Mari! Granted, had Isar
                    died (without an Odisa), Rava would not have
                    been obligated to give the money to Mari. If he
                    gave it, we do not say that Chachamim are
                    pleased with him (Tosfos DH Magmerei). Still,
                    why was he upset? Perhaps he wanted to use the
                    money for communal needs; he followed Rav
                    Huna's practice of fixing flimsy walls of poor
                    people, and buying vegetables that vendors did
                    not sell before Shabbos (Ta'anis 20b). Rav Mari
                    would not have objected, since the money went
                    for Tzedakah and Chesed, and Rav Mari himself
                    was rich.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Beis Lechem Yehudah (on Rema YD 249:1):
                    Calculation of Ma'aser is from Rosh Hashanah to
                    Rosh Hashanah. One cannot deduct a loss in one
                    year from earnings in another year.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chavos Ya'ir (224):</font></b> It is proper to calculate
                    on Erev Rosh Hashanah, for this is when income
                    is decreed.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> Ha'Rif (in EIn Yakov Bava Basra 10a Mezonosav):
                    Hash-m decrees how much one will lose, but not
                    in which way he will lose it. This is why R.
                    Yochanan pressured his nephews to give
                    Tzedakah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Anaf Yosef (ibid., DH Darish):</font></b> Beitzah 15b
                    expounds that one's income is fixed. We learn
                    that losses are fixed from the Yalkut (Behar),
                    which expounds 'Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha', that
                    your food is Parus (cut), i.e. already from
                    Rosh Hashanah it is decreed how much he will
                    earn and lose.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b></b>Beis ha'Levi (on Torah, Toldos DH v'Hinei):
                    Yitzchak blessed Esav 'mi'Shmanei ha'Aretz
                    Yihyeh Moshavecha.' This is like he blessed
                    Yakov! However, to Yakov he said 'Hash-m will
                    give to you.' This is the real Berachah. He
                    told Esav that he will receive from Yakov (when
                    Yakov does not merit to give Tzedakah, it goes
                    to Resha'im). This was a prophecy, not a
                    Berachah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Minchas Yitzchak (4:75 (3) DH v'Hinei):</font></b> A
                    craftsman is allowed to stop others from
                    offering the same service in his city, lest
                    they decrease his income. Really, they cannot
                    decrease it, for it was decreed on Rosh
                    Hashanah! Rather, when the Halachah allows him
                    to prevent others, this is his Hishtadlus, and
                    it is considered damage for the other to
                    compete. When he cannot prevent others, he need
                    not do such Hishtadlus, and the other is not
                    considered a damager.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ix. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ateres Paz (1 OC 6 DH v'Chen):</font></b> Food for days
                    other than Shabbos is fixed, i.e. dependent on
                    Mazel. Food for Shabbos is from Hash-m. Shamai
                    considered himself to be a Beinoni, therefore,
                    he designated the food for Shabbos, until he
                    found a better food for Shabbos, so what he ate
                    (even during the week) was not from Mazel,
                    rather, from Hash-m. Hillel served Lishmah,
                    which is above Mazel, so he did not need to do
                    so. Oters must do like Shamai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (419):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to increase
               the Seudah of Rosh Chodesh.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Tur:</font></b> It is brought in Pesikta (of Rav Kahana
                    28) that one's income is fixed, excluding what
                    he spends for Seudos of Shabbos, Yom Tov, Rosh
                    Chodesh, chhm, and what one's children bring to
                    their Rebbi's house.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Isa):</font></b> 'What one's children
                    bring to their Rebbi's house' refers to his
                    wages for teaching them, like it says in
                    Beitzah. Our Gemara does not mention
                    expenditures for Rosh Chodesh. We can say that
                    it is included in Yom Tov.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal (Prishah 1):</font></b> 'What one's children
                    bring to their Rebbi's house' does not connote
                    wages. Rather, it is gifts and food. Everything
                    that the Pesikta discusses refers to food.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (Sof ha'Siman):</font></b> The Pesikta is a support
                    for the custom that children bring money to
                    their Rebbeyim on Rosh Chodesh. One should not
                    annul the custom. It is the same whether one
                    does much or a little (as long as he intends
                    l'Shem Shamayim).
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>TAKING MONEY IN ORDER TO HONOR SHABBOS </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How can one give Tzedakah in this way?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He gives to the pouch of Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> To merit male
          children, one should distribute his money to the poor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, he should make his wife joyful
               before relations;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, one should not give a
               Perutah to the Tzedakah pouch unless the one
               appointed over it is as trustworthy as R. Chanina
               ben Tradyon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the counsel to give to the pouch of
          Tzedakah is when someone as trustworthy as R. Chanina ben
          Tradyon is appointed over it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE STATUS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TO COME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Avahu):</font></b> Moshe asked Hash-m what will glorify
          Yisrael. Hash-m answered 'Ki Sisa (every Yisrael will
          give a half-Shekel).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Avahu):</font></b> People asked Shlomo how great is the power
          of Tzedakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shlomo:</font></b> 'Pizar Nasan la'Evyonim Tzidkaso Omedes
               la'Ad'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> We may learn from 'Maromim
               Yishkon...(because) Lachmo Nitan'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Avahu):</font></b> People asked Shlomo ha'Melech who is
          (characterized as) a person of the world to come.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shlomo:</font></b> 'V'Neged Zekenav Kavod'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehoshua's son Yosef left this world and returned.
          He recounted what he saw.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yosef:</font></b> I saw an upside-down world. (Rich) people
               on top here are below there, and vice-versa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> What you saw is reality! How did
               Chachamim look?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yosef:</font></b> They are just as important as they are
               here;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They were saying 'happy is the one who comes to
                    the world to come and remembers his learning.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> They also said that no one else has a standing
               like those (who sanctified Hashem's name when)
               killed by the king.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To which people did this refer?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> It refers to R. Akiva and the other
                    (nine awesome) Chachamim killed by the king.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Even if they were not killed by
                    the king, no one could compare to them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, it referred to those killed in
               Lud. (Two brothers confessed to a false accusation
               that the king planned to use as a pretext to kill
               all the Yisraelim.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>TZEDAKAH OF NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Yochanan Ben Zakai) Question:</font></b> What is the
          meaning of 'Tzedakah Teromem Goy v'Chesed l'Umim Chatas'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Eliezer):</font></b> Tzedakah elevates Yisrael, but
          it is a sin for Nochrim, for they give only to aggrandize
          themselves;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> '(Daryavesh gave in order that) l'Chayei Malka
               u'Vnohi'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> One may give Tzedakah this way!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who says 'I give this Sela to
                    Tzedakah in order that my son should live', or
                    'in order that I will merit the world to come'
                    is a perfect Tzadik.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That is for Yisrael, but not for Nochrim
               (for if they do not get their request, they regret
               the whole matter).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua):</font></b> Tzedakah elevates Yisrael, but
          it is a sin for Nochrim, for they give only to prolong
          their reign;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Nevuchadnetzar gave in order that) 'v'Chata'ach
               b'Tzidkah Feruk (he will redeem his sin through
               Tzedakah)... Teheve Archah li'Shlevsach (and he will
               have serenity for a long time)';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (R. Gamliel):</font></b> Tzedakah elevates Yisrael, but
          it is a sin for Nochrim, for they give only to be
          haughty;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Every haughty person falls to Gehinom - 'Zed
               Yahir...b'Evras Zadon' ('Evras' refers to Gehinom,
               as above).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (R. Eliezer ha'Moda'ai):</font></b> Tzedakah elevates 
          Yisrael, but it is a sin for Nochrim, for they give only
          to revile Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (When Nevuzaradan (Nevuchadnetzar's chief
               executioner) released Yirmiyahu (or was zealous for
               Hash-m), he said) 'Ki Chatasem la'Shem.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #5 (R. Nechunya ben ha'Kaneh):</font></b> Tzedakah and
          Chesed elevate Yisrael, but they are a sin for Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yochanan Ben Zakai:</font></b> R. Nechunya's answer is the
          better than my answer and all of yours, for he explains
          that Tzedakah and Chesed refer to Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How did R. Yochanan Ben Zakai himself answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Beraisa - R. Yochanan Ben Zakai):</font></b> Just like a
          Chatas offering atones for Yisrael, Tzedakah atones for
          Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	The mother of Shevor Malka sent 400 Dinarim to R. Ami.
          He did not accept. She sent to Rava, and he accepted, for
          the sake of Shalom with the king.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Ami heard of this and was disturbed. Doesn't
               Rava agree that 'bi'Vosh Ketzirah Tishavarna (when
               the king's merits are used up, he will fall)'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava accepted for the sake of Shalom with the
               king.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Isn't R. Ami also concerned for Shalom
               with the king?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One could accept the money and give it to
               Nochrim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Indeed, Rava did so!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Ami did not hear that.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE UNIQUE PLACE IN 'OLAM HA'BA' OF THE 'HARUGEI MALCHUS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yosef brei d'Rav Yehoshua reported that he heard a declaration in the World of Truth that 'no one can stand in the place [in Olam ha'Ba] of the Harugei Malchus (those killed Al Kidush Hash-m).' The Gemara asks to whom the term 'Harugei Malchus' refers. It cannot refer to Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim who were murdered by the king, because even if they had not died Al Kidush Hash-m, they would have been beyond compare, and there would have been no need for the declaration to refer to them as 'Harugei Malchus.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that dying Al Kidush Hash-m certainly was not the only worthy thing that they did, and it is impossible that without it they were not deserving of a unique place in Olam ha'Ba. Rather, Rebbi Akiva and his colleagues were great in Torah and Mitzvos, and for that as well they were deserving of a unique place in Olam ha'Ba.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? Granted, Rebbi Akiva and his colleagues were great in Torah and Mitzvos, but perhaps this would not exclude others from being able to reach their place in Olam ha'Ba. Perhaps it was only the fact that they died Al Kidush Hash-m that gave them a unique place in Olam ha'Ba which no one else could reach.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>YOSEF DA'AS</b> quotes <b>RAV</b> A. <b>NEVENTZAL</b> who proves from this Gemara that greatness in Torah and Mitzvos is an achievement even greater than death Al Kidush Hash-m. Indeed, the Gemara in Megilah (16b) teaches that 'Talmud Torah is greater than Hatzalas Nefashos (saving lives),' and derives this principle from the fact that Mordechai ha'Tzadik was held accountable for interrupting his learning of Torah even in order to save the lives of the entire community. Similarly, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (18a) relates that when Rebbi Chanina ben Teradyon taught Torah even though the Romans had decreed a death sentence against anyone who does so (and, indeed, Rebbi Chanina ben Teradyon was ultimately tortured and killed for teaching Torah), Rebbi Yosi ben Kisma said, 'From your share [in Olam ha'Ba] I should have a part!' This implies that Rebbi Chanina ben Teradyon's reward for learning Torah was greater than the reward he received for dying Al Kidush Hash-m. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REWARD OF TZEDAKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Binyamin ha'Tzadik was appointed over the
          Kupah of Tzedakah. A woman came in time of famine and
          asked him to support her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Binyamin swore that there was no money in the
               Kupah. She said that she and her seven children will
               die if he does not support them. He supported them
               from his own money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Later, Binyamin fell sick and was about to die.
               The angels protested 'saving a single Yisrael is
               like saving an entire world. Binyamin saved eight
               souls, should he die young?!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Hash-m tore up the decree against him, and gave
               to him another 22 years.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> King Munbaz opened the storehouses of his
          ancestors in famine years to feed the poor. His family
          protested 'your fathers saved and increased the wealth
          their ancestors saved up, and you are squandering it!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Munbaz:</font></b> They stored up below, in a place where
               others might take it, and in a way that does not
               increase. I stored up above, in a place where no one
               can take it, and in a way that increases - 'Fri
               Ma'aleleihem Yochelu';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They stored money, for others, for this world. I
               stored souls, for myself, for the world to come.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If he bought a dwelling, he is considered a
          resident of the city immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Our Mishnah is not like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One who buys
               any land is considered a resident.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):
               One who buys land fitting for a dwelling is
               considered a resident.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Resolution:</font></b> Tana'im argue about the opinion of R.
               Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DIVIDING A CHATZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We divide a Chatzer only if each partner
          will get four Amos;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	We divide a field only if each will get the area
          fitting to sow nine Kavim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, it suffices if each gets half this
          amount.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	We divide a garden only if each will get the area to
          sow half a Kav;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	R. Akiva says, it suffices if each gets half this
          amount.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	We divide a salon, small tower, dovecote, garment,
          bathhouse, olive-press, or Beis ha'Shelachin (a field
          with a spring to irrigate it) only if each will get a
          fitting portion;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The general rule is, we divide only if each will
               get a portion that keeps the original name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	All these laws are when only one partner wants to
          divide. If both want to divide, they may always do so;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding Sefarim, even if both want to divide,
               they may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Gemara - Rav Asi):</font></b> The four Amos of the
          Mishnah are in addition to the four Amos in front of the
          doorways of the houses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa):</font></b> We divide a Chatzer only if
               each partner will get eight Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction:</font></b> Our Mishnah says four Amos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This confirms Rav Asi's law. Each must
               get four Amos in addition to the four Amos in front
               of his doorway.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - (Mishnah):</font></b> We divide a Chatzer only if
          each partner will get four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> We divide a Chatzer only if
          each partner will get eight Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> Each must get four Amos in addition
          to the four Amos in front of his doorway. (End of Version
          #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> When brothers dividing a Chatzer that they
          inherited, each gets a share proportional to the number
          of doorways he has that open into it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chisda):</font></b> Each gets four Amos for each opening. The
          rest is divided equally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for Rav Chisda - Beraisa):</font></b> Four Amos are given
          for each opening in a Chatzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven has one opening and Shimon has two,
               Reuven gets four Amos, Shimon gets eight Amos and
               the rest is divided equally.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven had an opening of eight Amos, he gets
               eight Amos next to it and an additional four Amos in
               the Chatzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does he get another four Amos?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa means, he gets an
               area eight Amos long and four Amos wide.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS THAT RECEIVE FOUR AMOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ameimar):</font></b> If Reuven has a hole in the Chatzer for
          storing pits (for animals to eat), he receives four Amos
          around it in the Chatzer in every direction.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if he did not have a fixed side from
               which he would cast pits into it. If he did, he gets 
               only four Amos in that direction.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 22 YEARS ADDED TO BINYAMIN HA'TZADIK'S LIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Binyamin ha'Tzadik saved the life of a woman and her seven sons by giving them Tzedakah from his own money when there was nothing left in the public charity funds. As a reward for his deed, a Divine decree against him was annulled and an additional 22 years were added to his life.
</p><p>
Why was Binyamin ha'Tzadik given specifically <i>22</i> extra years of life?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> explains that 22 years were added to Binyamin ha'Tzadik's life because, as the Gemara earlier (9b) teaches, a person who appeases and encourages a poor person is blessed with 11 blessings. Binyamin ha'Tzadik appeased the poor woman and her seven sons when he said that he wished with all his heart that he could help her, but the communal funds were depleted. He thereby appeased eight people (the woman and her seven sons) and thus was deserving of 88 blessings (11 X 8). The Chachamim teach (see Sotah 21a) that a blessing consists of three months of added life. 88 blessings times 3 months equals 264 months, or 22 years.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> writes that Binyamin ha'Tzadik was given an extra 22 years of life to correspond to the 22 letters with which the Torah is written, because he fulfilled the Torah's dictum, 'Whoever saves one life is considered to have saved an entire world.' (A similar reward of 22 years was granted to Rebbi Yosi, as the Zohar (Parshas Balak) relates.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains that Binyamin ha'Tzadik was rewarded not only for the eight actual lives that he saved, but also for the lives of their descendants. This is based on the words of <b>RASHI</b> in Bereishis (4:10), who explains that Kayin was punished not only for killing his brother, but also for preventing the existence of his brother's descendants ('Kol <i>Demei</i> Achicha Tzo'akim'). Each of the woman's seven sons would bear in the future at least two children (a boy and a girl) in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Hence, Binyamin ha'Tzadik saved the eight lives of the woman and her seven sons, plus the 14 lives of the children of the seven sons. For these 22 lives, Binyamin ha'Tzadik was rewarded in this world with 22 extra years of life. (See also the third explanation of the <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b>.)
</p><p>
(See also <b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b>, <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>, and <b>EINAYIM LA'MISHPAT</b>.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: FOUR AMOS -- NET OR GROSS?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a jointly-owned courtyard (Chatzer) cannot be divided among the partners unless each partner will receive, after the division, at least four Amos.
</p><p>
The Mishnah in the beginning of Bava Basra teaches that when the partners in a Chatzer decide to build a wall to divide the Chatzer between them, they build the wall in the middle. The width of the wall depends on the local custom.
</p><p>
Is the area occupied by the wall included in the minimum four Amos that each neighbor must receive, or must each neighbor receive four Amos <i>in addition</i> to the area of the wall? For example, in a place where the local custom is to build a wall six Tefachim (one Amah) wide, what is the minimum size of a Chatzer that can be divided? Must it be <i>nine</i> Amos (so that each neighbor will receive four Amos after he contributes a half-Amah for the wall), or is it sufficient for the area of the Chatzer to be only <i>eight</i> Amos, so that each neighbor will receive a gross area of four Amos (which includes the space he will contribute for the wall), even though each partner will receive only three and a half Amos after the wall is built?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>YAD RAMAH</b> (end of #136) rules that it is logical that each neighbor must receive four Amos <i>besides</i> the area on which the wall is built, because each neighbor must receive at least four Amos of <i>usable</i> Chatzer space. Therefore, each neighbor must receive at least four Amos <i>after</i> the area of the wall has been taken into account. (He brings proof for this assertion from Sukah 3b.) This is also the view of the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RITVA</b> (in Sukah there, printed in the Chidushei ha'Rashba) and the <b>TESHUVOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Shechenim #14). The <b>EINAYIM LA'MISHPAT</b> also infers from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shechenim 2:1) that this is the Halachah. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> also infers this from the words of the Mishnah itself.
</p><p>
A brilliant proof has been suggested in the name of <b>RAV YEHOSHUA LEIB DISKIN</b> zt'l, based on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> at the beginning of the Masechta (2a, DH b'Gevil). The Mishnah there states that in a place where the local custom is to build a wall with 'Gevil' bricks, each neighbor must contribute three Tefachim of space (so that the wall will be a total of six Tefachim wide). Tosfos asks why the Mishnah specifies that each of the two neighbors must contribute three Tefachim; it should say simply that where the custom is to build a wall with 'Gevil' bricks, the wall must be six Tefachim wide. Tosfos answers that if the Mishnah had said merely that the wall must be six Tefachim wide, then it might have been mistakenly interpreted to mean that each neighbor must contribute six Tefachim worth of bricks and space, so that the total width of the wall would be <i>twelve</i> Tefachim. In order to clarify its ruling, the Mishnah specifies that each person must contribute only three Tefachim, which indicates that the total width of the wall should be six Tefachim.
</p><p>
The Maharil Diskin proves from Tosfos that the area occupied by the wall does not count toward the minimum area that each neighbor must receive. He explains as follows. Suppose, hypothetically, that the wall that must be built between the two neighbors' courtyards had to be 24 Tefachim, or 4 Amos, wide. If the width of the wall <i>is</i> included in the minimum area that each neighbor must receive upon dividing the Chatzer, then the Mishnah would state simply that the neighbors must build a wall that is 24 Tefachim wide, and it would be clear that each neighbor must contribute 12 Tefachim of space. The Mishnah would not need to state explicitly that each neighbor must contribute 12 Tefachim, because there would be no room for error; if the Mishnah would state that the wall must be 24 Tefachim wide, it would have to mean that the <i>total</i> must be 24 Tefachim and not that each person must contribute 24 Tefachim (for a wall with a total width of 48 Tefachim). If each person must contribute 24 Tefachim, then in a Chatzer of the minimum size each neighbor would receive <i>no</i> courtyard space whatsoever (since the Mishnah here states that each neighbor must receive a minimum of 4 Amos, which is 24 Tefachim).
</p><p>
It follows that if the wall had to be only 12 Tefachim wide (which is included in the area that each neighbor must receive), the Mishnah would state simply that the neighbors must build a wall with a width of 12 Tefachim, and it would be clear that each neighbor contributes 6 Tefachim of space. The Mishnah could not be misinterpreted to mean that each neighbor must contribute 12 Tefachim (for a wall of a total width of 24 Tefachim), because if the Mishnah meant that the wall must be 24 Tefachim wide, then it would state simply that the neighbors must build a wall of 24 Tefachim, and it would be clear that each neighbor contributes 12 Tefachim, as mentioned above (i.e. there would be no room to err and think that the Mishnah means that <i>each</i> neighbor is to contribute 24 Tefachim).
</p><p>
Taking this one step further, if the wall had to be six Tefachim wide (which, in fact, is the Halachah in a place where the custom is to build with 'Gevil'), then the Mishnah could state simply that the neighbors must build a wall that is 6 Tefachim wide, and it would be clear that each neighbor contributes 3 Tefachim of space. The Mishnah would not need to state explicitly that each neighbor contributes 3 Tefachim, because there would be no room for error. When the Mishnah states that the wall must be 6 Tefachim wide, there would be no reason to interpret it to mean that <i>each</i> neighbor contributes 6 Tefachim (for a wall of a total width of 12 Tefachim), because if that were true, then the Mishnah would say clearly that the wall must be 12 Tefachim wide (which, in turn, could not be misunderstood to mean that each one must contribute 12 Tefachim, as mentioned above).
</p><p>
It is clear, therefore, that if the area occupied by the wall counts toward the four Amos of each of the neighbors, then it would not be possible to misinterpret the Mishnah at the beginning of Bava Basra as meaning that each neighbor must contribute 6 Tefachim for a wall of Gevil. Therefore, from the fact that Tosfos says that the Mishnah is open to this sort of misinterpretation, it is clear that the wall is <i>not</i> included in the minimum area that each neighbor must receive in order to divide the Chatzer. Hence, in order to teach that the wall's width must be a total of 6 Tefachim, the Mishnah must state explicitly that each person must give 3 Tefachim. Extrapolating to the above hypothetical cases, this would mean that if the wall had to be a total of 12 Tefachim wide, then the Mishnah would have said that each neighbor contributes 6 Tefachim. If the wall had to be a total of 24 Tefachim wide, then the Mishnah would have said that each neighbor contributes 12 Tefachim. The Mishnah would not have said simply that a wall of 24 Tefachim must be built, because such a statement might have been interpreted to mean that each person must contribute 24 Tefachim -- or 4 Amos -- of space. This interpretation is possible only if the space that is used to build the wall is <i>not</i> included in the minimum Chatzer area (i.e. 4 Amos) that each neighbor receives, because otherwise the neighbors would not receive any usable Chatzer space.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN ONE FORCE HIS PARTNER TO ACCEPT AN UNEVEN DIVISION?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> We divide a Chatzer only if each partner
               will get four Amos, and a field only if each will
               get enough area to sow nine Kavim. We divide a
               salon, small tower, dovecote, garment, bathhouse,
               olivepress, or Beis ha'Shelachin (an irrigated
               field) only if each will get enough (to be called
               this). The rule is, we divide only if each will get
               a portion that keeps the original name.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> All these laws are when only one partner wants to
               divide. If both want to divide, they may always do
               so;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 13a - Question:</font></b> If it (a Chatzer, field...) is too
               small for each partner to get a proper share (that
               keeps its name), what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Gud O Agud' applies. (A
               partner can set a price and say 'buy my share for
               this price, or I will buy your share for this
               price.')
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'Gud O Agud' does not
               apply.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> The rule
               is, we divide only if each will get enough. If not,
               we estimate its value (and apply Gud O Agud).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not we apply
               Gud O Agud:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Levi may tell his partner Yehudah
                    'take a proper share, and I will take (the
                    rest, even though it is) less than this;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Yehudah can
                    protest.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Question:</font></b> If we understand the Beraisa simply,
                    what is R. Shimon's reason?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa is abbreviated.
                    It means as follows: Levi can say 'take a
                    proper share, and I will take less.' Also, Levi
                    can say 'Gud O Agud'. R. Shimon ben Gamliel
                    says, he cannot say 'Gud O Agud.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (and Answer #2):</font></b> The Beraisa is like the
               simple reading. R. Shimon says that Yehudah can
               protest 'I have no money to compensate you for the
               larger portion, nor do I want to take it for a gift
               - 'v'Sonei Matanos Yichyeh'!'
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rif (8b) The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel,
               for his reasoning is proper.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (1:50):</font></b> R. Chananel says that some say that the
               Halachah follows the first Tana who argues with R.
               Shimon ben Gamliel. Since we follow a majority
               against an individual, our own reasoning should not
               override this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (CM 171:9):</font></b> The Rif (Bava Basra 81a)
                    holds that the rule that the Halachah always
                    follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah
                    (with only three exceptions) is only when there
                    is a reason. This is why he needed to say that
                    his reasoning is proper. Tosfos (Bava Metzia
                    69a DH Ela) holds that this rule applies even
                    to Beraisos, and only to Mishnayos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Rebuttal #1 (Hagahos ha'Gra Bava Metzia 69a 6):
                    The Rif (Bava Basra 81a) teaches that the
                    Halachah does <i>not</i> follow this rule
                    (therefore, we rule like R. Shimon ben Gamliel
                    only if there is a reason).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal #2 (R. Akiva Eiger):</font></b> The Nimukei Yosef
                    (63b DH Aval) says that even though the rule
                    'R. Eliezer ben Yakov's teachings are clean'
                    (the Halachah follows always him) is even in
                    Beraisos, the rule 'the Halachah always follows
                    R. Shimon ben Gamliel <i>b'Masnisin</i>...' is only
                    for Mishnayos. Shabbos 21a supports this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> In Shabbos 21a, Rabah assumes that the
                    Halachah follows the first Tana against R.
                    Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa. Abaye said
                    that we follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for his
                    opinion was followed in practice. The Shach
                    said that the Rif holds that the rule applies
                    only when there is a reason! Perhaps R. Akiva
                    Eiger brings a proof from other Rishonim (who
                    do not require a reason) that the rule applies
                    only to Mishnayos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 1:5):</font></b> If there is not
               enough for each to get a proper share, and Levi said
               'let us divide this way. Even though the shares are
               unequal, I will take the smaller, and you will take
               the bigger', we do not heed him. Yehudah can say 'I
               do not want to take a gift.' Rather, since the law
               is that we do not divide it, we evaluate it (and
               Yehudah buys or sells all of it).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Lechem Mishneh):</font></b> The Gemara said that
                    he cannot force one who has no money to take a
                    gift. The Rambam discusses when Yehudah has
                    money (for he concludes that we evaluate it).
                    If so, why can Yehudah say 'I do not want to
                    take a gift'? If he does not want a gift, he
                    can buy it!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Merkeves ha'Mishnah):</font></b> Indeed, if
                    Yehudah offered to buy a share, he cannot
                    refuse to pay and refuse to take a gift. In the
                    Beraisa, he said 'I agree to spend money only
                    for all of it, but not just for a share.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (ibid):</font></b> The Gemara challenged R. Shimon ben
               Gamliel, and needed to say that the Beraisa is
               abbreviated, for it was unreasonable that he would
               argue with the first Tana. The Gemara gave a weak
               answer. It is totally unreasonable that the Halachah
               follows this. If he said 'take a Shi'ur (of the
               object) for money (pay me its value above what will
               remain for me' we do not heed him. This is like one
               who can sell, but cannot buy (for he demands to
               receive money). Also if he 'take a Shi'ur for money,
               and I will take (what remains, which is) less than a
               Shi'ur', or 'you take less, and I will take a
               Shi'ur' we do not heed him. This is unlike Gud O
               Agud, for there both choices are proper and fair to
               both. Offering 'take less' is improper, for less
               than a Shi'ur is useless.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> R. Yonah says that if he offered 'take a
               Shi'ur for money, and I will take less, or I will
               (Piplulei Charifta 1 - take a Shi'ur for money, and
               you will take less, or I will) take everything for
               money', even though he does not give to his partner
               an option to buy everything, we heed him. Had he
               said 'take everything for money, or I will take
               everything for money', we would heed him. Now also
               that he offered 'take a Shi'ur for money', we heed
               him, for he can say 'if you want to buy from my
               portion, buy until you have a Shi'ur. That suffices
               for you. Why must you buy my entire portion? If you
               do not want to buy, I will buy everything. If you
               want, you may keep less than a Shi'ur.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramban (13b DH v'Gud, brought in Beis Yosef CM 171
               DH v'Chosav):</font></b> Rashi explains that the first Tana
               holds that one may say Gud O Agud, i.e. he does not
               pardon anything. Buy my share, or I will buy yours.
               It seems that he holds that if one said 'take three
               Amos (in the Chatzer), and I will (take the
               remaining four and) give compensation (money) to
               you, or take four and give money to me', this is Gud
               O Agud. Some disagree, for three if useless. He can
               say 'I do not have money, and I do not want to
               split, for three is not suitable for living.' This
               is proper reasoning.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh (Hilchos Shechenim 1:5):</font></b> Some
                    (explain like R. Yonah, and) say that Gud O
                    Agud is even when the entire matter is too
                    small to be useful. The Ramban agrees.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 171:10):</font></b> If the law is that
               something is not divided (for it is too small), and
               one said 'let us make two shares. One is a proper
               size, and the other is small. I will take the
               smaller, and you will take the bigger', and pay me 
               its value above the smaller, he cannot force his
               partner. Even if he says 'take the bigger share for
               a gift', the other can say 'I do not want to take a
               gift.' Some disagree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Ela):</font></b> The Beraisa supports Rav
                    Yehudah. The Gemara said that Tana'im argue
                    about this to be Docheh, but this is not really
                    so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Mordechai (509)
                    says that R. Chananel rules like the first Tana
                    regarding a gift (when he offers 'take the
                    bigger share for free), but not for a sale
                    (when he demands compensation for it), for Gud
                    O Agud does not apply when the buyer does not
                    get something useful. The first Tana says that
                    we heed him only regarding a gift. Ba'al
                    ha'Itur rules like the first Tana even
                    regarding a sale. He explains that R. Shimon
                    ben Gamliel disagrees (about a sale) because he
                    disagrees with Gud O Agud. Since we conclude
                    that Gud O Agud applies, the Halachah follows
                    the first Tana. Also Rabbeinu Meir rules like
                    the first Tana.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>SMA (24):</font></b> Those who disagree hold that 'v'Sonei
                    Matanos Yichyeh' does not apply when the giver
                    wants to give to help himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If he said 'take the bigger
               share for its value, and I will take the smaller, or
               I will take the bigger for its value, and you will
               take the smaller, and if you do not want the small,
               I will buy everything', we heed him, even though he
               does not give his partner an option to buy
               everything.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (23):</font></b> All agree in this case.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Nimtza):</font></b> If he said 'take the
                    bigger share for its value, and I will take the
                    smaller, or I will take the bigger for its
                    value, and you will take the smaller' (without
                    offering to buy everything), only Rashi says
                    that the partner must accept one of these.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>GUD O AGUD </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


