# dafyomi

lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> An Achsadra (an enclosure with three walls)
          does not receive four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Four Amos are given in order to unload an animal
               near the house. One can bring an animal into an
               Achsadra, so four Amos are not needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> Four Amos are given
          for a gate of a house or Achsadra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> That refers to an Achsadra of Bei Rav (it is
          surrounded by four walls with windows).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> That is a proper room. Obviously, it gets
          four Amos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, it refers to a Roman Achsadra. (The
          walls are low, and they do not reach to the ceiling.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Four Amos are given for a porch, Achsadra or
          balcony;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If five houses open into a balcony that has a
               single entrance to the Chatzer, they only get a
               total of four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Does one get four Amos for a
          chicken coop?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yanai):</font></b> No. The reason for four Amos is for
          unloading. Chickens can climb over the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> If only half of a house has a ceiling,
          are four Amos given for it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> No. This is not only if the
          ceiling is on the inside, for then one can unload through
          the exposed part;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, even if the ceiling is on the outside,
               one can take the animal to the exposed part to
               unload.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>PARTNERS IN A CHATZER OR MAVOY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy (alleyway)
          wanted to open his house to another Mavoy, can the other
          people of the Mavoy stop him?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> They can stop him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Rashi - Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> If people of
          the city must house soldiers, is the obligation shared
          according to the number of people, or according to the
          number of openings in the house?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Tosfos - Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a caravan
          passes by and leaves manure, do we divide it according to
          the number of people (each gets an equal share), or
          according to the number of openings to the Chatzer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> It is according to the number of
          people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Rashi - Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Manure is
          divided according to the number of openings. Soldiers are
          quartered according to the number of people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Tosfos - Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Manure (of the
          animals of people of the Chatzer) is divided according to
          the number of openings. Manure from a caravan is divided
          according to the number of people. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy wanted to close his
          opening to the Mavoy, the people of the Mavoy can stop
          him, for this would increase the amount they must walk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If five Chatzeiros are open to a
          Mavoy (that is closed on one end, and the other end is
          open to the Reshus ha'Rabim), people of each Chatzer are
          allowed to use the part of the Mavoy from their entrance
          and outwards, but they may not go towards the closed end.
          (Clearly, the outer Chatzeiros cannot protest if an inner
          Chatzer wants to close its entrance, for they have no
          right to go there!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this matter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy wants
               to open his house to another Mavoy, the other people
               of the Mavoy can stop him;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he once had an opening to another Mavoy and
                    closed it, they cannot stop him from re-opening
                    it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, if five Chatzeiros are
               open to a Mavoy, each can use the part near the
               others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Rebbi did not discuss this case. Why
               does R. Shimon ben Elazar discuss it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as
               follows: (Rebbi also says that) if five Chatzeiros
               are open to a Mavoy, people of each Chatzer are
               allowed to use the part of the Mavoy from their
               entrance and outwards, but they may not go inwards;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, all may use every part
               of the Mavoy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If he once had an opening to another
          Mavoy and closed it, they cannot stop him from re-opening
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> This is only if he did not remove the doorposts
          and lintel, but if he did, the others can stop him.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) BRING THE DONKEY INTO THE HOUSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (11a) teaches that when a jointly-owned Chatzer is divided among the owners of the houses that open into it, each owner receives an additional four Amos of space for every doorway of his house, in order to give him a place to unload his donkey. Rav Huna rules that an 'Achsadrah' (a structure that is covered by a roof but is not entirely enclosed by walls), however, does not receive this area of four Amos. Since it is not enclosed by walls, the owner can bring the donkey into the Achsadrah itself and unload it there.
</p><p>
Why does the case of an Achsadrah differ from the case of a doorway that is eight Amos wide? The Gemara earlier (11a) quotes a Beraisa which teaches that a doorway that is eight Amos wide receives an area of <i>eight</i> Amos (by four Amos) in the Chatzer. According to Rav Huna, why should a doorway of eight Amos be given an area of eight Amos for the purpose of unloading a donkey? After all, Rav Huna maintains that an owner is not granted extra space to unload a donkey when it is possible to bring the donkey indoors. A doorway that is eight Amos wide, therefore, should receive only four Amos, like every other doorway, and the owner should have to bring the donkey into the doorway and unload it there. (<b>RA'AVAD</b> cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The <b>RA'AVAD</b> answers that a doorway that is eight Amos wide has doors along that width which will impede the unloading of the donkey and damage the merchandise. Also, the ceiling is low and it is difficult to unload the donkey there. Because of the doors and the low ceiling, the owner is not required to bring his donkey into the doorway to unload it. In contrast, an Achsadrah has no doors, and thus the owner is required to bring his donkey into the Achsadrah and unload it there.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> challenges the Ra'avad's answer. The Gemara says that when a house has half of a roof, even when the roof is on the outer side of the house (adjacent to the Chatzer) the owner is not given an extra four Amos for the doorway of that house because he can bring his donkey into the inner part of the house to unload it there. This contradicts the Ra'avad's answer, because in that case, too, there are two problems -- the doors and the low ceiling -- and yet the owner still is expected to bring his donkey into the house.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that the difference between a house with a wide doorway and an Achsadrah is that the entire fourth side of the Achsadrah is completely open with no wall (this follows the definition of Achsadrah as given by the <b>RA'AVAD</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hacha), in contrast to the definition of <b>RASHI</b> who says that an Achsadrah has no walls at all). Since an Achsadrah is completely open on one side, the owner does not leave any objects of value there for lengthy periods of time. Therefore, it is easy for the owner to bring his donkey into the Achsadrah and unload it there, because there are no objects there that would impede his activities. In contrast, a normal house contains all of the objects that are normally used in a house, and thus it is not possible to bring one's donkey into the house to unload it there, even if the house has a larger doorway. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CLOSING OPENINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> A sealed house (i.e. the
          opening was sealed) receives four Amos when dividing a
          Chatzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he removed the doorposts and lintel, it does
               not receive four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If Tum'as Mes is inside a sealed house, only the
          (interior and) doorway becomes Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he removed the doorposts and lintel, all
               around the house is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> If Mavo'os are open to a road
          leading to another city, and people of this city want to
          close them, people of the other city can stop them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not only if there is no other path
               between the cities. Rather, it is even if there is
               another path, due to Rav Yehudah's law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may not ruin a path that the
               public has been using.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Anan):</font></b> If a Mavoy is open to the Reshus ha'Rabim,
          and people of the Mavoy want to put doors there, people
          of the city can stop them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Assumption:</font></b> This is forbidden only within four Amos of
          the Reshus ha'Rabim, due to R. Zeira's law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Zeira):</font></b> The four Amos adjacent to the Reshus
               ha'Rabim are like the Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No. R. Zeira discusses what is considered a
          Reshus ha'Rabim regarding Safek Tum'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Anan's law is because sometimes the Reshus
               ha'Rabim is crowded and people enter the Mavoy, even
               past four Amos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SHARE THAT EACH PARTNER MUST GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We divide a field only if each will get (an
          area fitting to sow) nine Kavim. (R. Yehudah says, it
          suffices if each gets half this amount.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	The Tana'im do not argue. Each discusses the smallest
          area considered a field in his region.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the Halachah in Bavel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is the amount one plows in a
          day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To which plowing does he refer?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it is Zara (plowing at the time of sowing,
                    which is easier than Karva, when the field is
                    unseeded), then Karva will takes more than one
                    day but less than two days! (It is wasteful if
                    one must hire workers or rent animals for part
                    of a day.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If it is Karva, then Zara will take less
                    than one day (which is wasteful, like above)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1- Answer #1:</font></b> (Zara takes one day.) He
               discusses a place where they plow and re-plow when
               doing Karva, so this takes two days. (Rashi; Tosfos
               - in any place, the remainder of the second day of
               Karva can be spent re-plowing, it is not wasteful.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, the ground is hard, Zara
               and Karva require the same amount of time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 - Rashi - Answer #1:</font></b> (Zara takes one
               day); the case is, the ground is hard, so it takes
               two full days for Karva;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> He refers to a place where they plow
               and re-plow when doing Zara, so Zara and Karva
               require the same amount of time. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If the field is irrigated from
          a pit, each must get a share that requires one day for
          irrigation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel's father):</font></b> When dividing an orchard, each must
          get (an area fitting to sow) three Kavim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa - Sumchus):</font></b> If one says 'I sell
               to you a portion in a vineyard', he must give three
               Kavim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, this has no basis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the law in Bavel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava bar Kisna):</font></b> Each must give three groups of
          12 trees, this requires a full day to hoe.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REMNANTS OF PROPHECY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Avdimi of Cheifah):</font></b> After the Churban, prophecy
          was taken from the Nevi'im and given to Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> Are Chachamim unfit to be Nevi'im?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He means, even though prophecy was taken from
          the Nevi'im, it was not taken from Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ameimar):</font></b> A Chacham is better than a Navi - 'v'Navi
          Levav Chachmah';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We attribute a smaller matter to a greater matter
               (i.e. a Navi has a smaller heart than a Chacham).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support #1 (Abaye):</font></b> We see that Chachamim still have
          prophecy. Different Chachamim often (independently) say
          the same Halachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rava):</font></b> That is no proof of prophecy. Perhaps
          they have the same Mazal (therefore, they reach the same
          Halachah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, we learn from the fact that
          a Chacham sometimes says something that R. Akiva taught
          (we cannot attribute this to having the same Mazal. R.
          Akiva was much greater!)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'NAVI' WHO WAS NOT A 'CHACHAM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav Avdimi d'Min Chaifah who said that 'from the time that the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, Nevu'ah was taken from the prophets and given to the Chachamim.' The Gemara asks that the Chachamim certainly had Nevu'ah before the Churban. The Gemara explains that Rav Avdimi meant that even though Nevu'ah was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Chachamim. <b>RASHI</b> explains that Nevu'ah was taken from the prophets who were not Chachamim, and it was left with the prophets who were Chachamim.
</p><p>
How can Rashi suggest that there were prophets who were not Chachamim? The Gemara in Nedarim (38a) states clearly that one of the four qualifications of a prophet is that he must be a Chacham (see also Shabbos 92a). (<b>RAMBAN</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> cites some who answer that when the Gemara in Nedarim lists four characteristics necessary for a person to be a prophet, it refers only to a prophet who receives Nevu'ah constantly, with the Shechinah resting upon him without interruption. There are prophets, however, who receive occasional visions of prophecy for limited purposes. Such Nevu'ah can come even to a person who does not have the qualifications mentioned in the Gemara in Nedarim.
</p><p>
The Ramban himself, though, writes that he is not satisfied with this answer.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> therefore gives a different explanation for the Gemara. He asserts that all Nevi'im certainly were Chachamim, as the Gemara in Nedarim says. When the Gemara here says that Nevu'ah was taken away from the prophets but not from the Chachamim, it means that the Nevu'ah of the sort that comes to a person in a prophetic vision was taken away, but not the type of Nevu'ah that a person has through Chochmah, wisdom. Even though they no longer are able to have prophetic visions, the Chachamim are still able to achieve knowledge of the truth through the Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that rests upon them. (See also <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> and <b>YA'AVETZ</b> here.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>KOFIN AL MIDAS SEDOM</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'> 12b:</font></b> Reuven bought land bordering his father's land.
               His father died, and Reuven requested the portion
               bordering the land he bought.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> In a case like this, Kofin Al Midas Sedom
               (we force one to benefit others (in this case,
               Reuven) if he himself will not lose).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> His brothers can say 'that
               land is (worth more,) like Bar Meryon's land.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> If there are two fields, and each borders
               on a river, Kofin Al Midas Sedom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Perhaps one river will dry
               up! Shimon can demand half of each field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If both fields border on the same
               river, Kofin Al Midas Sedom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye):</font></b> Shimon can say 'I prefer (that
               your fields be disconnected, so you will need) more
               sharecroppers' (so my property will be guarded
               better)!'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef. We do not honor such
               a request.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif (8a) brings our Gemara.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 12:1):</font></b> If brothers or
               partners came to divide a field, and it was all the
               same quality, and Reuven said 'give to me my share
               near the other field that I own, so I will have a
               connected field', we heed him. It would be Midas
               Sedom for the other to refuse. However, if one
               portion was better or closer to the river or the
               road than the other, and they evaluated its value
               above the others, and he asked to receive it, we do
               not heed him. Rather, they divide through a lottery.
               If he said 'give to me half the area on the bad side
               near my field without compensation, and you take the
               good half', some Ge'onim say that we heed him. I
               agree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (1:46):</font></b> If Reuven requested to inherit his
               share of his father's property bordering land that
               he previously bought, Rav Yosef said 'the brothers
               can say 'that land is like Bar Meryon's land.''
               Rashi explains that it was Sedeh ha'Ba'al (rain
               suffices for it). Sometimes, one such field prospers
               more than another. Rashi said so, for later Rav
               Yosef needed to give a different reason (perhaps the
               river will dry up). Rashi concluded that all
               irrigated fields are the same, but one Sedeh
               ha'Ba'al can prosper more than another, e.g. the
               rain flows from one to the other. This is difficult,
               for also regarding irrigated fields, sometimes the
               crops in one field are blasted, and another field is
               not stricken! R. Tam explains that they can evaluate
               the property like land of Bnei Meryon, who were rich
               and sold only for a high price. This is not Midas
               Sedom, for if the lottery will award the adjacent
               field to the other brothers, they may say 'we will
               trade with you only for great compensation.' Also
               before the lottery, they need not pardon their
               opportunity to get the adjacent field. Rabah says
               that we force due to Midas Sedom, since the adjacent
               field is worth more only (to Reuven,) because it
               borders Reuven's field. The Halachah follows Rav
               Yosef. R. Yonah says that if the brothers claim an
               inflated value for the adjacent field, if Reuven is
               clever, he will decrease from their price and say 'I
               will take it for this price, or you will.' They will
               not want to do so, and he will get it for a slightly
               higher price. Accepting a field for more always
               overrides division through lottery. When brothers
               come to divide through lottery, one can say 'I will
               pay extra for this share. You may have it for this
               price, or I will take it for this price, without a
               lottery.' The Ra'avad agrees, for all gain through
               this. Some explain 'they evaluate like Bar Meryon's
               property' in this way. They do not intend to pay the
               extra, just to make Reuven pay extra. I say that
               'Iluy' (added estimation) refers to inflating the
               price without reason, just because the portion is
               dear to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (47):</font></b> R. Tam explains that the case of two
               fields, each of which borders on a river, does not
               refer to when Reuven owns an adjacent field. Rather,
               Shimon and Levi come to divide two fields. Shimon
               wants to get half of each field, and Levi wants one
               entire field. Rabah says that it is Midas Sedom not
               give an entire field to each, assuming that both are
               the same quality. Rav Yosef disagrees, for perhaps
               one river will dry up. (Shimon wants security that
               he will have some fertile land.) Inflating the price
               does not apply here, for neither owns an adjacent
               field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (ibid):</font></b> When both fields border on the same
               river, Rav Yosef says that Kofin Al Midas Sedom.
               Abaye said that one can say 'I prefer to increase
               sharecroppers; the Halachah does not follow him. R.
               Yonah derives that Rav Yosef needed to mention Midas
               Sedom. The primary law of division is <i>not</i> that
               each gets a whole field. Rather, each gets half of
               each. Abaye says that he can say that he wants more
               sharecroppers, because the primary law of division
               is to split each field; it is not Midas Sedom to
               demand this, because he benefits through this. If
               the primary law of division were that each gets a
               whole field, Abaye would not say that he can demand
               two halves to increase sharecroppers!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Maimoniyos (Sof Sefer Kinyan, Teshuvah
                    37):</font></b> According to Rashi, if they divide houses,
                    we cannot say that one house will prosper more
                    than another, so Reuven receives near his
                    property. It is a Safek whether the Halachah
                    follows Rashi or R. Tam, so Reuven cannot force
                    them to give him a share near his property.
<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 (174:1):</font></b> If brothers or partners came
               to divide a field, and it was all the same quality,
               and one of them said 'give to me my share near the
               other field that I own', so I will have a connected
               field, we heed him. It would be Midas Sedom for the
               other to refuse.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH V'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> Teshuvas
                    ha'Rosh (96:2) prefers Rashi's explanation.
                    According to R. Tam, Rabah is more reasonable
                    (the Halachah should follow him)! Since the
                    only reason he wants the other field is to
                    force Reuven to pay more, this is Midas Sedom.
                    If not, why do we ever force due to Midas
                    Sedom? He loses money that he could demand from
                    the other to allow him to benefit! Rather, in
                    such cases we force. Also, the Sugya connotes
                    like Rashi. When it says 'if each field borders
                    a river...', this connotes that we refer to
                    what was discussed above. Even though an
                    irrigated field can be blasted, it is rare that
                    one is blasted more than another. It is common
                    for rain to descend to one part of the field,
                    and it prospers more than the other half. Also
                    my Rebbi says so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Rambam rules like
                    Rabah! It seems that the Rambam holds like the
                    Ramban and Rosh say in the name of Ge'onim,
                    that 'inflating the price like Bar Meryon's
                    land' means 'accept this increased price, or
                    let us have it for this.' Rav Yosef argues only
                    when he inflates the price. However, the Rambam
                    does not discuss this. Rather, he holds that
                    whenever the lands are equal, all agree that
                    Kofin Al Midas Sedom to give Reuven near his
                    land. Rav Yosef argued only in a case of two
                    rivers, when there is a reason to object. We do
                    not know that land on one river is better than
                    the other, but it is plausible, so we are
                    concerned for it. However, if the case of two
                    rivers explains the previous case, why did the
                    Gemara need to rule like Rav Yosef in both
                    cases? Perhaps after it ruled like Rav Yosef,
                    it explained that this is when the fields are
                    on two rivers, for if not, Rav Yosef agrees.
                    Or, in the Rambam's text, the Gemara rules like
                    Rav Yosef only once. We can say that his text
                    rules like Rav Yosef only regarding two rivers.
                    When they border on one river, this is like
                    equal lands, and the Halachah follows Rabah,
                    even though it is possible that one of them
                    will be more fertile than the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that we do not force him. Rather, he
               must inflate the price until his partners consent.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (4):</font></b> This is like R. Tam.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that it is a Safek, and Kol d'Alim
               Gevar (whoever overpowers will take it).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (2):</font></b> First they make a lottery. If Reuven
                    gets near his field, this is fine. If not,
                    Shimon did not yet merit the adjacent field.
                    Rather, Kol d'Alim Gevar, for perhaps the
                    Halachah follows Rashi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> However, if one portion was
               better or closer to the river or the road than the
               other, and they evaluated its value above the
               others, and he asked to receive his estimation, we
               do not heed him. Rather, they divide through a
               lottery. If he said 'give to me half the area on the
               bad side near my field (without compensation), and
               you take the good half', we heed him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (7):</font></b> When it says '(he requested) his
                    estimation', this means his portion. The Rambam
                    says that one can refuse to take a gift, for
                    'one who hates gifts will live.' If so, he
                    should be able to say 'I do not want the good
                    half for free, nor can I pay for it!' However,
                    here it is not called a gift, for his partner
                    prefers the bad half because it is close to his
                    other field.
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>A PATH THAT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN USING </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> That is no proof. Perhaps
          regarding that teaching, they have the same Mazal!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, we learn from the fact
          that a Chacham sometimes says a Halachah that is a
          tradition from Moshe from Sinai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps he merely guessed the law!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> When he gives a reason, we cannot say he merely
          guessed. (Rather, we must say that he Hash-m helped him
          reach the Halachah, akin to prophecy.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> After the Churban, prophecy was taken
          from the Nevi'im and given to lunatics and children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case of lunatics with prophecy?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is like the following.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Mar bar Rav Ashi was in the market; he heard a
               lunatic saying that the (new) head of the academy in
               Masa Machsiya signs his name 'Tavyumi' (this is how
               Mar bar Rav Ashi used to sign; he realized that
               Hash-m wanted him to be the head). He headed there;
               before he arrived, the Rabanan voted that Rav Acha
               mi'Difti would be the head. When they heard that Mar
               bar Rav Ashi was coming, they sent two messengers to
               ask his opinion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Mar bar Rav Ashi detained the messengers; they
               sent two more, and Mar bar Rav Ashi kept detaining
               them until there were ten; he then started
               expounding (and they chose him to be the head).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He waited for ten, for we do not teach laws at
                    Kalah with less than ten Talmidim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha mi'Difti:</font></b> When Hash-m starts acting
               harshly to a person (such as myself, I was not made
               the head), He is not quick to reverse this. When
               Hash-m starts bestowing good to a person (such as
               Mar bar Rav Ashi), He is not quick to reverse this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case of children with prophecy?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is like the case of Rav Chisda's daughter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava and Rami bar Chama were in front of Rav
               Chisda and his daughter. Rav Chisda asked her which
               she wants to marry. She said that she wants to marry
               both.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> I will marry her after you. (And so it came
               to pass. Maharsha - Rami bar Chama holds that it is
               improper to marry a divorcee, so he did not suggest
               being last, lest this be like a curse that Rava
               die.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Avdimi of Cheifah):</font></b> Before one eats, he has two
          hearts (he is indecisive). After eating, he has only one
          - 'v'Ish Navuv Yilavev' (a hollow person (i.e. before
          eating) has two hearts);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also, it says (about the Altar) 'Nevuv Luchos',
               which is translated 'Chalil Luchin (hollow inside
               the boards)';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Drinking wine regularly
          opens even a blocked heart - 'V'Sirosh Yenovev Besulos'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RECEIVING ADJACENT FIELDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Obviously, we give a
          firstborn his normal and extra portion next to one
          another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Do we do this for a Yavam (who also inherits
          his brother's portion)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The law is just the same.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is Abaye's reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah calls a Yavam 'Bechor' (a
               firstborn) to teach this law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> 'V'Hayah ha'Bechor' - he is like a
          firstborn to get a double portion, but not to receive
          them together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Reuven bought land bordering his father's land. His
          father died, and Reuven requested the portion bordering
          the land he bought.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah):</font></b> In a case like this, Kofin Al Midas Sedom (we
          force one to benefit others if he himself will not lose).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The brothers can say 'that land
          is worth more' (whoever wants it will receive a smaller
          amount).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah):</font></b> If there are two fields, and each borders on a
          river, Kofin Al Midas Sedom. (Reuven can demand the field
          bordering his land. Since each field has enough water,
          Shimon (his brother) cannot claim that he prefers that
          one.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Perhaps one river will dry up!
          Shimon can demand half of each field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> If both fields border on the same river,
          Kofin Al Midas Sedom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Abaye):</font></b> Shimon can say 'I prefer that your
          fields be disconnected, so you will need a sharecropper
          for each, so my property will be guarded better!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef. We do not honor
               such a request.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If there are rivers on two adjacent
          sides of the field, we divide the field (like illustrated
          in Rashi. Each brother gets four shares, the distance of
          each brother's land from each river is the same).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> If there are rivers on two
          adjacent sides of the field, we divide the field along
          the diagonal (each brother gets a half bordering on one
          river).
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE LAW OF PATRIMONY IN COMMUNAL POSITIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the Chachamim voted to appoint Rav Acha mi'Difti as the Rosh Yeshiva in Masa Mechasya.
</p><p>
Why did the Chachamim take a vote to decide to appoint Rav Acha mi'Difti as the Rosh Yeshiva? Rav Ashi was the Rosh Yeshiva in Masa Mechasya, and when he died the normal protocol should have been followed: his son, Mar bar Rav Ashi, should have been appointed to take his place (as the <b>RAMBAM</b> writes in the beginning of Hilchos Melachim). Mar bar Rav Ashi was certainly a great Talmid Chacham at that time and was fit for the position, as the Gemara in Chulin (99a) implies. (<b>CHASAM SOFER</b>, <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> proves from the Gemara here that the law of patrimony, as learned from the laws of kingship, applies only to positions of governmental authority. A son can inherit only governmental positions from his father. The law of patrimony does not apply to a position of Torah authority, such as the position of Rosh Yeshiva.
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> cites this view in the name of the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (end of OC 53:33), who cites it in the name of the <b>TESHUVOS RASHDAM</b> (YD 85), who writes that when a Chacham must be chosen to teach Torah or to issue Halachic rulings, the position is not given automatically to the son of the previous Chacham who held the position. (This ruling applies, however, only when the other candidate is greater in Chochmah than the son. When they are equally qualified for the position, the son is given precedence.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> writes that Rav Acha mi'Difti was greater in Chochmah than Mar bar Rav Ashi and was more qualified to be the Rosh Yeshiva, and that is why the Chachamim decided to appoint him. However, it was decreed in Shamayim that, in this case, the son -- Mar bar Rav Ashi -- would take the place of his father as Rosh Yeshiva. (See also Teshuvos Chasam Sofer OC 13.)
</p><p>
(Regarding the practical Halachah as to whether a son is given precedence over other candidates to take the place of his father in positions of Torah authority, such as Rosh Yeshiva or Rav of a community, see <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> OC 312.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>GUD O AGUD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We do not divide a salon...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If there is not enough for each partner to
          get a proper share, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The law of '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'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'Gud O Agud' does not apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav Nachman - Rava):</font></b> If 'Gud O Agud'
          does not apply, if a firstborn and his brother inherit a
          slave or a Tamei animal, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The slave alternates. He serves
          the firstborn for two days, and his brother for one day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah - Beis Hillel):
          A half-slave alternates. He serves his master for one
          day, and himself for one day;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Shamai:</font></b> That is good for the master, but not
               for the slave. He cannot marry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He cannot marry a slave (since he is half-free).
               He cannot marry a Bas Yisrael (since he is a half-
               slave).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he will not marry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The world was created for the sake of
               reproduction - 'Lasheves Yetzarah'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rather, we force the master to free the slave.
               The slave writes a document obligating himself to
               pay the master half of his value.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel retracted, and agreed with Beis
               Shamai. (This was only to enable the slave to marry.
               Otherwise, the slave cannot force the master to set
               a price for the slave half to redeem himself!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> A half slave is different. The owner cannot buy
          (the free half, for a half slave cannot become a full
          slave), therefore Gud O Agud does not apply
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven is
          rich, and his brother Shimon is poor, and they inherited
          a bathhouse and an olive-press;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If normally they are rented out, they share the
               revenue;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the father made them for his own use, Reuven
               can tell Shimon 'also we will also use them
               ourselves. Go buy slaves to heat it up, and go buy
               olives and press them!' (Shimon cannot. Reuven will
               use it himself; Shimon cannot tell Reuven to buy his
               share!)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR THE RULE OF 'GUD O AGUD'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman argue about whether there is a law of 'Gud O Agud.' Rav Yehudah maintains that there <i>is</i> such a law, and the Halachah follows his view. Therefore, when two partners own an object that cannot be divided, one partner may force the other either to sell his own portion or to buy his partner's portion.
</p><p>
What is the source of this law of 'Gud O Agud,' and what is its logical basis?
</p><p>
There are two approaches in the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (Teshuvos 98:3) maintains that 'Gud O Agud' is a Takanas Chachamim, based on the reasoning of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser, Kofin Al Midas Sedom,' which means that whenever one litigant would gain from a ruling in his favor and the other litigant would not lose anything, Beis Din forces the second litigant to allow the first to benefit. In this case, since the jointly-owned area or object is not fit to be used by both partners, and thus neither of them can benefit from it while it is shared, the Chachamim decreed that one partner may force a division and the other is obligated either to sell his own share or to buy the other partner's share. This also seems to be the view of the <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos #906), and <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes on 13b).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MABIT</b> in <b>KIRYAS SEFER</b> (beginning of Hilchos Shechenim) maintains that the law of 'Gud O Agud' is mid'Oraisa. Just as the other laws relating to partnerships -- such as the right of one partner to force the other to divide the property when it is of sufficient size -- are mid'Oraisa, the law of 'Gud O Agud' is also mid'Oraisa. Likewise, when 'Gud O Agud' does not apply, mid'Oraisa one partner can force the other to rent the property out to others and to share the profits.
</p><p>
What is the source of this Din d'Oraisa? Where in the Torah is a law written regarding the division of jointly-owned property?
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Bava Basra 8:1), in his explanation of the law of 'Gud O Agud,' suggests that the Torah commands the Chachamim to establish laws based on the 'Chochmas ha'Torah' with which the Chachamim are endowed. This is based on the verse, 'v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov' (Devarim 6:18). Hence, the law of 'Gud O Agud' was established by the Chachamim who, in their wisdom, discerned that this is the most ideal way to divide property that two partners inherit or receive as a gift. Once the Chachamim have established the law of 'Gud O Agud,' it has the force of a Din Torah.
</p><p>
The <b>BI'URIM V'HE'OROS</b> adds that the concept that the Torah gives the Chachamim the power to establish monetary law (which then has the force of Torah law) is learned from the words of the <b>RAMBAN</b> on the verse, 'v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov.' The Ramban writes that this verse 'is a Mitzvah to act beyond what the law requires, <i>and, likewise, to make enactments for the welfare of the city and the country</i>.' Although the first requirement he mentions, 'to act beyond what the law requires,' is incumbent on individuals, the requirement to 'make enactments' is addressed to Beis Din and the Chachamim. Thus, this verse indicates that the Torah commands the Chachamim -- and gives them the power -- to enact monetary laws for the sake of the welfare of society.
</p><p>
(The Bi'urim v'He'oros adds that according to the Chazon Ish's explanation, it could be that the words of the Rosh do not contradict the Mabit. When the Rosh says that 'Gud O Agud' is a Takanas Chachamim, he agrees that the Torah gave the Chachamim the authority to enact such laws. When the Mabit says that it is a Din d'Oraisa, he agrees that it was the Chachamim who enacted the law, but that it has the force of a Din d'Oraisa, as explained above.)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>GUD O AGUD</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'> Question:</font></b> If it (a Chatzer, field...) is too small
               for each partner to get a proper share, what is the
               law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </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'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'Gud O Agud' does not
               apply.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah - Beis
               Hillel):</font></b> A half-slave alternates. He serves his
               master for one day, and himself for one day;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Shamai:</font></b> If so the slave cannot marry at
                    all! Rather, the master must free him. The
                    slave owes to the master half of his value, and
                    writes a document. (Beis Hillel later agreed,
                    but only due to Beis Shamai's reason. If not, a
                    half-slave could not force his master to set a
                    price for the slave half to redeem himself!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Gud O Agud does not apply there, for the
               slave can buy, but he cannot sell (his free half,
               for a half slave cannot become a full slave).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven
               is rich, and his brother Shimon is poor, and they
               inherited a bathhouse or an olivepress that the
               father made for his own use, Reuven can say 'also we
               will use them ourselves. Go buy slaves to heat it
               up, and go buy olives and press them!' (Shimon
               cannot. Reuven will use it himself; Shimon cannot
               tell Reuven to buy his share!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There, Shimon cannot (afford to) buy
               Reuven's share.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Even if both want to divide a Sefer, they
               may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> This is only if the Seforim are bound
               together. If each is bound by itself, they divide.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> Shmuel holds like Rav Yehudah. If Gud O Agud
               did not apply, in any case either could stop the
               other from dividing!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rav Salman):</font></b> Shmuel teaches that the
               Mishnah forbids dividing Seforim wrapped together
               even if both want to divide. (He did not address
               whether or not Gud O Agud applies when only one
               wants to divide.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ameimar):</font></b> The Halachah is, we say Gud O Agud.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> Rav Nachman argues!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ameimar):</font></b> I argue with Rav Nachman.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Chinena left two slaves to his two sons.
               One knew how to cook, and the other knew to sew.
               Rava ruled that Gud O Agud does not apply
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That case is different, because each of them
               needs both slaves. Saying 'take one' is not Gud O
               Agud.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Regarding Seforim, both need both, yet
               Shmuel taught that if each Sefer is bound by itself,
               they divide!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rav Salman said that this is when both want
               to divide.
<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> Some learn from the case of brothers who
               inherited a bathhouse or olivepress that we say Gud
               O Agud only when either could buy, but not when one
               is rich and one is poor. I disagree. When one says
               Gud O Agud, it does not matter if the other could
               buy. In the Beraisa, the <i>Oni</i> said Gud O Agud, and
               he could not buy. Therefore, the Ashir can say 'I do
               not want to buy. You buy!' Since the Oni cannot buy,
               Gud O Agud is Batel. The Halachah is, we say Gud O
               Agud.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 1:2):</font></b> When the law is that
               something need not be divided, or it cannot be
               divided, e.g. a slave or Kli, if David said to his
               partner Levi 'sell to me your share for this amount,
               or buy my share for this amount', we force Levi to
               buy or let David buy it. If David cannot buy it or
               find someone to buy it., he cannot force Levi to
               buy, even at the cheap price. Levi can say 'I do not
               want to buy, rather, to sell.' Therefore, if an
               Ashir and Oni inherited a bathhouse or olivepress
               that the father made for his own use, the Ashir can
               say 'go buy olives and press them, or go buy slaves
               to bathe in the bathhouse.' The Oni cannot force him
               to buy his share, unless he says 'buy from me, or
               sell to me, and I will borrow and buy, or sell to
               others.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (CM 171 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu
                    v'Ein):</font></b> The Tur says that the Oni's only
                    solution is to sell his share to the Ashir, or
                    give his share to the Ashir, for the Ashir can
                    say 'Gud O Agud, or use it.' Perhaps he argues
                    with the Rambam, rather, like Teshuvas ha'Rosh,
                    who says that Gud O Agud is only when one buys
                    for his own use, but one who sells his share
                    cannot say Gud O Agud and force his partner.
                    Perhaps the Rosh does not argue; the Tur says
                    that the Oni has no other solution because it
                    is hard to find one who will buy his share to
                    harm the Ashir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (1:50):</font></b> Rashi connotes that one may set a price
               more than the true value. Some say that Beis Din
               assesses it, and whoever wants to pay gets it, like
               we say in Kesuvos (91a) 'the orphans may not assess
               the property for more than its worth (to enable the
               enactment that the sons of each wife inherit their
               mother's Kesuvah). Rather, Beis Din assesses it.'
               This is wrong. There, saying so would cause a loss
               to the sons of the other wife. Here, there is no
               loss. Some Ge'onim said so. The words of the Gemara
               'Ma'alin Oso b'Damim' connotes (that one may inflate
               the price,) like Rashi. The Rambam says similarly.
               This is primary. Gud O Agud applies to the entire
               Mishnah except for a Chatzer, for it is not an
               entity unto itself. It serves the house; every house
               needs a Chatzer.
<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 171:6):</font></b> If something need not or
               cannot be divided, e.g. a slave or Kli, if David
               told his partner Levi 'sell to me your share for
               this amount, or buy my share for this amount, Levi
               must buy or let David buy it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Ela):</font></b> We hold like Rav Yehudah,
                    for Ameimar rules like him and it seems that
                    Rav Ashi agrees.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH uvi'Teshuvos):</font></b> Rashi explains
                    Gud O Agud to mean 'fix a price for me to buy
                    or sell; if not, I will fix a price for me you
                    to buy or sell. The Rambam holds that it means
                    'I will fix a price. Sell it to me for this, or
                    I will sell my share for this.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Even if he said to give much more than its
               value, Levi must buy or sell.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosvu):</font></b> The Ri says so. The
                    Ritzva disagrees, for if so one could force his
                    partner to split a Chatzer that need not be
                    split.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If David does not want or
               cannot buy it or find someone to buy it, he cannot
               force Levi to buy, even at the cheap price. Levi can
               say 'I do not want to buy, rather, to sell.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (22):</font></b> In each case, the Gemara said 'he can
                    buy, but he cannot sell' (or vice-versa) from
                    the perspective of the one who demanded Gud O
                    Agud. This shows that it depends on his ability
                    to do either.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> Therefore, if an Ashir and
               Oni inherited a bathhouse or olivepress that the
               father made for his own use, the Ashir can say 'go
               buy olives and press them, or go buy slaves to bathe
               in the bathhouse.' The Oni cannot force him to buy
               his share, unless he says 'buy from me, or sell to
               me, and I will borrow and buy, or sell to others.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (13):</font></b> If both are rich and neither wants
                    Gud O Agud and they do not want to use it
                    together, they alternate using it for a period
                    of time.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (14):</font></b> All the more so, the Oni can sell his
                    share to an Ashir who will be in place of the
                    Oni. The buyer may use it with the rich brother
                    or alternate times, and can later say Gud O
                    Agud if he wants.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Gra (23):</font></b> We learn that he may borrow from the
                    slave, who writes a document obligating himself
                    to pay half his value.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that one cannot say Gud O Agud when
               he does not have money, and must sell his share.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (14,15):</font></b> Even this opinion agrees that if
                    the Oni sold his share to an Ashir, later the
                    Ashir can say Gud O Agud. It disallows only to
                    say 'if you will not buy, I will sell it for
                    what I can, and give to you your share.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (27):</font></b> The Tur says that Teshuvas ha'Rosh
                    holds that Gud O Agud is only when he wants it
                    for his own use. This is unlike all the
                    Ge'onim, who allow even when he will borrow to
                    buy, or sell his share to others. The Rambam
                    says so explicitly. The Rosh has no source to
                    distinguish. He says that if not, the Ashir
                    could not tell the Oni 'go buy slaves...' This
                    is no proof. The Ashir can say so only when the
                    Oni cannot find one to buy his share! I think
                    that the Rosh agrees that if the Oni cannot
                    find a buyer and will have a loss, he can say
                    'buy it for its value, or I will sell it for
                    its value and give to you half.' The Rosh
                    discusses only when he could sell his half for
                    its value or a little less. He forbids only
                    when the Oni asks more than its value. This is
                    permitted only if he is ready to buy it for his
                    own use. The Tur agrees with the Rosh's law,
                    even though his proof was invalid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (7):</font></b> The <b>SMA's</b> Perush is better than the
                    Bach's. Agudas Ezov had difficulty because he
                    understood the Rema differently.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> One cannot say Gud O Agud for less than the
               value, for if so an Ashir could force an Oni to sell
               for less than the value.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>CAN ONE FORCE HIS PARTNER TO ACCEPT AN UNEVEN DIVISION? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Also there, Gud O Agud does not apply because
          Shimon cannot (afford to) buy Reuven's share.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> The general
          rule is, we divide only if each will get a portion that
          keeps the original name. If not, we estimate its value
          (and Gud O Agud applies).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</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'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Levi may say 'take a proper share
               (that keeps its name), and I will take (the rest,
               even though it is) less than this;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Yehudah can protest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If we understand the Beraisa like it is taught,
                    what is R. Shimon's reason?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa is abbreviated. It
               means as follows: Levi may say 'take a proper share,
               and I will take less.' Also, Levi can say 'Gud O
               Agud';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he cannot say 'Gud O
               Agud.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question 3):</font></b> Really, the
          Beraisa means exactly like it says;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that Yehudah can
               protest 'I do not have the money to compensate you
               for the larger portion, nor do I want to take it as
               a gift - 'v'Sonei Matanos Yichyeh'!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Abaye:</font></b> Rav Yehudah holds like Shmuel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Regarding Sefarim, even if both want
               to divide, they may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> This is only if the Sefarim are bound
               together. If each is bound by itself, they divide.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the law of Gud O Agud did not apply, even if
                    they were not bound together, either could stop
                    the other from dividing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Salman):</font></b> Shmuel teaches that the Mishnah
          forbids dividing Sefarim wrapped together even if both
          want to divide. (He did not address whether or not Gud O
          Agud applies when only one wants to divide.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ameimar):</font></b> The Halachah is, we say Gud O Agud.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> Rav Nachman argues!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ameimar:</font></b> I argue with Rav Nachman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Chinena left two slaves to his two
               sons. One knew how to cook, and the other knew to
               sew and weave. Rava ruled that the law of Gud O Agud
               does not apply
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That case is different, because each of
               them needs both slaves. Saying 'take one' is not Gud
               O Agud.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Regarding Sefarim, both need both, yet
               Shmuel taught that if each Sefer is bound by itself,
               they divide!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rav Salman said that this is when both
               want to divide. (The question of Gud O Agud is when
               only one wants to divide.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>BINDING SEFARIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> One may bind Torah, the Nevi'im
          and Kesuvim together;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, we bind Torah by itself, Nevi'im by
          themselves and Kesuvim by themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Chachamim say, each Sefer of the Nevi'im and Kesuvim is
          bound by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah authorized Baisus
          ben Zunin to bind the eight Sefarim of the Nevi'im
          together (the 12 minor Nevi'im count like one Sefer);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some say that each was bound by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rebbi:</font></b> Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim bound together were
          once brought in front of us, and we approved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Four blank lines separate between the Sefarim of Torah,
          and also between different Nevi'im;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Three lines separate between the 12 minor
               Nevi'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one Navi finishes at the bottom of a column,
               one may start the next at the top of the next column
               without leaving blank lines.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> One may write Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim on
          the same parchment;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He leaves enough (blank parchment) at the
               beginning to wrap around a pole, and enough at the
               end to surround (the Sefer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He ends one Sefer at the bottom and begins the
               next at the top. If he wants to cut them, he may.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean? (Surely, it is
               better if they are separate!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is advisable to end each Sefer at the
               bottom and to begin the next at the top, so he will
               be able to cut them.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: ACCEPTING A GIFT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa quotes a dispute between the Rabanan and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a jointly-owned area or object that is not large enough to be divided between the two partners, such as a Chatzer with an area of less than eight Amos. If one partner offers to let the other have the minimum amount that is necessary to divide a Chatzer (four Amos), while he himself will take the remainder, even though it is less than the minimum amount of a Chatzer, the Rabanan maintain that the other partner must accept those terms (for they are beneficial to him) and let the Chatzer be divided. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues and says that the other partner may refuse to accept the terms of the division. The Gemara explains that the partner may refuse to divide the Chatzer even though he apparently would benefit from it, because he can claim that he does not want to receive a gift, as the verse says, 'One who despises gifts will live' (Mishlei 15:27).
</p><p>
If the verse supports Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion, then why do the Rabanan argue? Why do they not accept the other partner's claim that he does not want to accept the gift because 'one who despises gifts will live'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (as cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) answer that when the first partner offers to give a larger part of the Chatzer to the second partner and accept a smaller part for himself, his intention is not to give a gift to his partner. Rather, his intention is for his own benefit, for he would prefer to have a smaller Chatzer rather than remain in partnership with his neighbor. When the giver of a gift also benefits, the verse, 'One who despises gifts will live,' does not apply to the recipient. (This is also the answer of the <b>S'MA</b> (CM 171:24) as cited by the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> here.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Rishonim argue about whether the Halachah follows the view of the Rabanan or that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shechenim 1:5) rule in accordance with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's position. The Rif writes that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's 'reasoning is [more] logical.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (citing one opinion) rules in accordance with the Rabanan's view, as do <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, the <b>RASHBA</b>, and the <b>ROSH</b>. Rabeinu Yonah counters the Rif's assertion that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reasoning is more logical. He explains, as above, that the principle of 'one who despises gifts will live' applies only when the giver himself does not benefit from the gift. In this case, the giver benefits, so there is nothing wrong with accepting a gift, and therefore Beis Din may force the second partner to accept the terms of the division.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A POSSIBLE EXCUSE NOT TO GIVE TZEDAKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa quotes a dispute between the Rabanan and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a jointly-owned area or object that is not large enough to be divided between the two partners, such as a Chatzer with an area of less than eight Amos (see previous Insight). If one partner offers to let the other have the minimum amount that is necessary to divide a Chatzer (four Amos), while he himself will take the remainder, even though it is less than the minimum amount of a Chatzer, the Rabanan maintain that the other partner must accept those terms (for they are beneficial to him) and let the Chatzer be divided. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues and says that the other partner may refuse to accept the terms of the division. The Gemara explains that the partner may refuse to divide the Chatzer even though he apparently would benefit from it, because he can claim that he does not want to receive a gift, as the verse says, 'One who despises gifts will live' (Mishlei 15:27).
</p><p>
The principle that 'one who despises gifts will live' seems to contradict the general Mitzvah of Tzedakah. According to this verse, whenever a person gives Tzedakah to a poor person, he actually harms the poor person and shortens his life by causing him to accept a gift! How, then, can there be a Mitzvah to give Tzedakah? Similarly, how can one be permitted to give money to support Talmidei Chachamim? Seemingly, the Talmidei Chachamim should not accept the money because 'one who despises gifts will live.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHIDA</b> (in Teshuvos Chaim Sha'al 1:74:42) answers based on the view of the Rishonim mentioned above (see previous Insight) that when the giver intends to benefit personally from giving the gift, his gift is not considered a gift. A person who gives Tzedakah to the poor or supports Talmidei Chachamim receives tremendous reward for his Mitzvah, and thus it is not considered a gift since the giver also benefits from it.
</p><p>
<b>RAV CHANOCH HENOCH KARELENSTEIN</b> zt'l (in <b>SEFER MAR'EI MEKOMOS</b>) answers based on the words of the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAIM HA'KADOSH</b> in Parshas Mishpatim. The verse there says, 'When you lend money to any of My people, to the poor person among you, do not act to him as one who demands repayment of a loan, and do not set interest upon him' (Shemos 22:24). The Or ha'Chaim explains that the verse may be read in the following way: 'If you see that you have more money than you need for your own needs and thus you lend it to My people, you should know that that money is not part of your allotted portion, but rather it belongs to others -- to the poor person among you.' (The <b>TUR</b> (YD 247) writes that the money of a wealthy man is a Pikadon, a deposit, from Hash-m, Who expects the wealthy man to do the appropriate things with that money. This is one source for the concept that the money a person gives to the poor never actually belonged to the giver in the first place; he was merely a conduit for the money to reach its rightful owners.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, when one gives money to a poor person, it is not considered a gift, because that money rightfully belonged to the recipient all along. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BINDING SEFARIM (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> He leaves enough (blank
          parchment) at each end to roll.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does he roll it around?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> He rolls around a pole.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> One end requires enough to
                    surround the Sefer!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Suggestion:</font></b> He wraps around the outermost
                    parchment.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> One end requires only enough to
                    wrap around the pole!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (to the contradiction and Question 1 - Rav
          Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He leaves what is needed at each
          end. (At one end, he needs enough to roll around a pole.
          At the other end, he needs enough to surround the Sefer.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This Beraisa refers to a Sefer
          Torah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Other Sefarim are wound (on one pole)
               from the beginning to the end. We leave a Sefer
               Torah (open) in the middle, and wrap from poles at
               both ends.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer bar Tzadok says, this is how scribes
               in Yerushalayim used to write Sefarim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PROPER SIZE OF A SEFER TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> The height of a Sefer Torah should
          (l'Chatchilah) equal its circumference when rolled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How big should it be?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rebbi):</font></b> If one writes on Gvil (untanned hide),
          it should be six Tefachim. If one uses Klaf, (when the
          hide is cut into two layers, the layer closer to the hair
          is called Klaf. It is thinner than Gvil), I do not know.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Rav Huna wrote 70 Sifrei Torah. For one of them the
          height equaled its circumference.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rav Acha bar Yakov wrote one Sefer Torah on a calf's
          hide. The height equaled the circumference.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rabanan were envious, and Rav Acha died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabanan:</font></b> R. Ami wrote 400 Sifrei Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Hamnuna:</font></b> Perhaps he wrote 'Torah Tzivah Lanu
               Moshe.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabanan:</font></b> R. Ami planted 400 vineyards.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Hamnuna:</font></b> Perhaps each was (a minimal vineyard,) two
          rows of two trees, and a fifth tree in back.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> The Aron that Moshe made
          was two and a half Amos in length, its width and height
          were both one and a half Amos, based on an Amah of six
          Tefachim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The length and width of each of the Luchos
               (Tablets) was six Tefachim. Each was three Tefachim
               thick. They were placed next to the Sefer Torah (in
               the Aron).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Together, they occupied 12 Tefachim. Of the
               remaining three Tefachim of the Aron's length, the
               (thickness of the) walls of the Aron occupied one
               Tefach (half a Tefach each),
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The (width of the) Sefer Torah fit in the
               remaining two Tefachim - 'Ein ba'Aron Rak...'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Ein' and 'Rak' are two exclusions. Two
                    exclusions come to include;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> We include the Sefer Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The width of the Luchos occupied 6 Tefachim. The
               walls of the Aron occupied one Tefach;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Another two Tefachim remained, in order that
                    the Torah (whose length was to the Aron's
                    width) could be removed and put back easily.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, the dimensions of the Aron are based
          on an Amah of five Tefachim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Luchos occupied 12 Tefachim of the Aron's
               length, the walls of the Aron occupied the remaining
               half Tefach (each wall was a quarter Tefach);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The width of the Luchos occupied 6 Tefachim, and
               the walls of the Aron occupied half a Tefach; in the
               remaining Tefach were silver poles - 'Amudav Asah
               Chesef';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The chest that the Plishtim sent when they
               returned the Aron was next to the Aron - 'va'Argaz
               mi'Tzido'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Sefer Torah rested on the chest, next to
                    the Aron, not inside - 'v'Samtem Oso mi'Tzad
                    Aron...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The exclusions 'Ein' and 'Rak' come to include
               the fragments of the broken Luchos.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: WRITING A SEFER TORAH ON 'KLAF'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that the Chachamim asked Rebbi how tall must a Sefer Torah be, and he responded that a Sefer Torah written on Gevil, a type of thick parchment, must be six Tefachim tall. When they asked him how tall it must be when written on Klaf, a thinner type of parchment, he said that he did not know.
</p><p>
It is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that a Sefer Torah must be written on the type of parchment known as Gevil (as the Beraisa in Shabbos 79b states, and as the <b>RAMBAM</b> writes in Hilchos Tefilin 1:8). Why, then, did Rebbi respond that he did not know how tall a Sefer Torah must be when written on Klaf? Rebbi should have said that a Sefer Torah may not be written on Klaf at all.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (<b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> cited by the <b>RAMBAN</b>, and <b>RASHBA</b>) prove from this Gemara that a Sefer Torah <i>may</i> be written on Klaf. However, they disagree about whether it must be written l'Chatchilah on Gevil, or whether it may even be written l'Chatchilah on Klaf.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> writes that l'Chatchilah one may not write a Sefer Torah on Klaf, for Rebbi did not write such a Sefer Torah (nor did Moshe Rabeinu). Rather, Rebbi's words indicate that a Sefer Torah is valid only b'Di'eved when it is written on Klaf. This is also the view of the <b>RAMBAN</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tefilin 1:9). (This indeed is the practice of the communities of Teiman (Yemen), who are stringent to write Sifrei Torah only on Gevil.) When the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that a Sefer Torah must be written on Gevil, it means that l'Chatchilah it must be written on Gevil.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that one is permitted l'Chatchilah to write a Sefer Torah on Klaf, in contrast to the simple understanding of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai in Shabbos (79b). He cites proof from the Yerushalmi, and he asserts that the fact that Rebbi did not say that l'Chatchilah one should not write a Sefer Torah on Klaf shows that it may be done even l'Chatchilah. Moreover, the Rashba proves that it may be done l'Chatchilah from the fact that the masses of people conduct themselves today this way ('Puk Chazi Mai Ama Davar'). (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE DEATH OF RAV ACHA BAR YAKOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Acha bar Yakov wrote only one Sefer Torah, and it happened to come out with the proper measurements, its height equal to its circumference, which is a very difficult feat to accomplish (especially with the first Sefer Torah one writes). The Rabanan 'set their eyes upon him' and he died.
</p><p>
Why did the Rabanan set their eyes upon him? What is wrong with writing a Sefer Torah that comes out to have the correct measurements? It does not seem that they merely gave him an 'Ayin ha'Ra' which caused him to die, because such a thing would not come about through the Rabanan but only through lowly people who do not like to see others succeed.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that the Rabanan may have thought that since the first Sefer Torah that he wrote came out with the exact measurements, Rav Acha bar Yakov must have used the Divine Name to make it happen. They felt it was not appropriate to use the Name of Hash-m for such a purpose, and therefore they set their eyes upon him. The punishment for using the Divine Name for a personal purpose is written in Avos (4:7): 'd'Ishtamesh b'Saga Chalaf.' (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>POLES ON WHICH WE ROLL SEFORIM</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'> 13b (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may write Torah, Nevi'im and
               Kesuvim on the same Klaf (parchment). He leaves
               enough (blank Klaf) at the beginning to wrap around
               a roller, and enough at the end to surround (the
               Sefer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> He leaves enough at each
               end to roll.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he leaves enough to wrap around
                    the pole, this is not enough for the end that
                    must surround! If he leaves enough to surround,
                    this is more than needed for the end wrapped
                    around a pole!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (to both questions - Rav Nachman bar
               Yitzchak):</font></b> He leaves what is needed at each end.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Beraisa #2 discusses a Sefer
               Torah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Other Seforim are rolled (on one
                    pole) from the beginning to the end. We leave a
                    Sefer Torah (open) in the middle, and roll from
                    poles at both ends.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Beraisa):</font></b> (L'Chatchilah,) the height of a Sefer
               Torah should equal its circumference when rolled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rebbi):</font></b> On Gevil (untanned hide), it should be six
               Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna wrote 70 Sifrei Torah. For one of them, the
               height equaled its circumference.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Moshe's Aron was 15
               Tefachim long. The two Luchos occupied 12 Tefachim.
               The thickness of the two walls occupied one Tefach.
               The (width of the) Sefer Torah fit in the remaining
               two Tefachim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the circumference is six Tefachim, the width
                    is two Tefachim. We roll a Sefer Torah from
                    both ends, so the width is even more!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Sefer Torah in the Aron was rolled to
               the beginning.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Still, if its width is exactly two
               Tefachim, it does not fit properly in two Tefachim!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> A small amount of Klaf was left
               unrolled (so the width of the rolled part was less
               than two). It rested above the Torah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Maseches Yadayim (Mishnah 3:4):</font></b> The margins at the
               beginning and end of a Sefer are Metamei the hands;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, the end margin is Metamei only
               there is a pole.
<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> One leaves empty at the beginning (of a full
               Tanach) to roll onto a pole, and enough at the end
               to surround. All (other) Seforim are rolled from the
               beginning. A Sefer Torah is rolled in the middle.
               One makes a pole at each end.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Sefer Torah 9:2):</font></b> One leaves at the
               beginning (of a Sefer Torah) and end enough blank
               hide to wrap onto the pole. This is the Mitzvah. If
               one left more or less, it is not Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (1:52):</font></b> The circumference is six Tefachim
               including the poles. Presumably, the poles were in
               the Sefer in the Aron, and its circumference was
               six. The thickness of the poles must be fixed, for
               in only one Sefer of Rav Huna, the circumference
               equalled the length. If one may make poles of any
               thickness, in this way he could have made them
               equal! If they removed the poles before the Sefer
               was put in the Aron, we can say that the width is
               two without the poles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashba (14b DH Od):</font></b> Even if the Sefer was rolled to
               the end, the width was more than two due to the
               poles! It seems that the circumference is six with
               the poles. If so, why did Rav Huna succeed to equate
               the circumference to the height only once? We must
               say that average poles must be used.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Note:</font></b> Seemingly, one must attach a pole in
                    order to roll the Sefer taut to measure its
                    circumference. Perhaps it is improper to change
                    poles just to make the height and circumference
                    equal!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashash (14b DH Gemara):</font></b> The sum thickness of
                    the Klaf equals the area of a circle of
                    diameter 2 when it is rolled to the beginning.
                    It equals the area of two circles of diameter
                    (the square root of 2, about) 17/12 when it is
                    rolled to the middle, so then the total width
                    exceeds 2.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Tosfos Eruvin 14a DH veha'Ika):</font></b> The width
               was less than 2, for it is less than a third of the
               circumference (the ratio is 1/Pi, about 7/22)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Chasam Sofer 14b DH Trei):</font></b> The pole on which
               it is wound (was about one part in 11 of a Tefach,
               and) completed the two Tefachim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Note:</font></b> The Gemara asked how they could remove
                    the Sefer Torah if its width was exactly two.
                    Perhaps it was a miracle; the entire  Aron did
                    not occupy any space (99a)! We can say that we
                    do not rely on miracles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh and R. Shimshon (Yadayim 3:4):</font></b> In Bava Basra,
               we say that we leave at the beginning enough to roll
               onto a pole, and at the end to surround, i.e. the
               entire Sefer. R. Yehudah connotes that it is wrapped
               around a pole at the end! This is more reasonable,
               for if it were wrapped at the beginning, one who
               wants to read would need to roll it to the
               beginning!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramban (14b DH ul'Fi):</font></b> The Rif says that there was
               enough blank at the end to surround <i>the pole</i>.
               Writing there would be prone to be erased.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (13b DH v'Oseh) and Rosh (ibid):</font></b> Our text
               says that (other) Seforim are wound from start to
               end. It says oppositely in Maseches Sofrim! Also,
               our Gemara says that the Sefer Azarah was rolled to
               the beginning. Rashi explains that it was rolled
               <i>from</i> the beginning; the Gemara connotes otherwise.
               A Mezuzah is rolled from Echad to Shma, i.e. to the
               beginning. The Yerushalmi explicitly says that the
               pole for a Sefer Torah is at the end. Therefore, the
               Ri says that the correct text is 'we leave enough at
               the beginning to surround, and at the end to wrap
               around a pole.' The Rashba defends our text.
               Normally, the pole is at the end. Here, it would be
               a disgrace to wrap Torah around Nevi'im and Kesuvim.
               It would seem like the Torah is a covering to guard
               them from filth!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Megilah 2:50, citing R.
               Tam):</font></b> One leaves at the end of Megilas Esther enough
               to wrap on a pole, and at the beginning to surround
               the Megilah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashbash (579):</font></b> The poles of Seforim are just for
               beauty. A Sefer Torah is not disqualified due to
               (lack of) them. Even so, a Megilah for the Rabim
               should have a pole, due to 'Zeh Keli v'Anvehu.'
<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 692:2):</font></b> Megilas Esther must have
               a roller at one end, and enough blank Klaf at the
               other end to wrap around it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav):</font></b> The Tur says
                    that Megilas Esther... needs a pole at the
                    beginning and blank Klaf at the other end to
                    surround it, like a Sefer Torah. 'Like a Sefer
                    Torah' refers to what he said above (the ink
                    and Klaf...); regarding poles, it is like a
                    Tanach (a Torah with Nevi'im and Kesuvim). Our
                    custom is to make a pole only at the <i>end</i>!
                    This is like Tosfos. We roll a Megilah from the
                    end, like other Seforim. Why did the Tur omit
                    the opinion of the Rosh, Tosfos and R.
                    Shimshon? A Megilah is like a Sefer Torah.
                    Since it needs only one pole, it is like a
                    Tanach. The Rosh and R. Shimshon defended our
                    text, which says that a Tanach is rolled to the
                    end. This is difficult. A Tanach is different,
                    lest Torah be a cover for Nevi'im and Kesuvim!
                    This does not apply to Megilah; it should be
                    rolled from the end, like other Seforim.
                    Therefore, the custom is is unlike the Tur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (DH u'Mah):</font></b> The Tur merely cited R. Tam. He did
               not say that he rules like R. Tam against the Rosh
               and Tosfos! A Sefer Torah that we do not read from
               regularly, e.g. Sefer Azarah, which was used only
               for Hakhel and on Yom Kipur, needs only one pole and
               is rolled to the beginning. The same applies to
               Megilas Esther, which we read only on Purim. The
               text of R. Tam in Hagahos Maimoniyos should say '...
               at the <i>beginning</i> enough to wrap on a pole, and at
               the end to surround.' The Tur and Maharil cite R.
               Tam this way. Why did the Tur omit the Rosh's
               opinion? The Rosh did not mention Megilah. Perhaps
               he holds that we roll other Seforim from the end, to
               enable reading from the beginning without unrolling.
               One who reads the Megilah must spread it open in any
               case; it is better to roll it to the end, so the end
               will cover the beginning. However, why did the Tur
               and Rambam omit this also regarding a Sefer Torah?
               It would seem that we follow the Rosh, Tosfos, R.
               Shimshon, and also Sefer ha'Terumos and Semag.
               However, our custom is not to make a pole at all.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> The Tur's Kitzur Piskei ha'Rosh (1:52) says to
               make a pole for a Tanach at the end.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> The custom is not to make a roller at all at
               the end.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Taz (2):</font></b> Because Rishonim argue about whether
                    to make the pole at the beginning or end, the
                    custom is not to make a pole at all.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (20):</font></b> This is astounding, and requires 
                    great investigation.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Question (Mishbetzos Zahav 2):</font></b> They argue about
                    the poles, and similarly about leaving blank
                    Klaf. If there is a Safek whom we follow, we
                    should leave blank at the beginning and end!
                    Also, we roll from the end, like one opinion.
                    We could make two poles and fulfill both
                    opinions!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Levushei Serad 8.9):</font></b> Due to the Safek,
                    we are passive and do not make a pole at all.
                    We leave blank at the beginning to cover the
                    Megilah, for Kavod of Kisvei ha'Kodesh. The
                    Rema connotes like this. We rely on the opinion
                    that it is rolled from the end, but not to make
                    a pole at the end. The argument is only when
                    there is a pole and blank Klaf. If there is
                    only blank Klaf, we are not particular about
                    where it is.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (15):</font></b> We leave blank Klaf at
                    the beginning, and roll it from the end.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> The Steipler initially said that Nevi'im should
                    have one pole. He later said to make two poles,
                    lest people touch the Klaf (Orchos Rabbeinu 3
                    p.216).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (YD 278:2):</font></b> If the Klaf was sewn to the pole
               with silk, if one can use sinews instead, one may
               not read from it until fixing it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Dagul me'Revavah):</font></b> Sefer ha'Azarah
                    had only one pole! The Rambam does not list
                    poles among things that are essential!
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> If the circumference of
               the Sefer Torah is six Tefachim, the width is (a
               third of the circumference,) two Tefachim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since we roll a Sefer Torah from both ends, the
                    width is even more (when it is in the middle.
                    Rashash - this is because the area of one
                    circle of diameter 2 equals the combined area
                    two circles of diameter (the square root of 2,
                    which is about) 17/12). The combined diameters
                    is 34/12, which is almost 3.) How can it fit in
                    two Tefachim (according to R. Meir)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Sefer Torah in the Aron was rolled to
          (Rashi - from) the beginning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Still, if its width is exactly two Tefachim,
          it does not fit properly in two Tefachim! (Chasam Sofer -
          really, the width is less than a third of the
          circumference (the ratio is 1/Pi, about 7/22). The pole
          on which it is wound completed the (last 1/11 of a
          Tefach) two Tefachim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> A small amount of parchment was left
          unrolled (so the width of the rolled part was less than
          two), it rested above the Torah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHERE THE TORAH AND LUCHOS WERE KEPT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to R. Yehudah, where was the Sefer
          Torah before the Pelishtim gave the chest?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It rested on a plank protruding from the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does R. Meir learn from 'v'Samtem Oso
          mi'Tzad Aron...'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It teaches that the Torah is between the Luchos
          and the wall of the Aron, not between the two Luchos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to R. Meir, where were the silver
          poles?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They were outside the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is R. Meir's source that the broken
          Luchos were in the Aron?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> He learns like Rav Huna;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> 'Shem Shem' teaches that the Luchos
               and the broken Luchos were in the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah learns R. Yochanan's law from this verse;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that Hashem's
               (primary) name and the other names that refer to Him
               were in the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> R. Meir must also learn this from the verse!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> He learns like Rav Yosef.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron'
               teaches that the Luchos and the broken Luchos were
               in the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yehudah expounds this like Reish Lakish. 1..
          (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'Asher Shibarta' - Hash-m praised Moshe
          for breaking the Luchos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ORDER OF THE NEVI'IM AND KESUVIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> The order of the Nevi'im is Yehoshua,
          Shoftim, Shmuel, Melachim, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkel,
          Yeshayah, and the 12 (small prophecies).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Hoshea (who is among the 12) prophesized
          before Yeshayah. His Sefer should precede Yeshayah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'Techilas Diber Hash-m
               b'Hoshea'? There were many Nevi'im between Moshe and
               Hoshe'a!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He was the first of four
               Nevi'im who prophesized in his time: Hoshea,
               Yeshayah, Amos and Michah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Since Hoshea is among the 12, which includes
          Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi (the last Nevi'im), it
          follows Yeshayah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> It should be written by itself before
          Yeshayah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Since it is small, it might get lost.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Yeshayah preceded Yirmiyahu and Yechezkel.
          His Sefer should precede theirs!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The end of Melachim discusses the Churban, and
          all of (Sefer) Yirmiyahu discusses Churban. Yechezkel
          begins with Churban and ends with consolation, and all of
          Yeshayah discusses consolation;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> These Nevi'im are ordered so that the beginning
               of each Sefer is like the end of the previous one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	The order of the Kesuvim is Rus, Tehilim, Iyov,
          Mishlei, Koheles, Shir ha'Shirim, Eichah, Daniel, Megilas
          Esther, Ezra and Divrei ha'Yamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to the opinion that Iyov lived in
          Moshe's time, Iyov should be first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We do not begin with punishments.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We begin with Rus, which discusses
          punishments!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Its punishments have a good end.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> She is called Rus, because her
               descendant (David) satiated (Rivahu) Hash-m with
               songs and praises.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO WROTE THE SEFARIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Who wrote Torah, the Nevi'im and Kesuvim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Moshe wrote the Torah, including the Parshah of
          Bilam, and Sefer Iyov;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Yehoshua wrote Sefer Yehoshua and the last eight verses
          of the Torah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Shmuel wrote Sefer Shmuel, Shoftim and Rus;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	David and ten other Chachamim composed Tehilim - Adam,
          Malki Tzedek (Shem), Avraham, Moshe, Heiman, Yedusun,
          Asaf, and Korach's three sons.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) FITTING THE SEFER TORAH INTO THE ARON HA'KODESH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that a Sefer Torah's height must be equal to its circumference. Rebbi states that the height of a Sefer Torah must be 6 Tefachim. The Gemara presents a formula that calculates the diameter of a cylindrical shape as one third of its circumference. According to that formula, the diameter of a Sefer Torah must be one-third of its length (which is equal to its circumference), or 2 Tefachim.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions this measurement from another Beraisa in which Rebbi Meir states that the Sefer Torah of Moshe Rabeinu rested inside the Aron ha'Kodesh. The Beraisa explains that 12 of the 15 Tefachim of the length of the Aron (which was 2 and 1/2 Amos, or 15 Tefachim, long) were taken up by the two Luchos, each of which was 6 Tefachim long. An additional Tefach was taken up by the thickness of the walls, and the remaining space of 2 Tefachim was the space in which the Sefer Torah was placed.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks, how could the Sefer Torah have fit into those 2 Tefachim? If the height of a Sefer Torah is 6 Tefachim, then its width (diameter) must be 2 Tefachim. However, since a Sefer Torah is rolled from its two sides towards the middle, there must be additional space left between the two rolls. Consequently, the Sefer Torah would need more than just 2 Tefachim of space.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. Perhaps the Sefer Torah rested on its side (with one roll on top of the other), and thus it took up less than two Tefachim of space in the Aron. (The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that its width was only one Tefach. This is difficult to understand, though, because a calculation of its dimensions shows that it was more than a Tefach wide, as the <b>RASHASH</b> asks. The <b>PNEI SHLOMO</b> addresses this question and gives an answer for the Rashba.) Since the Sefer Torah was rolled up on two sides towards the middle of the Sefer Torah, if one roll rested on top of the other, together they would take up less than two Tefachim of width. Why does the Gemara assume that the Sefer Torah was not placed in the Aron in this manner? (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that it is not reasonable to suggest that the Sefer Torah was placed on its side, because that is not a proper position in which to place a Sefer Torah. It is disrespectful to the Sefer Torah to put it down in such a fashion.
</p><p>
(b) The Rashba answers further that even if the Sefer Torah was placed on its side, it still would not fit properly in the dimensions of the Aron, for in such a case the space in which the Sefer Torah was placed would be too large. There would be a Tefach of space left between the Sefer Torah and the Luchos (as mentioned above, the Rashba himself maintains that the width of the Sefer Torah was only one Tefach), and, consequently, when the Aron would be moved, the Sefer Torah might fall over.
</p><p>
The Rashba adds that this answer also explains why the Gemara does not suggest another possible position in which the Sefer Torah might have been placed. If the Sefer Torah had been placed upright, with the front of the two rolled sides facing the Luchos, it would have stood in a space of one Tefach. Seemingly, this position would answer the Gemara's question of how the Sefer Torah stood in the Aron. The Rashba resolves this question with the same answer: the Sefer Torah could not have been placed upright in the Aron, because when the Aron would be moved the Sefer Torah would lean into the Tefach of space between it and the Luchos, and it would not remain upright.
</p><p>
The Rashba gives another answer to his second question. It is simply improper to place a Sefer Torah in an upright position. The Rashba adds, however, that he has seen that in all places it is in fact the practice to place a Sefer Torah in an upright position. (He concludes that placing the Sefer Torah on its side is not respectful, and those who do so should be admonished.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO WROTE THE SEFARIM (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Yirmiyahu wrote Sefer Yirmiyahu, Melachim and Eichah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Chizkiyahu and his contemporaries wrote Yeshayah,
          Mishlei, Shir ha'Shirim and Koheles;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	The men of the Great Assembly wrote Yechezkel, the 12,
          Daniel and Megilas Esther;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Ezra wrote Sefer Ezra, and the lineage at the beginning
          of Divrei ha'Yamim until himself (Rashi; Tosfos - until
          the verse 'v'Lo Achim Benei Yehoshafat');
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This supports Rav, who said that Ezra did not
               leave Bavel until he established his own lineage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who finished Divrei ha'Yamim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Nechemyah did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Yehoshua wrote Sefer Yehoshua and the last
          eight verses of the Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Tana'im argue about whether Moshe or Yehoshua wrote the
          last eight verses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah or R. Nechemyah):</font></b> Moshe
               could not have written 'va'Yamas Sham Moshe'!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rather, Moshe wrote until here. Yehoshua wrote
                    the rest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (R. Shimon):</font></b> Had Moshe omitted even one
               letter of the Torah, it would not say 'Lako'ach Es
               Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh'!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rather, until here, Hash-m dictated the Torah
                    and Moshe wrote;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> For these last eight verses, Hash-m
                    dictated and Moshe wrote b'Dema (with tears;
                    Sefas Emes - he wrote the letters without
                    spaces between words).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Similarly, Yirmiyahu dictated his prophecy to
               Baruch (who wrote it; Rashi - similarly, Baruch did
               not repeat the verses due to remorse) - 'mi'Piv
               Yikra Elai... va'Ani Kosev.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Like whom is the following teaching?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehoshua bar Aba):</font></b> One person reads the last
               eight verses (i.e. we do not split the reading among
               two people).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is not R. Shimon. He holds that
               Moshe wrote them, so they should be the same as the
               rest of the Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, it is even like R. Shimon;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He admits that Moshe wrote them differently,
               therefore they have a special status.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We cannot say that Yehoshua wrote Sefer
          Yehoshua. It says 'va'Yamas Yehoshua'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Elazar finished it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> It says 'v'Elazar ben Aharon Mes'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Pinchas finished it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We cannot say that Shmuel wrote Sefer Shmuel.
          It says 'u'Shmuel Mes'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Gad and Nasan finished it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> David and ten other Chachamim wrote Tehilim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should also include Eisan ha'Ezrachi (the
          author of Tehilim 89)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That is Avraham, like it says 'Mi He'ir
          mi'Mizrach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Beraisa counts Moshe and Heiman. Rav said
          that Heiman is Moshe - 'b'Chol Beisi Ne'eman Hu'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Moshe is Heiman, but Heiman ha'Ezrachi (the
          author of Tehilim 88) is someone else.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DID IYOV LIVE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Moshe wrote the Torah, including the Parshah
          of Bilam, and Sefer Iyov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	This supports Rav Levi bar Lachma.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Levi bar Lachma):</font></b> Iyov lived in Moshe's day.
               It says 'Mi Yiten Efo', similar to what Moshe said,
               'uva'Meh Yivada Efo'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps he lived in the time of
               Yitzchak (who said 'Mi Efo') or Yakov (who said 'Efo
               Zos Asu') or Yosef (who asked 'Eifo Hem Ro'im')?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It also says in Iyov, '...v'Yuchaku'.
               Moshe is called Mechokek.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> Iyov was in the days of the Meraglim (spies).
          Iyov lived 'b'Eretz Utz', similar to 'ha'Yesh Bah Etz.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> 'Utz' and 'Etz' are different!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Moshe asked the spies to see if the one (Iyov)
          whose years are great as a tree, and protects his
          generation like a tree, is still alive. (This is another
          answer to b:1.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(A Chacham):</font></b> Iyov never lived, Sefer Iyov is only a
          parable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> 'Ish Hayah' - he
          did live!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'Kivsah Achas... va'Ychayeha' was only
               a parable!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If Iyov was only a parable, it would not
               give his name and his city's name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan and R. Elazar):</font></b> Iyov returned with the
          exiles from Bavel. His Beis Medrash was in Tiverya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Iyov lived from when Yisrael
          descended to Miztrayim until they left.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) READING THE LAST EIGHT VERSES OF THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav who rules that when the Torah is read, the last eight verses of the Torah are read by a 'Yachid' ('Yachid Korei Osan'). What does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> and <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explain that during the public reading of the Torah, there may not be an interruption in these eight verses. They must be read together by one person and cannot be split into two separate Aliyos, with the first four verses read by one person and the last four by another.
</p><p>
The reason for this is, as the <b>MACHZOR VITRI</b> (#418) writes, 'in order not to interrupt in relating the passing of the foundation of the world.' (The authorship of the Machzor Vitri is attributed to Rashi).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU MESHULAM</b> who explains that 'Yachid Korei Osan' means that these verses must be read by one person by himself, rather than simultaneously by both the person who has the Aliyah and the Shali'ach Tzibur.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU TAM</b> points out that this explanation is difficult to understand, because the Halachah is that <i>all</i> parts of the Torah must be read by one person and not by two people together, for 'two voices together are not heard' (Megilah 21b).
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that 'Yachid Korei Osan' means that the last eight verses should be read by a different person than the one who read the previous verses. If the same person were to continue and read these verses until the end of the Torah, he would be reading both the verses that Moshe Rabeinu transcribed and the verses that Yehoshua transcribed. The Rabanan require a separation between the verses of Moshe and those of Yehoshua, so that it will be evident that they are unique.
</p><p>
(d) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> gives another explanation which is the opposite of his first. The second explanation is that 'Yachid Korei Osan' means that the person who read the previous verses must continue and read these eight verses with no interruption, so that it should not appear that these verses are different from the rest of the Torah.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>MORDECHAI</b>, cited by the <b>DARCHEI MOSHE</b> and <b>PERISHAH</b> (OC 428), writes that the word 'Yachid' refers to a Talmid Chacham, who is called a 'Yachid' in the sense that he is unique, singular, and exceptional. According to this, the Gemara means that the last eight verses of the Torah must be read by a Talmid Chacham. (Indeed, the practice nowadays is to give a Talmid Chacham the honor of Chasan Torah.)
</p><p>
(f) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tefilah 13:6) writes that 'it is permitted to read the last eight verses of the Torah in the Beis ha'Keneses without a Minyan. Even though it is all part of the Torah written by Moshe as he heard it from Hash-m, nevertheless since these verses discuss the time after the death of Moshe, they are to be treated differently. Therefore, it is permitted for a Yachid (without a Minyan) to read them.' The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> explains that the Rambam understands that 'Yachid Korei Osan' means that it is permitted for a Yachid, a person without a Minyan, to read these verses from the Sefer Torah, in contrast to all other parts of the Torah, which one may not read from the Sefer Torah without a Minyan.
</p><p>
(See the <b>RA'AVAD</b> there who rejects the Rambam's explanation, and see the Kesef Mishneh there who defends it. See also the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> who defends the Rambam's explanation.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE MYSTERY OF IYOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes many opinions about the identity of Iyov and when he lived.
</p><p>
One opinion says that he lived in the time of Moshe. The Gemara suggests that he may have lived in the time of Yitzchak, Yakov, or Yosef. Another opinion says that he lived in the time of the Meraglim, while yet another opinion says that he returned with the exiles from the Galus in Bavel and set up a Beis Midrash in Teverya. The Gemara attempts to suggest that he lived from the time the Jews descended to Mitzrayim until they left. The Gemara then quotes more opinions which maintain, respectively, that he lived during the days of Achashverosh, during the time of Queen Sheva, and during the time of the Kasdim (Nebuchadnetzar).
</p><p>
Nowhere else in the Gemara are there so many opinions about the identity and chronology of a single person. Why is the identity of Iyov subject to so much doubt?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> writes that the reason there are many views about the identity of Iyov is that the Book of Iyov was not well known to all of the people, but was hidden in the possession of individuals. As a result, Iyov's exact identity and the time in which he lived was forgotten. Had everyone learned the Book of Iyov throughout the generations, it would have been known who Iyov was and when he lived. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH CAN A SEFER BE MISSING?</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'> 15a (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Had Moshe omitted even 
               one letter of the Torah, it would not say 'Lako'ach
               Es Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gitin 60a:</font></b> We learn from R. Yochanan that one may
               not read in the Beis ha'Keneses from a scroll
               containing only one of the five Chumashim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We may not read in the Beis
                    ha'Keneses from a Sefer Torah missing a Yeri'ah
                    (parchment).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> He disqualifies a deficient Sefer.
               Perhaps he allows a complete Sefer!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> We may not read in it, for it
               is dishonorable to the Tzibur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Megilah 8b (Mishnah):</font></b> The only way in which Seforim
               differ from Tefilin and Mezuzos is that Seforim may
               be written in any language, but Tefilin and Mezuzos
               may be written only in Ashuris (Hebrew).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Kisvei ha'Kodesh are not Metamei hands if
               Targum (words in Aramaic) were written in Hebrew.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 9a:</font></b> There is Targum in the Torah, i.e. 'Yegar
               Sahadusa', but there is no Targum in Tefilin and
               Mezuzos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Menachos 29a (Mishnah):</font></b> The two Parshiyos in a
               Mezuzah are Me'akev each other. Even one Kesav
               (letter) is Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Even the Kotz (a protrusion) of a Yud
               is Me'akev.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Maseches Sofrim (2:1):</font></b> If one joined letters or
               interrupted in the middle of a Shem (word), one may
               not read in the Sefer.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rif and Rosh (Hilchos Sefer Torah 2b and Siman 1) If
               one corrected even one letter of a Sefer, it is
               considered as if he wrote it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shiltei ha'Giborim (3a:1):</font></b> The Mordechai
                    (Megilah 2:793) says that if a Sefer is missing
                    letters, words or a verse, we do not take out
                    another. Even though there is no concern for
                    disgracing the Sefer, since it really is Pasul,
                    we are concerned for an unnecessary Berachah.
                    Ri'az permits reading in an uncorrected Sefer
                    unless a Yeri'ah is missing.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Mahari (on Mordechai (2)):</font></b> Nowadays
                    everyone makes a Berachah before and after
                    reading anyway, so we take out another Sefer.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ran (Gitin 27b DH Mipnei):</font></b> The Isur to read
                    from a Chumash b'Tzibur is only due to honor of
                    the Tzibur, for it appears to be poor. 
                    Therefore, if there is a mistake in one Chumash
                    of a Sefer Torah, one may read in other
                    Chumashim of it. Rabeinu said this l'Halachah,
                    but not to act upon it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Tefilin 1:2):</font></b> If a Sefer Torah is
               missing one letter, it is Pasul.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ran (Megilah 5b DH v'Chosav, citing the Ramban,
                    and Kesef Mishneh explaining the Rambam):</font></b> Just
                    like one mistake disqualifies Tefilin and
                    Mezuzos, the same applies to a Sefer Torah. A
                    Mishnah says that the only difference between
                    them is the languages and characters that are
                    Kosher! R. Yochanan forbids reading from a
                    Sefer missing a Yeri'ah. Perhaps this is when
                    it is missing the last Yeri'ah. Surely, if it
                    is missing even one letter in the middle, we
                    may not read from it. The Gemara says that up
                    to three mistakes in each Daf can be fixed.
                    This implies that until it is fixed, it is
                    Pasul.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Ran):</font></b> Indeed, just like one mistake
                    disqualifies the Mitzvah of Tefilin and
                    Mezuzos, it disqualifies the Mitzvah to write a
                    Sefer Torah. We cannot learn from here to the
                    Mitzvah of the Nevi'im to read from a Sefer
                    Torah! If it is missing less than a Yeri'ah at
                    the end it is Kosher, unlike Tefilin and
                    Mezuzos! A Tosefta says that one is Yotzei if
                    he read missing words by heart. Mistakes must
                    be fixed, but one was Yotzei even if they were
                    not fixed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Defense (Gra OC 142:2):</font></b> The Mishnah did not
                    discuss the Mitzvah to write a Sefer Torah!
                    Also, we establish the Mishnah to discuss
                    Nevi'im and Kesuvim, even though the Gemara
                    does not mention (a Mitzvah to write) them. One
                    can say that the Mishnah discusses Tum'ah.
                    However, whatever is not Metamei the hands is
                    like a Chumash, and we do not read from it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (YD 279 DH v'Achar):</font></b> In a Teshuvah
                    (Pe'er ha'Dor 9) the Rambam allows reading in a
                    Sefer Torah with a mistake. According to the
                    Ran, we can resolve this with the Mishnah
                    Torah. We follow the Ran, even though the
                    Rashbatz challenged him.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (OC 143:5):</font></b> Teshuvas ha'Rambam learns from
                    Gitin that only a missing Yeri'ah disqualifies.
                    The Ramban says that this is only if it is at
                    the end. The Rashba challenged this: mistakes
                    at the beginning or end are more stringent, for
                    then the deficiency is blatant! All the Poskim
                    hold that even one mistake disqualifies. If
                    not, the Gemara would not have said that it is
                    obvious that one mistake disqualifies Tefilin.
                    A Sefer Torah is Pasul if the names of Hash-m
                    were written in gold (Shabbos 103b). This is
                    merely a typical case. The same applies to
                    other words, i.e. even a tiny minority of the
                    Sefer. If a Shirah was written normally it is
                    Pasul, even though this is less than a Yeri'ah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> Another proof for the Rambam is
                    from Bava Basra, which says that a Sefer Torah
                    missing one letter is not called a Sefer. R.
                    Yochanan showed how Torah is different than
                    Megilah. Even if a Megilah was missing several
                    Yeri'os and they were read by heart, one was
                    Yotzei. In a Sefer Torah, he was not Yotzei.
                    Since absence of text disqualified, even one
                    missing letter disqualifies.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (16):</font></b> We may not read in the Beis ha'Keneses
               from a Sefer Torah missing a Yeri'ah. This is when
               all the Yeri'os were sewn together except for one.
               Even though all are in front of us, we may not read
               until all are joined.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (9a DH Bishlomo):</font></b> Why does Targum written in
               Hebrew Me'akev? Even if the words 'Yagar Sahadusa'
               were omitted, the Sefer Torah would be Kosher! Rashi
               says that it is worse when it is written incorrectly
               than when it is not written at all. This is
               difficult. It seems that (it is not Me'akev;) the
               Mishnah merely teaches that it must be fixed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Gra, ibid.):</font></b> This is difficult.
                    Rather, it is Me'akev, and therefore, the Sefer
                    is not Metamei, but one who read from a Pasul
                    Sefer was Yotzei.
<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 143:2):</font></b> If each Chumash was
               written by itself, we do not read in it. They must
               be sewn together.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bi'ur Halachah (DH Ein):</font></b> Some say that the
                    Tzibur can pardon their honor and read from it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (4):</font></b> If one Chumash of a Sefer Torah has no
               mistakes, one may read in it, even if there are
               mistakes in the other Chumashim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bi'ur Halachah (DH Yesh):</font></b> The Ran said this in
                    the name of Rabeinu (the Rashba) l'Halachah,
                    but not to act upon it. The Rashba said so only
                    according to one answer. The custom is not to
                    bless in such a case, but we do not protest
                    against one who does.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (44):</font></b> The custom of Sefardiim is
                    not to read in such a Sefer Torah, even in
                    pressed circumstances
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 278:4):</font></b> If one of the Yeri'os was
               not sewn with the Sefer, even if it is with the
               Sefer, one may not read from the Sefer.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>THE OBLIGATION TO FIX MISTAKES IN A SEFER </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It means, Iyov lived as long as the time from
          when Yisrael descended to Miztrayim until they left (210
          years).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Seven Nevi'im from other nations
          prophesized: Bilam and his father, Iyov, Elifaz
          ha'Temani, Bildad ha'Shuchi, Tzufar ha'Na'amasi, and
          Elihu ben Barach'el ha'Buzi. (This shows that Iyov was
          not a Yisrael!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> If so, also Elihu ben Barach'el
               was not a Yisrael. However, it says that he was from
               the family of Ram (i.e. Avraham! Alternatively, the
               verse would not give the lineage of a Nochri!
               Ya'avetz - really, he descended from Buz ben Nachor,
               Avraham's nephew. This is why he is called ha'Buzi.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (to both questions):</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa means
          that seven Nevi'im prophesized to the other nations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> All the Nevi'im prophesized for all the
          nations!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The prophecies of these seven were primarily
          for the other nations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> There was a Chasid of the other
          nations; he came to the world only to get his reward;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m brought punishments upon him. He
               blasphemed, so Hash-m doubled his reward in this
               world to deprive him of his reward in the world to
               come.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not he was a
          Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Iyov was in the days of
               the Shoftim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'Hevel Tehavlu' - this is the generation
                    that judged its judges.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, he was in the days
               of Achashverosh - 'v'Lo Nimzta Nashim Yafos.. b'Chol
               ha'Aretz';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In Achashverosh's day they sought the most
                    beautiful women.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> They did also in David's day!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer:</font></b> Then, they searched only in Eretz
                    Yisrael, but not in the whole world.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Nasan says, he was in the days of Malkas (the
               kingdom of) Sheva - 'va'Tipol Sheva.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he was in the days of Kasdim
               (Babylonians, i.e. Nebuchadnetzar) - 'Kasdim...
               Hiku...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Some say, he was in the days of Yakov, and
               married Dinah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'k'Daber Achas ha'Nevalos', like it
                    says about Dinah 'Nevalah Asah b'Yisrael.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> All the opinions except the last must hold that
               Iyov was a Yisrael, since they say that he lived
               after Moshe; (Maharsha - even Yakov's descendants
               were not considered 'Yisrael' until Matan Torah.
               Alternatively, it is unreasonable that his
               descendant would marry her.) (Perhaps this is
               unreasonable, for Utz (where Iyov lived) is not
               Mitzrayim, and we cannot say that Iyov was afflicted
               (at the age of 70) before all Bnei Yisrael descended
               to Mitzrayim (Yakov had no son above 46 at the
               time), nor was it after Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz
               Yisrael (Rashi Bamidbar 26:46 implies that Dinah
               died before this - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>).)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Moshe requested that Hash-m not give prophecy
                    to Nochrim, and Hash-m agreed - 'v'Niflinu...
                    mi'Kol ha'Am.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> The generation of Iyov was steeped in
          lewdness;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Kulchem Chazisem', similar to
               'v'Nechezeh Bach' (looking at a woman).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it means to see through
               prophecy, like it says 'Chazon Yeshayahu'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> (The verse continues) 'Hevel Tehbalu.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Bi'Mei Shefot ha'Shoftim' refers to a
          generation that judged its judges;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a judge would rebuke someone for a small
               transgression, the person would rebuke the judge for
               a great transgression.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> Malkas Sheva was not a
          woman, rather it is the kingdom of Sheva.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE GREATNESS OF IYOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	'Va'Ya'an ha'Satan' - the Satan told Hash-m that he did
          not see anyone in the world as faithful as Avraham;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though Hash-m told Avraham that he will give
               to him Eretz Yisrael, and Avraham could not find a
               burial place for Sarah until he paid 400 Shekalim,
               he did not resent this. (A typical yearly income was
               50 Shekalim. Efron demanded coins 100 times bigger
               than standard Shekalim (Rashi Bereishis 23:16).)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Hash-m told the Satan to consider Iyov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> The verse praises Iyov more than
          Avraham!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding Avraham it says 'Yerei Elokim.'
               Regarding Iyov it says 'Ish Tam v'Yashar Yerei
               Elokim v'Sar me'Ra';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'v'Sar me'Ra'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Aba bar Shmuel):</font></b> He was easygoing with
               his money;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Normally, if one owes half a Perutah (the
                    smallest coin is a Perutah), he buys something
                    for a Perutah and shares it with the one he
                    owes. Iyov would give the full Perutah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> 'The Satan answered... 'Ma'ase Yadav
          Berachta.'' What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> Anyone who
          received a Perutah from Iyov was blessed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'u'Miknehu Paratz
          ba'Aretz'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> Iyov's flock
          overstepped nature;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, wolves kill goats; Iyov's flock killed
               wolves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	The Satan thought that if Iyov's prosperity ceased, he
          would blaspheme. Hash-m authorized the Satan to do as he
          wishes to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> 'The cattle were plowing and the donkeys were
          grazing Al Yedeihem.' What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> (The fodder grew instantly.)
          Hash-m gave Iyov a taste of the world to come.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) THE GREATNESS OF IYOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan states that what is written about Iyov is greater than what is written about Avraham. About Avraham it is written, 'For now I know that you are G-d-fearing' (Bereishis 22:12), while about Iyov it is written, '[Iyov was] a perfect and upright man, G-d-fearing, and he kept away from evil' (Iyov 1:1).
</p><p>
How does this prove that Iyov was greater than Avraham? The verse which the Gemara quotes regarding Avraham was said by Hash-m when He was speaking directly to Avraham, and there is a rule that one should not tell all of the praises of a person in his presence (**). The verse about Iyov, though, was not said in his presence and therefore it lists all of his praises. It is possible, however, that there were many more praises befitting Avraham. (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that even though Hash-m was speaking in the presence of Avraham, He still could have added more praises without mentioning all of Avraham's praises. The fact that the verse does not mention more praises shows that, indeed, that which is written about Iyov is greater than that which is written about Avraham. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE AFFLICTIONS OF IYOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Messengers cam in succession telling Iyov about the
          loss of his property and children. Iyov accepted it and
          blessed Hash-m. The Satan still praised Avraham, and
          Hash-m praised Iyov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Va'Tesiseni' - if the verse did not say
          that Hash-m was enticed, it would be forbidden to say
          this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The Satan descends, causes people to
               sin, ascends, prosecutes, and receives permission to
               kill.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Satan thought that if Iyov himself was
               stricken, he would blaspheme. Hash-m authorized the
               Satan to do as he wanted to him, on condition that
               he keep Iyov alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> The Satan was in more pain than
               Iyov. i/t was very hard to ravage his body and
               preserve his life.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Satan, evil inclination, and the
          angel of death these are all one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Gezeirah Shavah teaches that the Satan is the
               evil inclination;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since Hash-m told him to guard Iyov's life, we
               learn that he can take lives, i.e. he is the angel
               of death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> The Satan and Peninah both
          intended for the sake of Heaven.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Satan was concerned that Hashem's love of
               Iyov might detract from his love for Avraham.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Peninah pained Chanah (about being barren)
               'Ba'avor Hare'imah', in order that Chanah would pray
               to Hash-m. (Ben Yehoyada - surely, she was punished
               so severely because she intended to pain her.
               Rather, Elkanah did not rebuke her because she said
               that she intends l'Shem Shamayim.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Acha bar Yakov expounded like this, and the
               Satan kissed his knees.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IYOV'S REACTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Lo Chata Iyov bi'Sfasav (he did not sin with
          his lips, i.e. speech)', but he sinned in his heart.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Eretz Nitenah b'Yad
          Rasha'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> Iyov blasphemed (he said this about
          Hash-m).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Iyov said this about the Satan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Tana'im argued about this. R. Eliezer said like
               Rava, and R. Yehoshua said like Abaye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Al Datecha Lo Ersha v'Ein mi'Yadcha Matzil' -
          Iyov sought to exempt the whole world from judgment, by
          saying that there is no free choice;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like Hash-m created Tahor animals and Tamei
               animals, He created Tzadikim and Resha'im, one
               cannot change the way he was created!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How did his friends respond?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Indeed Hash-m created the evil inclination, but
          He also created the Torah to enable people to overcome
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Birkas Oved Alai Tavo' - Iyov would steal
          orphans' fields, improve them and return them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Lev Almanah Arnin' - if a widow was unable to
               remarry, Iyov would speak on her behalf or say she
               was his relative to help her remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> Iyov's mouth should be filled with dirt for the
          following things he said:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Lu Shakol Yishakel (if only we would see who is
               justified)' - one speaks to a person thusly, but not
               to Hash-m!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Lo Yesh Beineinu Mochi'ach' - a slave does not
               rebuke his master!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> His mouth should be filled with dirt also for
          'Bris Korati l'Einai u'Mah Esbonen Al Besulah.' He
          credits himself for not looking at other women;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Avraham did not even look at his own wife -
               'Hinei Na Yadati Ki Ishah Yefas Mar'eh At';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Until now, he did not know!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Yored She'ol Lo Ya'aleh' - Iyov denied revival
          of the dead.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Bi'Sarah Yeshufeni' - he blasphemed by
          speaking of Se'arah (a stormy wind), and Hash-m answered
          by speaking of Sa'ar (hair);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Iyov suggested that a stormy wind caused a
               confusion, and the punishment intended for Oyev (the
               enemy) was meted to Iyov;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Ya'an Hash-m... Min ha'Se'arah...' - I
               created so many hairs on a person's head, each is
               fed from its own follicle;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If two hairs would come from the same follicle,
                    the person would be blinded;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> I did not confuse two hairs. Will you say that I
               confused Oyev and Iyov?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> 'Mi Filag la'Shetef Te'alah' - I created clouds,
               with so many drops of water; each has its own
               cavity;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If two drops would come from the same cavity,
                    they would make the ground muddy and unable to
                    bear fruit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> I did not confuse two drops. Will you say that I
               confused Oyev and Iyov?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that 'Te'alah'
                    means 'cavity'?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> 'Va'Ya'as
                    Te'alah' (Eliyahu dug a trench around his
                    Altar).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> 'V'Derech la'Chaziz Kolos' - I created many
               sounds (thunder) in the clouds, each has its own
               channel;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If two sounds would come from the same channel,
                    they would destroy the world.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> I did not confuse two sounds. Will you say that I
               confused Oyev and Iyov?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> 'Ha'Yadata Es Ledes Ya'alei Sala' - a wild goat
               is cruel to its young, it ascends a mountain in
               order that the baby will fall to its death when it
               is born;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) STEALING FROM THE POOR IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THEM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava expounds the verse, 'The blessing of the despondent one shall come upon me, and the heart of the widow I shall make rejoice' (Iyov 29:13). The words 'The blessing of the despondent one shall come upon me' teach that Iyov would steal a field from orphans, work on it and improve it, and then return it to them.
</p><p>
How could Iyov do such a thing? The Gemara in Bava Metzia (61b) states clearly that one is forbidden to steal something even with the intention to return it, and even with the intention to return <i>double</i> the value of the object. Why does the Gemara here <i>praise</i> Iyov for such a deed? (<b>YAD RAMAH</b>, <b>ME'IRI</b>, <b>TORAS CHAIM</b>, <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>YAD RAMAH</b> writes that Rava agrees with the opinion expressed earlier (15b) that Iyov was not Jewish (see also <b>TOSFOS</b> to 15b, DH b'Ferush). Only a Jew is prohibited from stealing an object with intent to return it (because that prohibition is based on an extra word in the verse, as the Gemara in Bava Metzia teaches). A Nochri is permitted to steal an object if he plans to return double the value of what he stole, and, on the contrary, it is even praiseworthy for him to do so.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ME'IRI</b> writes that Iyov did not actually steal the land of the orphans; rather, he worked on it in such a way that it was clear to all who saw that his intentions were for the benefit of the orphans. The Gemara uses the word 'Gozel' merely to emphasize the extent to which Iyov cared for poor orphans (i.e. that he even would have stolen their land, had he been permitted to do so, in order to improve its value for them).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PNEI SHLOMO</b> answers based on the <b>RAMBAM's</b> explanation for why one is prohibited from stealing an object with intent to return double its value. The Rambam explains that if this would be permissible, a person might become accustomed to stealing and might come to steal in a forbidden manner as well. This reasoning, however, applies only to <i>Geneivah</i>, clandestine theft. A person who commits acts of Geneivah may become accustomed to doing so because nobody knows about his thefts. <i>Gezeilah</i>, or open robbery, on the other hand, is permitted when one intends to return double the value, since the victims or other onlookers clearly see who robs them. A thief is not likely to commit multiple acts of open robbery, so he will not become accustomed to such acts.
</p><p>
The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> also differentiates between Geneivah and Gezeilah. He cites the words of Tosfos in Bava Kama (11a, DH Ein Shamin) who says in the name of the Yerushalmi that two verses are necessary to teach that the principle of 'Ein Shamin' applies both to Geneivah and to Gezeilah, since neither can be learned from the other. This indicates that the Halachos stated with regard to one form of stealing (Geneivah or Gezeilah) do not necessarily apply to the other form. The Halachah that one may not steal an object even with intent to return double its value is derived by the Gemara in Bava Metzia from a verse written with regard to Geneivah. There is no source that the same prohibition applies to Gezeilah.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV YAKOV KAMINETZKY</b> zt'l (in <b>EMES L'YAKOV</b>) answers that since land cannot be stolen ('Karka Einah Nigzeles') and a Kinyan of Geneivah or Gezeilah cannot take effect on it, there is no prohibition against stealing a field with intent to return double its value.
</p><p>
(<b>RAV CHANOCH KARELENSTEIN</b> zt'l adds that this answer depends on a Machlokes Rishonim. Some Rishonim maintain that 'Karka Einah Nigzeles' means that there is not even a prohibition (d'Oraisa) against stealing land (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Metzia 61a, DH Ela Lav, and <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> there). Others maintain that although 'Karka Einah Nigzeles,' there still is a prohibition against stealing land, and 'Karka Einah Nigzeles' means only that the other laws of Gezeilah do not apply (<b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Geneivah 7).)
</p><p>
(e) <b>RAV CHANOCH KARELENSTEIN</b> zt'l answers further based on the words of the <b>RITVA</b> (5a, DH Runya). The Ritva writes that one is permitted to steal something with intent to repay when he intends to benefit the Nigzal and <i>not</i> to cause him distress. The Gemara in Bava Metzia prohibits one from stealing with intent to repay only when the thief's intent is to cause anguish to the Nigzal. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AVRAHAM AVINU NEVER LOOKED AT HIS WIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from the verse, 'I now know that you are a woman of fine appearance' (Bereishis 12:11), that until that point Avraham Avinu had never looked at his wife.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks, how could it be that Avraham Avinu never looked at his wife? The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) teaches that a man is prohibited from marrying a woman before he sees her, lest he find something unbecoming in her. The Gemara (Yoma 28b) teaches that Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah, even the enactments of the Rabanan. How, then, could he have married Sarah without looking at her, in violation of the Halachah taught by the Gemara in Kidushin?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Avraham Avinu certainly saw Sarah in her youth before he married her. <i>After</i> he married her, however, he never looked at her, due to her greatness in modesty. This verse relates that after more than sixty years of marriage, he looked at her because he thought that she no longer had the same degree of beauty that she had in her youth. He saw, however, that she indeed was still as beautiful as she had been in her youth.
</p><p>
(b) The Maharsha answers further that Avraham Avinu fulfilled all of the dictates of the Torah and the Rabanan only <i>after</i> he had performed Bris Milah (as the Maharsha proves elsewhere). Since he married Sarah before he performed Bris Milah, he chose not to fulfill the requirement that one must look at his prospective bride before he marries her.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV CHANOCH KARELENSTEIN</b> zt'l in <b>SEFER MAR'EI MEKOMOS</b> answers based on the well-known view of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (to Bereishis 26:5) that the Avos fulfilled all of the Mitzvos only when they were in Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, Avraham Avinu did not have to look at Sarah before he married her, since he had not yet come to Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
(d) Others answer (see <b>SEFER MAR'EI MEKOMOS</b>) that the Gemara in Kidushin says that the reason why one must look at his prospective bride before he marries her is that later he may see something unbecoming in her and be disgusted by her. Avraham Avinu intended <i>never</i> to look at his wife, and therefore he would never see anything unbecoming in her. Therefore, he had no need to look at her before he married her.
</p><p>
However, <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES KIDUSHIN</b>) rejects this answer for two reasons. First, the verse here shows that Avraham Avinu indeed looked at his wife many years later. He should have taken into account at the time that he married her that a need to look at her might arise some day. Second, it is logical that such an enactment is subject to the principle of 'Lo Plug' and thus requires that <i>every</i> man look at his prospective bride before he marries her. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>LOOKING AT WOMEN</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'> (Rava):</font></b> Iyov's mouth should be filled with dirt for
               saying 'Bris Korati l'Einai u'Mah Esbonen Al
               Besulah.' He credits himself for not looking at
               other women. Avraham did not even look at his own
               wife - 'Hinei Na Yadati Ki Ishah Yefas Mar'eh At.'
               This implies that until now, he did not know!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 58a:</font></b> R. Bana'ah found Eliezer (Avraham's slave) near
               Avraham's grave. Eliezer told him that Avraham was
               sleeping in Sarah's arms. R. Bana'ah asked him 'ask
               Avraham if I may enter.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Avraham:</font></b> He may enter. It is known that there
                    is no Yetzer ha'Ra after death, so there is no
                    need for modesty.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 167b (Abaye):</font></b> Even though a witness cannot retract
               his testimony after he testified, a Chacham normally
               is not so exacting about women, so he is believed to
               retract what he originally said (about a woman's
               identity).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 168a (Abaye):</font></b> When a Chacham goes to be Mekadesh a
               woman, he should take an ignoramus with him, lest
               they give to him a different woman at the Nisu'in.
               (The ignoramus would recognize that she is not the
               same woman.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kidushin 41a (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may not be Mekadesh
               a woman without seeing her. Perhaps he will not like
               her appearance, and he will despise her, and
               transgress 'v'Ohavta l'Re'acha Kamocha.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avodah Zarah 20a (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Gamliel was in Har
               ha'Bayis, and he saw a beautiful Nochris. He said
               'Mah Rabu Ma'asecha Hash-m';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> When Turnusrufus' wife tried to seduce R. Akiva, he
               laughed, for he saw (through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) that
               she would later convert and marry him. He cried due
               to her beauty, which would ultimately go to the
               grave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Nishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra' -
               one may not look at a beautiful woman, even if she
               is single, or at a married woman, even if she is
               ugly. One may not look at a woman's colored
               clothing, nor at animals or birds mating, even if
               they fill his field of vision, like the angel of
               death.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He saw her when he turned a corner. (He did
               not know in advance to close his eyes.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may not look at a woman's colored
               clothing even if it is on the wall.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Beraisa forbids only if he knows
               whose clothing it is.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa says he may not look at
               a woman's colored clothing. It does not say 'at
               (women's) colored clothing.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is forbidden only if she already
               wore the clothing, but not if it is new. If not, it
               would be forbidden to give new clothing to a
               professional to make alterations, for he will look
               at it!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that an animal breeder
               may insert the male's Ever into the female, even
               though one may not look at animals mating! You must
               say that one involved in his profession is not
               aroused to improper thoughts. This could also
               explain why we may give clothing to a professional!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avos d'R. Noson (2:5):</font></b> Iyov was stringent not to
               look at a virgin, even though he (some texts - or
               his son, brother or relative) could marry her, and
               all the more so at a married woman. He was stringent
               lest later someone else marry her, and Iyov will
               look at (Hagahos ha'Gra - think about) a married
               woman.
<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 (Kidushin 16a and 2:1):</font></b> One may not be
               Mekadesh a woman without seeing her. Perhaps he will
               not like her appearance, and he will despise her,
               and transgress 'v'Ohavta l'Re'acha Kamocha'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 3:19):</font></b> It is improper to be
               Mekadesh a woman until he sees that she is pleasing
               to him, for if she is not, he will divorce her or
               cohabit with her even though he hates her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 21:3):</font></b> One may look at
               the face of a Penuyah (unmarried woman), whether or
               not she is a virgin, to check if she is pleasing in
               his eyes and he would like to marry her. There is no
               Isur. Further, it is proper to do so. He may not
               look lustfully. It says 'Bris Korati l'Einai u'Mah
               Esbonen Al Besulah.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ra'avad:</font></b> The Gemara said that a Chacham who
                    goes to be Mekadesh a woman should take an
                    ignoramus with him, for a Chacham does not
                    normally do so (look at them).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> This is not difficult for the
                    Rambam. Even if a Chacham looks at a girl once,
                    he would not know if they switched her, for he
                    does not look at the form of women so much. An
                    Am ha'Aretz will recognize her even if he saw
                    her only once. If it were forbidden to look at
                    a woman to inspect her, we would not tell an Am
                    ha'Aretz to sin in order to help a Chacham! Rav
                    Yehudah's teaching proves that it is permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Yad Aharon (in Hagahos Tur ha'Shalem 8):
                    Perhaps the Am ha'Aretz will not lust, for he
                    is like one engaged in his work. This is
                    difficult.
<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 (EH 21:3):</font></b> One may look at a Penuyah,
               whether or not she is a virgin, to see if he wants
               to marry her. Further, it is proper to do so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mutar):</font></b> The Magid Mishneh
                    defended the Rambam well.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Nesivos Shabbos (in Hagahos Tur ha'Shalem 8):
                    This implies that after the Shiduchin he may
                    not look at her. A man may look at his wife
                    when she is Nidah, for she will be permitted to
                    him later. This is after they had Bi'ah, for
                    then his Yetzer is not so great. Before Bi'ah,
                    seclusion is forbidden; likewise, he may not
                    look at her. We asked why R. Akiva looked at
                    Turnusrufus' wife, even though he knew that
                    later, she would marry him. We must say that
                    before marrying her, the Yetzer is greater.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Note:</font></b> One could say that the Gemara asked only
                    about R. Gamliel! Also, perhaps after Shiduchin
                    is more lenient, for he could have Nisu'in with
                    her whenever he wants (when she is not Nidah)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (Kesav Yado 3):</font></b> Why didn't Avraham look at
                    Sarah (before marrying her,) before he
                    (accidentally) saw her on the way to Mitzrayim?
                    The concern is lest he see something repilsive.
                    Avraham resolved never to look at her, so there
                    was no concern. This is why a Chacham should
                    take an Am ha'Aretz with him to Shiduchin (the
                    Chacham will never look at her). Iyov said that
                    he did not look even at his own wife before
                    marrying her.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> Rava holds that Iyov looked at his own
                    wife. Perhaps Avraham saw Sarah before marrying
                    her, but (until he saw her now) he assumed that
                    her beauty faded due to travelling (see Rashi
                    Bereishis 12:10)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ya'avetz (on Avos d'R. Noson):</font></b> Why aren't we
                    concerned lest Ploni look at her, another will
                    marry her, and Ploni will look at her
                    afterwards? If Ploni did not marry her, she was
                    not pleasing in his eyes. Iyov was stringent,
                    for he already had a wife. He could have looked
                    for another wife, or a wife for his son or
                    relative, but it is proper for one not to do
                    so, lest he look at her after she is married.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Binyan Yehoshua (on Avos d'R. Noson):</font></b> Ornaments
                    are only for inside the house (Tanchuma
                    Vayishlach 5), but not for Reshus ha'Rabim,
                    because people look at her. We do not put a
                    potential for sin in front of Kosher people,
                    and all the more so in front of thieves!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that one should not do with his wife
               matters of affection, e.g. for her to check his head
               for lice, in front of others.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Darchei Moshe (3):</font></b> The Nimukei Yosef (31a,
                    before the Mishnah): We learn from the episode
                    with Avraham that it is improper to do such
                    things with one's wife in front of others.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Drishah 4):</font></b> I say that only lying in
                    her lap, like the episode with Avraham, is
                    forbidden. Perhaps no one forbids perusing his
                    head while he is sitting. However, the Rashba
                    (1:188) compares this to pouring water on his
                    hands and setting the bed, which are
                    endearment.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (1):</font></b> R. Bena'ah was concerned for a lack of
                    modesty for Avraham to lie in Sarah's lap in
                    front of others, and also for perusing his
                    head, lest it arouse desire in others. Avraham
                    said that since there is no Bi'ah after death,
                    neither is a problem. This shows that normally,
                    one should not peruse her husband's head in
                    front of others. This is only with a wife, for
                    it makes others think about Bi'ah. One may
                    peruse the head of her brother or father in
                    front of others.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> I prepare a Nesher (eagle or vulture) to catch
               the baby on its wings, and return it to the mother.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the Nesher would come a moment earlier or
                    later, the baby would die.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b>  I did not miscalculate by a moment. Will you say
               that I confused Oyev and Iyov?!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b>  'Cholel Ayalos Tishmor' - the womb of a hart
               (wild goat) is narrow. When it is ready to give
               birth, I send a snake to bite it, causing the womb
               to open more;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the snake would come a moment earlier or
                    later, it would die.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b>  I did not miscalculate by a moment. Will you say
               that I confused Oyev and Iyov?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'Iyov Lo b'Da'as Yedaber' teaches that one is
          not liable for what he says when in pain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> 'Iyov's three friends heard of his
          afflictions... va'Yiva'adu Yachdav.' What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They all arrived at the same
          moment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Each was 300 Parsa'os (a Parsah is
               about four kilometers) from each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How did they know of his afflictions?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Each had a crown (another version - tree) with
          images of the faces of his three friends;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a face withered, this showed that he was
               suffering afflictions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If one does not have friends like Iyov's,
               it is better to die.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HAVING DAUGHTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Hechel ha'Adam Larov... u'Vanos Yuldu
          Lahem' - when a girl is born, Rivya (reproduction) comes
          to the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Reish Lakish):</font></b> Merivah (quarrels) comes to the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Reish Lakish against R. Yochanan):</font></b> According
          to you, why didn't Hash-m give Iyov twice as many
          daughters as he originally had (just like he doubled
          everything else)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They were not doubled in number,
          but they were doubled in beauty (we learn from their
          names);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yamimah was as clear as the Yom (the daytime
               sun);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Ketzi'ah smelled like Ketzi'ah (cassia, an
               ingredient of the incense);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (D'Vei R. Shila):</font></b> Keren ha'Puch was (black) like
               the horn of a Keresh (giraffe).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rabanan in Eretz Yisrael):</font></b> This is not
               beautiful!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Rather, she was like garden
               saffron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	A daughter was born to R. Shimon, the son of Rebbi. He
          felt bad.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebbi:</font></b> Rivya came to the world!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bar Kapara:</font></b> Rebbi gave empty consolation.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The world needs males and females,
                    but happy is one who has sons, and woe to the
                    one who has daughters;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  The world needs perfumers and tanners.
                    Happy is a perfumer, and woe to the tanner (he
                    absorbs the odor of excrement, which is used in
                    tanning).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Tana'im argue whether having daughters is good.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> 'Va'shem Berach Es Avraham
               ba'Kol' - he did not have a daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, this teaches that he had a
               daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Others say, 'he had a daughter named 'Bakol'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ha'Moda'i says, he knew how to read
               the stars. All the kings of the east and west
               constantly came to him for advice.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, he hung a special stone around
               his neck. Any sick person who looked at it was be
               cured immediately;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  When Avraham died, Hash-m hung the stone on the
                    sun;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> That is why people say 'a sickness
                    lightens when day comes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Also, he was blessed 'ba'Kol', that he died
               before Esav rebelled, and Yishmael repented in
               Avraham's lifetime.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>YISHMAEL REPENTED, BUT ESAV DID NOT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the source that that Avraham died
          before Esav rebelled?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The day that Esav sold his birthright, Yakov
          was cooking lentils to console Yitzchak, for Avraham died
          that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why are lentils fitting for a mourner?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rabah bar Mari):</font></b> Just like lentils have no
          mouth (opening), also a mourner (talks little).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Just like lentils are round, also mourning
          is a cycle, everyone will eventually be mourned over by
          others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They argue about consoling with eggs (they have
          no mouth, but they are not round like a circle).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> Esav committed five transgressions that
          day. He had Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah, he murdered,
          he denied Hash-m, he denied revival of the dead, and he
          cast off the privilege of the firstborn (i.e. to do the
          Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the source that Yishmael repented in
          Avraham's lifetime?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We learn from the following.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ravina):</font></b> Does 'Geviyah' always refer to
               a Tzadik's death?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Chama bar Buzi):</font></b> Yes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ravina):</font></b> It says this regarding the
               generation of the flood!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Chama):</font></b> I meant that 'Geviyah' and
               'Asifah' together always refer to a Tzadik's death
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It says 'Geviyah' and 'Asifah' by
               Yishmael!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that Yishmael
               repented in Avraham's lifetime.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'va'Yikberu Oso Yitzchak v'Yishmael'
                    (Yitzchak was first).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps the verse lists them in order
               of their Chachmah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> Rejection 'Va'Yikberu Oso Esav v'Yakov'!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rather, we must say that Yitzchak is listed
                    first because Yishmael deferred to him, i.e. he
                    repented.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) THE BIRTH OF A DAUGHTER</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara relates that when a daughter was born to Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi, he was distressed. His father comforted him by pointing out that with the birth of a daughter, propagation ('Reviyah') comes into the world. In what way does 'Reviyah' come into the world more with the birth of a daughter than with the birth of a son?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Reviyah' comes into the world more with the birth of a daughter because a female's reproductive system matures earlier than that of a male (as the Gemara in Sanhedrin 69b implies).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains based on a Midrash (in Shemos Rabah) which he cites in his commentary to Sotah (12a, DH Shalosh Gezeiros Gazar Par'oh). The Midrash says that Pharaoh's decree to kill all of the sons that were born to the Jews was not a wise decree, for it would not accomplish his purpose. One man can marry a number of women and have children from all of them, while one woman cannot marry more than one man. Thus Pharaoh should have decreed that all of the girls be killed, and not all of the boys. This indicates that when there are more women in the world, there can be greater propagation. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SOME REWARDS OF THE GREATEST TZADIKIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Hash-m gave three people a taste of the
          world to come: Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They were blessed with 'ba'kol', 'mi'Kol', and
               'Kol' respectively.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This also shows that these are the only three
               over whom the evil inclination did not rule.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Some say, also David was not under its rule - 'v'Libi
          Chalal b'Kirbi'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	The first Tana holds that David merely expressed his
          pain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> The angel of death did not rule over six
          people: Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov (as above), and
          Moshe, Aharon and Miryam who died 'Al Pi Hash-m'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> It does not say 'Al Pi Hash-m' regarding
          Miryam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> A Gezeirah Shavah 'Sham-Sham'
          teaches that Miryam also died through Hashem's kiss!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is not proper for the Torah to say this
               explicitly, so it did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Seven people were not consumed by worms
          after death: Avraham, Yitzchak, Yakov, Moshe, Aharon and
          Miryam (as above), and Binyamin ('Yishkon la'Vetach').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Some say, also David was not - 'Ach Besari Yishkon
          la'Vetach'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana holds that this was a request for
               mercy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Four people died only due to (Adam's sin
          through) the snake: Binyamin, Amram, Yishai, and David's
          son Kalev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Avigayil Bas Nachash', even though she
               was Yishai's daughter, to teach that he died only
               due to the snake.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We have a tradition about the other three.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK <b><b>LO</b></b> YACHPOR</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISTANCING TO PREVENT DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not dig a (round) pit close to his
          neighbor's pit, nor may he dig a long or roofed pit, or
          an irrigation channel, or a laundry ditch, unless he
          distances three Tefachim (handbreadths) from his
          neighbor's pit, and plasters the wall of the pit;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	One must distance the refuse of olives, manure, salt,
          lime, and rocks three Tefachim from his neighbor's wall,
          and/or apply plaster;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	One may not plant seeds, plow, or put urine within
          three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	The lower stone of a millstone must be distanced three
          Tefachim, and the upper stone will be four Tefachim away;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	The bottom of an oven must be distanced three Tefachim,
          and the top will be four Tefachim away.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THREE PEOPLE OVER WHOM THE YETZER HA'RA HAD NO DOMINION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that 'over three people the Yetzer ha'Ra had no dominion' -- Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, and some say even David ha'Melech.
</p><p>
If the Yetzer ha'Ra had no control over them, then how could they receive reward in Olam ha'Ba for the Mitzvos that they did in this world? Without the influence of the Yetzer ha'Ra, there is no option but to choose to do good, so they would have had no Bechirah, free choice. How, then, could they be rewarded for doing good?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> explains that their Yetzer ha'Ra was not entirely curtailed. Rather, since Hash-m saw that they made great efforts to avoid sin, Hash-m helped them and did not let the Yetzer ha'Ra influence them. This is based on the Gemara in Yoma (38b) which derives from the verse, 'He guards the feet of His righteous ones' (Shmuel I 2:9), that once a person lives a majority of his life without sin, he receives Divine assistance and is able to live the rest of his life free of sin.
</p><p>
The <b>BIRKAS AVRAHAM</b> explains this further based on the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos Teshuvah (6:2). The Rambam reconciles the verse, 'And I will harden his (Pharaoh's) heart' (Shemos 4:21), with the concept of free will. The Rambam explains that Pharaoh had the power of free will, but he used that power to choose to sin and oppress the Jewish people. Once he sinned, Hash-m hardened his heart and took away his ability to choose to do good. The same principle, in converse, is evident in the Gemara here. The Gemara teaches that if a person always defeats his Yetzer ha'Ra and chooses to do good, he merits Divine assistance to the extent that, in the future, Hash-m will remove from him the urge to do evil and in effect will take away his Bechirah, his free will. However, a person who reaches this level is rewarded even for the removal of his free will, since it is a result of his own efforts that his Bechirah has been taken away. (See also <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b>, beginning of Va'era.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) DIGGING A PIT NEXT TO A NEIGHBOR'S PIT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a person may not dig a Bor (pit) next to his neighbor's Bor unless he distances his own Bor at least three Tefachim from the wall of his neighbor's Bor.
</p><p>
The Rishonim provide different explanations for what types of Bor the Mishnah discusses, and what damage may be caused when a person digs a Bor next to his neighbor's Bor.
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> writes that the Mishnah refers to a <i>water</i> cistern, a Bor that is used to hold water. A <i>dry</i> Bor, on the other hand, <i>may</i> be dug within three Tefachim of a neighboring Bor. A Bor that is used to hold water must be distanced because the moisture will damage the wall of the neighbor's Bor.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, questions this explanation from the Gemara later (17b) which says that the neighbor can claim that 'each thrust of your shovel weakens my land,' which implies that it is the digging, and not the water, that damages the neighbor's land. Accordingly, the Mishnah is referring to all types of pits and not only to a water cistern.
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the Gemara means that when one Bor is dug adjacent to another, the damage begins at the moment that one starts to dig. Accordingly, it is considered 'Girei Dilei' (arrows that one shoots which cause damage). In such a case, Rebbi Yosi agrees (as the Gemara later explains) that the owner of the damaging object is obligated to distance his object. However, he would have to move only a minimal distance away, not a distance of three Tefachim, in order to avoid the damage that may be caused by the shovel. It is only because of the potential damage that will be caused by the water in the Bor that the minimum distance is set at three Tefachim.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) writes that only a small amount of damage will be caused by the strikes of the shovel, but the major damage will be caused by the water that the Bor will hold. Once the Chachamim required a person to keep his Bor at a distance because of the potential water damage, they also required him to move it because of the small damage that the shovel causes.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (cited by the Rashba, who himself agrees with Tosfos) maintains that the Mishnah's ruling applies equally to a <i>dry</i> Bor that does not hold water. The reason why one must distance such a Bor at least three Tefachim from his neighbor's Bor is that, as the Gemara says, each thrust of the shovel into the earth weakens the neighbor's land.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes to 19a) differentiates between a 'Bor' and a 'Shi'ach' or 'Me'arah.' (A Shi'ach is a narrow, elongated well, and a Me'arah is a cave-like structure that usually leads to a spring or water source.) When the Mishnah says that a person must not dig a Bor within three Tefachim of his neighbor's Bor, it refers even to a dry Bor, and the reason why he must distance his Bor from his neighbor's is because of the strikes of the shovel upon the earth. A Shi'ach or Me'arah, on the other hand, need to be dug three Tefachim away only when they will be used to hold water.
</p><p>
This difference is due to the fact that a Bor is relatively deep, and thus the digging itself weakens the neighbor's land. In contrast, a Shi'ach and Me'arah (and the other types of pits mentioned in the Mishnah) are not deep, and thus the act of digging them does not damage the neighbor's land. The land may be damaged, however, because of the water that they hold. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE NATURE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DISTANCE A POTENTIALLY DAMAGING OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one may not dig a Bor (pit) next to his neighbor's Bor unless he distances his own Bor at least three Tefachim from the wall of his neighbor's Bor, so that the digging of his Bor will not damage his neighbor's Bor (see previous Insight). The Mishnah here and throughout the rest of the Perek lists other requirements of 'Harchakah,' distancing a source of potential damage from a neighbor's property.
</p><p>
The requirement to distance a potentially damaging object from someone else's property seems to fall within the category of the laws of the Arba'ah Avos Nezikin and the general laws of Nizkei Mamon, damages caused to someone else's property, the topic of Maseches Bava Kama. Why are these Mishnayos taught in Bava Basra and not in Bava Kama?
</p><p>
Moreover, the <b>RAMBAM</b> records these Halachos of 'Harchakos' in Hilchos Shechenim, and not in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon. Why does the Rambam not include these Halachos in the laws of Nizkei Mamon?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (155:18) addresses this issue at length. He proposes that the laws of 'Harchakos' of potentially damaging objects are <i>not</i> related to the laws of Nizkei Mamon, the obligation to avoid causing damage to someone else's property. Indeed, the Halachos of 'Harchakos' are not consistent with the Halachos of Nizkei Mamon. According to the Halachos of Nizkei Mamon, if a person or his property (such as his animal) causes damage to someone else's property, he is obligated to pay for the damage (in part or in full, depending on the nature of the damage). However, the Gemara here (18b) teaches that when a person's bees eat his neighbor's mustard plant -- an occurrence which would seem to be identical to the classic case of Nezek of <i>Shen</i>, wherein an animal eats someone else's property -- the owner of the bees does <i>not</i> have to distance his bees from the mustard plant. Moreover, the Gemara implies that he is <i>exempt</i> from paying for the damage that the bees cause to the plant, for even when a person <i>is</i> obligated to distance an object from his neighbor's property, he is exempt from payment for any damage that was caused. (See <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> CM 155:33; end of <b>RAMBAN's</b> Kuntrus Dina d'Garmi; <b>YAD RAMAH</b> to 25a. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> also infers from the Mishnah here that the owner of the object is exempt from paying for damages since the Mishnah phrases its Halachah as merely a <i>prohibition</i> to dig a Bor adjacent to a neighbor's Bor, and not as a <i>monetary</i> obligation. Had it been a monetary obligation, the Mishnah would have made a statement such as, 'One who digs a Bor near his neighbor's Bor is Chayav.')
</p><p>
Furthermore, the Rishonim write that the obligation to distance a potentially damaging object from a neighbor's property is a Chiyuv <i>d'Rabanan</i> (<b>RABEINU TAM</b> in <b>SEFER HA'YASHAR</b> #616; <b>MABIT</b> in <b>KIRYAS SEFER</b>, Hilchos Shechenim 9), while the requirement to pay for damages of the Arba'ah Avos Nezikin is mid'Oraisa (as detailed in the first Perek of Bava Kama; with regard to the status of the <i>prohibition</i> to cause damage in the first place, see Insights to Bava Kama 2:3).
</p><p>
Why, though, do the general Halachos of Nezikin not include the requirement to distance a potentially damaging object from another person's property?
</p><p>
The Nesivos ha'Mishpat explains that the focus of this Perek is a potentially damaging object <i>inside</i> the owner's property. If a person would be held responsible to pay for damage caused by these objects, or he would be prohibited to use these objects because of the risk that they might damage a neighbor's property, then he would not be able to use them at all, even within his own domain. The Torah does not require a person to refrain from normal activities in his own domain out of fear that an object might cause damage elsewhere without leaving its present location. On the contrary, the potential victim should be obligated to protect himself, and the owner of the object should retain the right to use his own object in his own Chatzer. In contrast, the Halachos of the Arba'ah Avos Nezikin dictate that the owner of a Shor, for example, must guard his Shor in his own domain so that it will not <i>leave</i> his domain and cause damage elsewhere. The owner's obligation to guard a Shor inside his own domain, however, does not limit or restrict what he can do within his own property.
</p><p>
Further explanation of this distinction is found in <b>SEFER TIFERES TORAH <b><b>AL</b></b> HA'SHAS</b> (#33) by <b>RABEINU HA'GAON RAV SHIMSHON PINCUS</b> zt'l. He explains that the laws of Nezikin in Bava Kama relate to a situation in which the Mazik enters the domain of the Nizak or infringes on an area that the Nizak has the right to use. Damage that is caused in such a fashion falls into the category of 'Nezikin.' In contrast, the laws of 'Harchakos' (in Bava Basra) do not involve a Mazik that enters the domain of the Nizak at all. Rather, these laws apply to a person who causes damage in his neighbor's property when he uses an object in his own domain. Since the damaging object did not leave the owner's domain, it is not subject to the laws of Nezikin discussed in Bava Kama. The discussion of the Gemara here is whether a person's <i>rights of ownership</i> over his own property include the right to use, in his own property, an object that will cause damage to a neighbor. The discussion involves the nature of the rights of ownership, or Kinyan, and it does not involve the laws of Nezikin. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST ONE WHO DISTANCES ALSO PLASTER?</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> One may not dig a pit close to his
               neighbor's pit, or an irrigation channel, or a
               laundry ditch, unless he distances three Tefachim
               (handbreadths) from his neighbor's pit, and plasters
               the wall of the pit;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One must distance Gefes (the refuse of olives),
               manure, salt, lime, and rocks three Tefachim from
               his neighbor's wall, and/or apply plaster;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One may not plant seeds, plow, or put urine within
               three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 19a (Mishnah):</font></b> V'Sad (and he plasters the wall of
               the pit).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Does this mean '<i>and</i> he plasters', or
               '<i>or</i> he plasters'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Clearly, it must be 'and'. If not, the
               Reisha (one who digs a pit, irrigation channel...
               must distance v'Sad) would have been taught together
               with the Seifa (the next clause, one must distance
               Gefes, manure...)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Even though also in the Reisha, either
               suffices, the Tana teaches separately damage from
               water, and damage from heat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> In land with
               brittle dirt, one may dig (a pit) in his own
               property, but must distance three Tefachim and
               plaster it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> He must distance and plaster only
                    because the dirt is brittle!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No. Even if the dirt is not brittle, he
               must distance and plaster. One might have thought
               that brittle dirt requires more than three Tefachim
               are required. The Beraisa teaches that this is not
               so.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif brings our text of the Mishnah (the Seifa
               says <i>or</i> plasters).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 9:1):</font></b> One may not dig a
               pit, irrigation channel, or laundry ditch near his
               neighbor's wall, unless he  distances three Tefachim
               and plasters the wall of his own pit or ditch or
               channel on the side near his neighbor, lest water be
               absorbed and damage his neighbor's wall.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam requires both
                    distancing and plastering. Meforshim say that
                    even though the proof was rejected, since we
                    (initially) said 'clearly, it must be 'and'',
                    this is the Halachah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Lechem Mishneh:</font></b> According to Rashi and Tosfos,
                    even though the Seifa does not explicitly say
                    'or', the Gemara knew that the damagers in the
                    Seifa are not so potent to require both. The
                    Rambam requires both for a pit, like the Magid
                    Mishneh explained. There was never a question
                    about Gefes. If there was, what was the
                    attempted proof 'if not, the Reisha would have
                    been taught together with the Seifa'? Perhaps
                    for both of them, one must distance <i>or</i>
                    plaster! We cannot say that the Gemara meant
                    that since they were taught separately, surely
                    just one requires both, but we are unsure
                    which. Surely, we need more to stop the damage
                    of a pit than of Gefes! The Beis Yosef says
                    that the Rambam rules like the Rosh, that the
                    Gemara asked about Gefes, and since it did not
                    resolve the question, it suffices to do one of
                    them. This is astounding. The question was only
                    about a pit! The Gemara suggested that if the
                    Mishnah means one of them, both clauses should
                    have been taught together. If we ask about
                    Gefes, this means that surely a pit needs only
                    one of them! Also, the Beis Yosef says that
                    Rashi holds that the question was about a pit,
                    and later he says that it was about Gefes!
                    Rather, all agree that Gefes needs only one,
                    and the question was about a pit. The Rosh
                    holds that the question was not resolved, and
                    the Rambam holds that since the Gemara said
                    'clearly', we require both.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> One must distance the refuse of olives,
               manure, salt, lime, and rocks three Tefachim from
               his neighbor's wall, or apply plaster. One must
               distance a cavity in which urine gathers three
               Tefachim from a wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (10):</font></b> If Ploni wants to dig a pit at the edge
               of his property near his neighbor's (Levi's) field,
               if it is normal to have pits in a field like Levi's,
               Ploni must distance his pit three Tefachim from the
               border.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:4):</font></b> The Gemara did not resolve whether he
               must distance and plaster, or if one suffices.
               Therefore, if he did either, we cannot force him to
               do more.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos 17a (DH v'Sad):</font></b> The text in both clauses must
               be v'Sad. If not, surely the Tana said v'Sad only in
               the Reisha, for only in the Reisha both distance and
               plaster are required! The Gemara knew that the
               damagers in the Seifa are not so potent to require
               both.
<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 155:4):</font></b> One must distance Gefes,
               manure, salt, lime, rocks or wet sand three Tefachim
               from his neighbor's wall, or apply plaster.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Kosav Rabeinu):</font></b> The Gemara did
                    not resolve the question. The Rosh says that
                    therefore, if he did either, we cannot force
                    him to do more. Also the Rambam says so, for in
                    every monetary Safek we are lenient for the
                    defendant.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (4):</font></b> The Mechaber requires also plaster
                    for wet things, like the Rambam. If so, wet
                    sand should require both! The Rambam and our
                    Mishnah require both for an irrigation ditch
                    (and surely, also for wet sand).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (5):</font></b> A cavity in which urine gathers
               must be distanced three Tefachim from another's
               wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> One must also plaster it; see Sa'if 10.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (21):</font></b> If there is no cavity, and one merely
                    pours urine on the ground, it suffices to
                    distance three Tefachim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz:</font></b> The Rambam holds that when the Mishnah
                    discusses urine, it refers to a cavity for
                    urine. If so, it should have taught urine
                    together with things for which it is feasible
                    to plaster, but not with seeds and plowing!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (10):</font></b> One may not dig a pit or
               irrigation or laundry ditch near his neighbor's
               wall, unless he  distances three Tefachim and
               plasters the wall of his own pit or ditch on the
               side near is neighbor, lest water be absorbed and
               damage his neighbor's wall.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (28):</font></b> The Rambam requires distancing and
                    plastering even near the wall of another's
                    house. The Rosh and Tur hold that it suffices
                    to distance from a house wall.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Shach 7):</font></b> The Rosh and Tur never
                    require both, even near the wall of another's
                    pit!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (Ketzos ha'Choshen 5):</font></b> The Rosh and Tur
                    hold that the question was resolved. If so,
                    l'Chatchilah one must do both. B'Di'eved, if
                    one did only one, Beis Din cannot force him to
                    do more. Regarding a house wall, even
                    l'Chatchilah one must do only one.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH umi'Kol):</font></b> Why did the Tur bring
                    the Rambam's opinion, who requires distancing
                    and plastering, but not the Rosh, who requires
                    only one? Perhaps he holds that the Rosh relied
                    on Rashi, that the question was only about
                    Gefes, but surely both are required for a pit.
                    However, the words of the Rosh connote that he
                    discusses also a pit. This requires
                    investigation.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (Sa'if 18):</font></b> The Tur did not say so here,
                    for he relies on what he says later, which is
                    the primary place for this law. However, the
                    Rema should have said here that some disagree!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (18):</font></b> If Ploni wants to dig a pit at
               the edge of his property near his neighbor's
               (Levi's) field, if it is normal to have pits in a
               field like Levi's, Ploni must distance his pit three
               Tefachim from the border.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bedek ha'Bayis:</font></b> Why did the Rambam not mention
                    plastering regarding one who digs a pit near
                    the border? It seems that the need for both is
                    only near a wall, lest it be ruined, but when
                    there is no wall, plastering does not help. In
                    any case, one must distance three Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that he must also plaster the wall of
               his pit, like we said in Sa'if 10. Some disagree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (26,51):</font></b> The Rambam holds that it was a
                    mere Dichuy to say that perhaps only one is
                    needed for a pit. The Rosh holds that the
                    question was not resolved, so l'Chatchilah it
                    suffices to do one. Above, the Mechaber (Sa'if
                    10) and Rema (Sa'if 5) rule like the Rambam.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MUST ONE DISTANCE HIMSELF BEFORE THERE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DAMAGED? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah first says 'he must
          distance from a pit'; then it says 'from the wall'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It means that he distances (the
          interior of his pit three Tefachim) from the wall of his
          neighbor's pit. (Even if his neighbor merely dug a hole, the
          surrounding three Tefachim of earth are considered the wall.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why doesn't it just say 'he distances three
          Tefachim from his neighbor's pit?' (Surely, this means from
          the wall. If it meant from the interior, he need not distance
          at all (in a normal case), and sometimes he may destroy his
          neighbor's wall, if his neighbor happened to build a wall more
          than three Tefachim!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches that the wall of a pit is
          three Tefachim. (The interior of one's pit is three Tefachim
          from his neighbor's wall; these three Tefachim are the wall
          of the new pit.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is relevant to commerce.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one sells a pit and its wall, the wall is
               three Tefachim (the buyer receives three Tefachim around 
               the interior).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISTANCING FROM THE BORDER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> One may dig a pit at the edge of his property
          if his neighbor does not have a pit nearby;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> No, he must distance three Tefachim from the
          border.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1:</font></b> In a type of field in which people
          generally dig pits, all agree that he must distance from
          the border;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	They argue when it is the type in which people
          generally do not dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye allows him to dig at the edge, for in such
               a field, we do not expect that the neighbor will
               want to dig a pit (nearby);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava says that he must distance three Tefachim
               from the border. Just like he decided to dig a pit
               in such a field, perhaps his neighbor will also want
               to.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2:</font></b> In a type of field in which people do not
          generally dig pits, all agree that he may dig up to the
          border;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	They argue when it is the type in which people
          generally dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye allows him to dig at the edge.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even Chachamim, who forbid planting a tree
                    within 25 Amos of a neighbor's pit, say so only
                    about an existing pit. Here, there is no pit
                    when he digs;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava says that he must distance three Tefachim
               from the border.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even R. Yosi, who says that just like Shimon
                    may dig in is his own property, his neighbor
                    may plant in his own property, and need not
                    distance himself, says so only about planting,
                    because the roots that will cause the damage
                    are not present when he plants;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Here, every shovel full of dirt excavated
                    softens the neighboring land, so he must
                    distance himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A man may not dig a pit near his neighbor's
          pit ...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> This is only because his neighbor has
               a pit there. If not, he would not have to distance
               himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1:</font></b> We understand according to Version #2. In a
          type of field in which people do not generally dig pits,
          all agree that he may dig up to the border;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah discusses a field in which people
               generally do not dig pits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	According to the first version, they argue about a
          field in which people generally do not dig pits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	We understand according to Abaye (it is such a field).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah is difficult for Rava!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> Abaye himself taught that the Mishnah
          says that Reuven must distance himself from the
          (potential) wall of his neighbor's pit (i.e. even if he
          is the first to dig).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2:</font></b> (Abaye): The Mishnah says that Reuven must
          distance himself from the (potential) wall of his
          neighbor's pit (i.e. even if he is the first to dig).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand according to Version #1 (of the
               dispute between Abaye and Rava). In a type of field
               in which people generally dig pits, all agree that
               he must distance himself. The Mishnah discusses a
               field in which people generally dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to Version #2, they argue about a field
               in which people generally dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah is like Rava (it is such a
               field), but it is difficult for Abaye!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when both
               neighbors come to dig pits at the same time
               (therefore, each must distance himself).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One who wants to dig a pit in land
          in which the dirt is brittle must distance himself three
          Tefachim, and plaster. (This refutes Abaye in Version
          #2.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This is no refutation. Brittle dirt has a 
          different law!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Obviously, the Beraisa chose the case
               for this reason. Why didn't the one who asked the
               question anticipate this answer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He thought that the Beraisa chose the
               case of brittle dirt to show that even then, it
               suffices to distance three Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One must distance manure, salt, lime, rocks
          and the refuse of olives three Tefachim from his
          neighbor's wall, and apply plaster.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISTANCING FROM DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(The coming nine questions are against Rava in the
          first version.) Question #1:</font></b> This implies that if his
          neighbor did not have a wall there, he would not have to
          distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no wall there, he must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why did the Mishnah teach these
               cases?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that these things damage
               walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He may not plant seeds, plow, or urinate
          within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #2:</font></b> This implies that if his neighbor did not
          have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no wall there, he must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why did the Mishnah teach these
               cases?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that moisture damages walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> The lower stone of a millstone must be
          distanced three Tefachim. The upper stone will be four
          Tefachim away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #3:</font></b> This implies that if his neighbor did not
          have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no wall there, he must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, what does the Mishnah teach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that making the ground shake
               damages walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> The bottom of an oven must be distanced
          three Tefachim. The top will be four Tefachim away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #4:</font></b> This implies that if his neighbor did not
          have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no wall there, he must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, what does the Mishnah teach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that heat damage walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not open a bakery or dyer's store or
          cattle pen under someone else's storehouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #5:</font></b> This implies that if there was not a
          storehouse there, he would be allowed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We are more lenient for necessities of living.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Seifa):</font></b> If the cattle pen preceded the
          storehouse, he may keep it there.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISTANCING TREES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not plant a tree within four Amos of
          his neighbor's field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Four Amos is the amount needed for
               upkeep of a vineyard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #6:</font></b> This implies that if not for the field, he
          would not have to distance himself, even though the roots
          will damage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, the case is, a deep rock (below ground)
          separates the fields. (The roots will not penetrate.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If there is a wall between the fields, each
          may plant close to the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #7:</font></b> He need not distance himself, even though
          the roots will damage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Here also, a deep rock separates the fields.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> From the Seifa, we may infer that no
               rock separates the fields!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Seifa):</font></b> If the roots entered his neighbor's
                    field, the neighbor may cut them up to three
                    Tefachim below the ground, so it should not
                    impede his plow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means that if no rock
               separates the fields, and the roots entered his
               neighbor's field, the neighbor may cut them up to
               three Tefachim below the ground, so it should not
               impede his plow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not plant a tree within 25 Amos of
          his neighbor's pit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #8:</font></b> This implies that if his neighbor did not
          have a pit there, he would not have to distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no pit there, he must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that roots can damage a pit
               up to 25 Amos away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Seifa teaches that if the tree preceded
          the pit, it may not be cut down. If one must distance
          himself even when there is no pit there, how was he
          allowed to have the tree close?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We answer like Rav Papa said (elsewhere), that
          when Reuven planted the tree, he owned the nearby field.
          Later, he sold it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST THE DAMAGER DISTANCE HIMSELF?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We distance soaking water (of flax) from
          vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard from bees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #9:</font></b> This implies that if his neighbor did not
          have vegetables there, he would not have to distance
          himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, even if there are no vegetables there, he
          must distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that these things damage one
               another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Seifa teaches otherwise!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah and Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> One may plant
               mustard near his neighbor's bees. He can say 'rather
               than tell me to distance my mustard, distance your
               bees, for they eat the stems of my mustard plants!'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AVOIDING 'KIL'AYIM' ON TWO SIDES OF A FENCE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah later (26a) which states that when two fields are separated by a fence, the owners of both fields may plant trees adjacent to the fence. Similarly, when one of the fields is a wheat field, the owner of the other field may plant trees adjacent to the fence and he does not transgress the Isur of Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
How does a fence prevent a person from transgressing the Isur of Kil'ayim? The roots of the trees will meet the roots of the wheat below the fence, and thus it still should be prohibited to plant both plants adjacent to each other, even if they are separated by a fence.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> later (19a, DH ha'Mavrich) proves from this Gemara that the Isur of Kil'ayim applies only when the plants mingle above the ground. The Isur of Kil'ayim does not apply to plants that are separated above the ground, even if their roots mingle below the ground. This also seems to be the approach of <b>RASHI</b> here (end of DH Geder).
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> writes that the Isur of Kil'ayim requires two things: that the roots of the two plants not absorb their nourishment together, and that the offshoots and branches of the two plants not mingle. The Mishnah refers to a case in which there is a large rock ('Tzunma') beneath the fence. The rock prevents the roots of the plants from mingling, and the fence between the two plants prevents their branches from mingling. (This view is also cited by the <b>ME'IRI</b> at the beginning of Bava Basra.)
</p><p>
The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> points out that according to this explanation, when the Gemara in Eruvin (11b) says that the Halachic concepts of 'Tzuras ha'Pesach' and 'Gud Achis Mechitzasa' create a separation between plants, which prevents one from transgressing the Isur of Kil'ayim, it must refer exclusively to a case in which there is a large rock between the roots of the plants, because a separation above the ground is not sufficient to avoid the Isur of Kil'ayim (according to the Ri mi'Gash).
</p><p>
(<b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> zt'l in <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> (end of #36) questions this explanation based on the Gemara later (19b) which says that when one replants a shoot of a grapevine, wheat seeds may not be planted directly over it but may be planted on the sides, even within a distance of three Tefachim, even though the roots of the plants will mix. The Gemara there certainly cannot refer to a case in which the roots are separated by a rock, because the Gemara there attempts to derive from that case that a plant's roots do not spread out sideways.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST ONE DISTANCE HIMSELF BEFORE THERE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DAMAGED?</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'> 17b (Abaye):</font></b> One may dig a pit at the edge of his
               property if his neighbor does not have a pit nearby;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> No, he must distance three Tefachim from the
               border.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> In a kind of field in which people
               generally dig pits, all agree that he must distance 
               from the border. They argue when it is the type in
               which people generally do not dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Abaye allows him to dig at the edge, for in such a
               field, we do not expect that the neighbor will want
               to dig a pit (nearby). Rava says that he must
               distance three Tefachim from the border. Just like
               he decided to dig a pit in such a field, perhaps his
               neighbor will also want to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> In a type of field in which people do
               not generally dig pits, all agree that he may dig up
               to the border. They argue when it is the type in
               which people generally dig pits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Abaye allows him to dig at the edge. Even Chachamim,
               who forbid planting a tree within 25 Amos of a
               neighbor's pit, say so only about an existing pit.
               Here, there is no pit when he digs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Rava says that he must distance three Tefachim from
               the border. R. Yosi permits one to dig in is his own
               property, just like his neighbor may do so, without
               distancing himself. He says so only about planting,
               because the roots that will cause the damage are not
               present when he plants. Here, every jolt of the
               shovel softens the neighboring land, so he must
               distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One must distance Gefes (refuse of
               olives), manure, salt... three Tefachim from his
               neighbor's wall, and apply plaster.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rava in Version #1):</font></b> This implies
               that if his neighbor did not have a wall there, he
               would not have to distance himself!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, even if there is no wall there, he must
               distance himself. The Mishnah teaches that these
               things damage walls.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not open a bakery or dyer's store
               or cattle pen under another's storehouse.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This implies that if there was not a
               storehouse there, he would be allowed!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We are more lenient for necessities of
               living.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Seifa):</font></b> If the cattle pen preceded the
               storehouse, he may keep it there.
<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 (2:1):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rava. Even
               though we hold like R. Yosi, who permits one to dig
               in his own property, R. Yosi admits regarding Giri
               Dilei ('arrows', i.e. damage that comes directly
               from the person's hand). This is a case of Giri
               Dilei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 9:10):</font></b> If Ploni wants to
               dig a pit at the edge of his property near his
               neighbor's (Levi's) field, if it is not normal to
               have pits in such a field, Levi cannot protest. If
               later, Levi decides to dig a pit, he must distance
               it three Tefachim from Ploni's pit, so six Tefachim
               will separate between the interiors of the pits.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Gemara did not explicitly
                    say that when Levi decides to dig, he must
                    distance six (between the interiors). His Rebbi
                    and some Meforshim explain like this. Others
                    say that he need not distance more than three.
                    He can say 'it is enough that you did not
                    distance from my border. Will you force me to
                    distance extra within my property?!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (ibid):</font></b> If it is normal to have pits in a
               field like Levi's, Ploni must distance his pit three
               Tefachim from the border. When Levi wants to dig a
               pit, also he will distance three Tefachim from the
               border.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> What was the question against Rava from
               distancing Gefes...? If there is no wall now, there
               is no damage now! Tosfos answered that these things
               damage the land, and even after they are removed,
               the land will not be good for a wall. Alternatively,
               it is a toil to remove them, and perhaps when Levi
               builds his wall, Ploni will be sloth to remove the
               damager. R. Yonah says that we are concerned lest
               Ploni make a Chazakah of having the damager there
               for three years, and claim that Levi permitted it.
               Rava reason is not because every jolt damages even
               now. We said so only to show that even R. Yosi could
               agree. We did not need it according to Chachamim.
               Therefore, Ploni may not open a window opposite
               Levi's ruin. Perhaps when Levi wants to rebuild,
               Ploni will say that he has a Chazakah to have a
               window there; also, Levi will need to distance four
               Amos! I disagree. If one may put Gefes near the
               border when there is no wall or pit, Ploni cannot
               claim Chazakah, for until now he did not damage, so
               Levi could not protest. When one cannot protest,
               there is no Chazakah. Therefore, a window opposite a
               ruin has a Chazakah only if it was there three years
               before the house was ruined. If one had a window
               opposite a house, and the house became a ruin, it is
               advisable to have witnesses write for him that he
               had the window three years before it became a ruin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (3):</font></b> Rava agrees with Abaye that one need not
               distance if now there is nothing that would be
               damaged. In this case, even Chachamim forbid only a
               pit, for each jolt weakens the land, even if Levi
               has no pit now. Rava said that even R. Yosi agrees,
               because every jolt damages even now. He did not mean
               that only R. Yosi says so. Also Chachamim forbid
               only a pit, for this reason.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Piplulei Charifta (4):</font></b> This is the conclusion.
                    Above, the Rosh said that in the Sugya above,
                    this reason was needed only for R. Yosi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Beis Yosef (CM 155 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Afilu):
                    The Gemara explained why it was necessary to
                    teach both an irrigation channel and a laundry
                    ditch. If a pit must be distanced only if it
                    has water, the Gemara should have explained why
                    it was necessary to teach these and also a pit!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> When two things damage each
                    other, and Ploni put his close to the border,
                    also Levi may put near him. Since Ploni did
                    slightly improperly, even though Levi could not
                    protest against him, Ploni cannot stop Levi
                    from doing so if Levi is willing to bear the
                    damage.
<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 155:18):</font></b> If Ploni wants to dig a
               pit at the edge of his property near his neighbor's
               (Levi's) field, if it is not normal to have pits in
               such a field, Levi cannot protest.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (42):</font></b> It is normal to have pits in a field
                    that must be irrigated, but not in a field that
                    prospers through rain alone.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If later, Levi decides to dig
               a pit, he must distance it six Tefachim from Ploni's
               pit, so six Tefachim will separate between the
               interiors of the pits.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> This
                    is like the Rosh and Rambam. Hagahos Ashri
                    disagrees.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (47):</font></b> The Gemara asked from opening a store
                    or cattle pen under another's storehouse. This
                    shows that when one may put a damager nearby,
                    it is like a store or pen, or an opening
                    opposite an opening (154:3 and Gra 154:66. The
                    latter must distance enough to avoid damage.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If it is normal to have pits
               in a field like Levi's, Ploni must distance his pit
               three Tefachim from the border. When Levi wants to
               dig a pit, also he will distance three Tefachim from
               the border.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH ha'Ba):</font></b> We rule like Rava,
                    according to Version #2.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Rashba):</font></b> A case
                    occurred in which Reuven dug a storehouse near
                    the wall of Shimon's house without distancing
                    in certain places. Shimon demands that he fill
                    in three Tefachim where he did not distance,
                    and plaster where he distanced. The Rashba
                    (3:157) said that the questioner assumes that
                    the distance in the Mishnah is even without
                    moisture. If so, surely Reuven must do like
                    Shimon says. However, some explain that the
                    distance in the Mishnah is due to moisture. If
                    so, when there is no moisture, one must
                    distance like experts say is enough to prevent
                    damage.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MUST ONE WHO DISTANCES ALSO PLASTER? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one must distance damagers from the border
               (even when there is no pit there), both of them must
               distance themselves!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> When Reuven set up the soaking pit,
          leeks or mustard, he owned the adjacent field. Later, he
          sold it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, why do Chachamim say that he must
          distance himself?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This question also applies to R. Yosi, who agrees
               in the first two cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Ravina):</font></b> Chachamim hold that the potential
          damager must distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> R. Yosi holds that the victim must
               distance himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If so, in all three cases R. Yosi
               should not require him to distance himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Really, R. Yosi agrees that the damager must
          distance himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He agrees about water and leeks, since these
               damage (vegetables and onions) but are not damaged.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Bees also damage mustard, therefore one need not
               distance his mustard from the bees.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that bees do not damage mustard.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They do not find the seeds;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Even though they eat the leaves, they grow
                    back.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi does not hold that the damager must
          distance himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> Even though the pit preceded
               the tree, we do not cut down the tree. The owner of
               the pit digs in his field, and the owner of the tree
               plants in his field!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Defense of Answer #1):</font></b> Really, R. Yosi holds that the
          victim must distance himself. He addresses Chachamim
          according to their reasoning;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yosi:</font></b> I hold that the victim must distance
               himself, even regarding soaking water and
               vegetables;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Granted, in such a case, you hold that the
                    damager must distance himself, since he damages
                    but is not damaged;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> You should admit about bees and mustard,
                    that neither must distance himself, for each
                    damages the other!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that bees do not damage mustard,
               for they do not find the seeds. Even though they eat
               the leaves, they grow back.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE BEES AND THE MUSTARD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the Rabanan maintain that a person who raises bees to produce honey is entitled to prevent his neighbor from planting a mustard plant near the boundary of his own property. A mustard plant is considered a damaging object because when the bees eat the mustard plant its sharp taste causes them to eat their own honey, and thus the owner will lose his honey. The Gemara asks, according to the Rabanan, why is the owner of the bees not similarly required to distance his bees from the boundary since, after all, they will harm the neighbor's mustard plant when they eat it? The Gemara answers that bees do not cause damage to a mustard plant. It is very difficult for them to find the kernels, so it is not likely that they will damage the mustard plant by eating the kernels. Although they will eat the leaves, that is not considered damage because the leaves will grow back.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara answer its question? Even if the leaves grow back, the bees still will cause damage to the mustard plant, because when the leaves grow back the bees will eat them again. The bees should be considered a damaging agent because they can be expected to eat the leaves of the mustard plant every time the leaves grow back, and thus the mustard plant will never be able to grow properly. (<b>RA'AVAD</b>, cited by <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> answers that once the bees have eaten the mustard leaves once and have tasted their sharpness, they will not eat them again. Since the leaves will grow back and the bees will not eat them again, the owner of the bees is not required to prevent his bees from eating the mustard leaves. The owner of the mustard plant, on the other hand, must remove his plant from the boundary, because even if the bees eat the leaves only once they will have a desire to eat their own honey, and their owner will lose some honey as a result.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> challenges this answer. The Gemara (end of 18a, in its explanation of the view of Rebbi Yosi) implies that the bees constantly come to eat the mustard plant ('Ba'os v'Ochlos'); they do not eat from it just once and not more.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara implies that even after the mustard plant has been planted, the Rabanan require the owner to uproot his plant and plant it farther away from the boundary. According to the Ra'avad's explanation, why does the owner have to relocate his plant? The Ra'avad maintains that once the bees have eaten from it the first time, they will not eat from it again. Since they will not eat from it again, the plant no longer poses a threat to the owner of the bees. According to the Ra'avad, the owner of the plant should be allowed to leave his plant adjacent to the boundary.
</p><p>
The Rashba asks further that according to the Ra'avad, the Rabanan's rejoinder to Rebbi Yosi is difficult to understand. The Rabanan explain that the bees are not considered a Mazik to the mustard plant because the leaves that they eat will grow back, whereas the mustard plant is considered a Mazik to the honey. If the bees eat the leaves of the mustard plant only once, however, then the mustard plant itself can cause damage only once, for its harmful influence occurs only when the bees eat its leaves. Before the bees eat the mustard leaves, <i>both</i> the bees and the plant should be considered potential Mazikin to each other. After the bees have eaten the leaves once, <i>neither</i> of them should be considered a potential Mazik, because the bees will no longer eat the leaves. Why, then, is there a distinction between the bees and the leaves?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers the Ra'avad's question in a different way. The leaves of a mustard plant are picked as soon as they grow. Thus, the leaves will be picked before the bees can eat them. Although the bees might eat a little bit before the owner has a chance to pick the leaves, the small amount that they consume is not considered a loss at all.
</p><p>
(c) The Rashba gives another explanation. The primary function of the leaves is to protect the kernels of mustard. Since the leaves grow back whenever the bees eat them, the main part of the mustard plant -- the kernels -- will not sustain any damage, because it will always be protected by leaves. Hence, even if the bees continuously eat the leaves as they grow back, they will not cause any damage because the kernels will always be protected, and the leaves themselves have no intrinsic value. (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST THE DAMAGER DISTANCE HIMSELF? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A laundry ditch ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Three Tefachim suffice only
          for the ditch in which the laundry is soaked. The ditch
          in which one rubs the clothes must be distanced four
          Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A laundry ditch must be
               distanced four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> It must be distanced
               three Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah and Beraisa discuss different
               types of laundry ditches, like Rav Nachman taught.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that a laundry
          ditch must be distanced three Tefachim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> A laundry ditch must be
               distanced four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Three Tefachim suffices for the
          ditch in which the laundry is soaked. The ditch in which
          one rubs the clothes must be distanced four Amos. (end of
          Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Chiya, son of Rav Avya):</font></b> The text of the Mishnah
          explicitly says that he must distance the edge of the
          soaking ditch three Tefachim from the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> V'Sad (and he plasters the wall of the pit).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does this mean 'and he plasters', or 'or he
          plasters'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Clearly, it must be 'and'. If not, the
          Reisha (one who digs a pit, irrigation channel... must
          distance v'Sad) would have been taught together with the
          Seifa (one must distance the refuse of olives, manure...
          or apply plaster)! (Tosfos 17a - the text in both clauses
          must be v'Sad. If not, surely the Tana said v'Sad only in
          the Reisha, for only in the Reisha both (distance and
          plaster) are required! The Gemara knows that the damagers
          in the Seifa are not so potent to require both.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Even though also in the Reisha, either
          suffices, the Tana teaches separately damage from water,
          and damage from heat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> In land in which the
          dirt is brittle, each neighbor may dig (a pit) in his own
          property, but must distance himself three Tefachim and
          plaster it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> He must distance and plaster only
               because the dirt is brittle!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No. Even if the dirt is not brittle, he must
          distance and plaster.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa taught the case of brittle dirt, for
               one might have thought that more than three Tefachim
               are required. It teaches that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DAMAGE DUE TO HEAT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One must distance the refuse of olives,
          manure, salt, lime, and rocks ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We may not do Hatmanah (wrap food to keep it
          warm on Shabbos) in refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime,
          or sand, whether they are wet or dry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does our Mishnah teach about rocks but
          not about sand, and the other Mishnah teaches about sand,
          but not about rocks?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Mishnah of Hatmanah does not
          teach about rocks, for people do not normally do Hatmanah
          in rocks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Abaye):</font></b> It is not normal to do Hatmanah in
          tufts of wool, or strips of purple wool, but a Beraisa
          teaches these!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We may do Hatmanah in tufts of wool,
               or pieces of combed wool, or in strips of purple
               wool, and in soft wads, but we may not move them (on
               Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The two Mishnayos reveal about each
          other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah teaches about rocks. The same law
               applies to sand;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> That Mishnah teaches about sand. The same law
               applies to rocks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rava):</font></b> If so, why were the other things
          listed in both Mishnayos? Each should have been taught
          only in one, and we would know that it applies to the
          other, also!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> That Mishnah does not teach about
          rocks for they would make the pots rust or break (so they
          are never used for Hatmanah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sand is not taught in our Mishnah, for it heats
               only what is hot, but cools what is cold.
               (Therefore, it does not harm walls, which are cold.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> R. Oshiya taught that sand must be distanced
          from a wall!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That refers to wet sand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Our Tana should teach the case of wet sand!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He already taught the case of an irrigation
          channel (which damages like wet sand).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He taught both an irrigation channel and a
          laundry ditch!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It was necessary to teach both of those.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only an irrigation channel, one
               might have thought that this is because it is
               constantly used, but a laundry ditch need not be
               distanced!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If only a laundry ditch was taught one might have
               thought that this is because its water is stagnant
               (and damages more), but an irrigation channel need
               not be distanced!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DAMAGE DUE TO VEGETATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He cannot plant seeds or plow (unless he
          distances ...).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah obligates distancing plowing. Why
          must it also teach that he must distance his plants?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One can sow seeds by hand, without plowing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah obligates distancing plowing. Why
          must it also teach that he must distance his plowing?
          (Things grow only where he seeds!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He may want to plow to improve his trees (which
          were properly planted long ago).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must the Mishnah teach that he must
          distance his plants? We know that he cannot bring water
          close to the wall!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Tana is in Eretz Yisrael, where the rain
          suffices for the plants.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PLASTERING ONE'S BOR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a person may not dig a Bor (pit) next to his neighbor's Bor unless he distances his own Bor at least three Tefachim from the wall of his neighbor's Bor, 'and plasters it with plaster.' The Gemara asks whether the Mishnah means that he must distance himself by at least three Tefachim <i>and</i> plaster his Bor with plaster, or that he may <i>either</i> distance his Bor <i>or</i> plaster it. The Gemara cites two proofs but does not answer its question conclusively.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah? Does a person who wants to build a Bor near his neighbor's Bor have to distance his Bor by three Tefachim <i>and</i> plaster it, or is he required to do only one of these two things?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shechenim 9:1) writes that one must do both -- distance his Bor from his neighbor's Bor by three Tefachim <i>and</i> plaster his Bor with plaster.
</p><p>
There are two different explanations given for the ruling of the Rambam.
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that since the Gemara states that 'it is obvious that the Mishnah means [that the person building the Bor must distance his Bor] '<i>and</i> plaster it',' the Rambam understands that this is the Gemara's conclusion. Although the Gemara proceeds to refute its initial statement, this seems to be the Halachah because the Gemara calls it the obvious meaning of the Mishnah. This is also the way the <b>RITVA</b> explains the ruling of the Rambam. He adds that when the Gemara refutes its assumption that the Mishnah requires both conditions, the Gemara merely is suggesting possible refutations ('Dilma'), but it does not refute the assumption conclusively.
</p><p>
This is also the view of <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, who writes that when the Gemara refutes this suggestion with a statement of 'Dilma' ('perhaps...'), it merely is suggesting a possible way to refute the assumption, but it does not reject it conclusively. This also seems to be the view of the <b>RIF</b>, who quotes the wording of the Mishnah ('v'Sad b'Sid') but does not mention the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
2. The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> CM 155:51) explains that the Rambam's ruling is in accordance with his own view regarding unresolved questions in the Gemara. The Rambam maintains that in any case of a Safek in the Gemara, Beis Din must rule stringently, even if the Safek is a question that the Gemara asks but does not resolve ('Ba'aya d'Lo Ifshita'). The question of whether a Bor must be both plastered and kept at a distance is not resolved in the Gemara. Thus, a person who wishes to dig a Bor must both distance it by three Tefachim from his neighbor's Bor <i>and</i> cover it with plaster, since the Halachah <i>may</i> require both.
</p><p>
(However, the Bi'ur ha'Gra earlier (CM 155:26) explains the Shulchan Aruch (who rules like the Rambam) as the Magid Mishneh explains the Rambam, that the Gemara's refutation of its initial assumption is only a suggestion and not conclusive. See <b>MA'AREI MEKOMOS</b> of <b>RAV CHANOCH KARELENSTEIN</b> zt'l who discusses this apparent contradiction in the words of the Vilna Ga'on.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> writes that since this question is unresolved, Beis Din cannot force the builder of the Bor both to distance his Bor <i>and</i> to plaster it. Rather, it suffices for him to do one of the two things. This is also the ruling of the <b>MORDECHAI</b> (end of Bava Metzia) as cited by the <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> (CM 155:51).
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on writes further that the Rosh's ruling is in accordance with his own general position: that in any case (like this one) of an unresolved question in the Gemara, Beis Din should rule leniently.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Rambam and Rosh disagree about how Beis Din rules with regard to a question in Halachah that the Gemara does not resolve. The Vilna Ga'on (Bi'ur ha'Gra CM 155:8, in 'Likut') explains their reasons. The Rambam maintains that since mid'Oraisa one is prohibited to damage someone else's property, Beis Din must rule stringently in a case in which the Halachah is in doubt. (If, however, a person already built a Bor at too small a distance from his neighbor's Bor, Beis Din does not obligate him to remove his Bor, because, as the Shulchan Aruch there writes, 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.') The Rosh, on the other hand, maintains that even though the prohibition to cause damage to another person's property is mid'Oraisa, Beis Din rules leniently in this case because it is a monetary matter, and Beis Din adopts the lenient ruling in all questions of monetary law that the Gemara does not resolve. The Rambam maintains that Beis Din rules leniently in monetary matters only with regard to extracting money from someone who is 'Muchzak,' due to the principle of 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.'
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HATMANAH IN SOMETHING THAT ADDS HEAT</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 may not do Hatmanah (wrap food to keep
               it warm on Shabbos) in refuse of olives, manure,
               salt, lime, or sand, even if they are dry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shabbos 34a (Mishnah):</font></b> If it is Safek dark, one may
               do Hatmanah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> After dark, Hatmanah is forbidden (even) in
               something that does not add heat. This is a decree
               Shema Yarti'ach (lest one heat the food before
               wrapping it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye):</font></b> If so, we should forbid even Bein
               ha'Shemashos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are not concerned for this, for
               normally pots are boiling Bein ha'Shemashos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Even before Shabbos, we forbid Hatmanah in
               something that adds heat. This is a decree lest one
               wrap in Remetz (hot ashes mixed with coals).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye):</font></b> Before Shabbos this is permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We decree lest he stoke the coals
               after dark.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 38b (Mishnah):</font></b> A case occurred in which people in
               Tiverya brought a pipe of cold water through a hot
               spring. Chachamim said that if this was on Shabbos,
               it is like water heated on Shabbos; one may not
               bathe in it or drink it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 39a (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The episode in Tiverya teaches
               that Hatmanah in something that adds heat is Batel
               (there is no Heter), even from Erev Shabbos.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif (Shabbos 14b):</font></b> Hatmanah is forbidden even from
               before Shabbos in something that adds heat. This is
               a decree Shema Yarti'ach. Abaye asked that if so, it
               should be forbidden even Bein ha'Shemashos! Rava
               answered that normally, pots are already boiling
               Bein ha'Shemashos, so there is no concern.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Shabbos 2:23) and Ba'al ha'Ma'or:</font></b> Rava forbids
               Hatmanah is forbidden in something that adds heat,
               even before Shabbos. This is a decree lest one wrap
               in hot ashes and coals, and stoke the coals after
               dark. This is Rashi's text; it is primary. The Rif's
               text is not primary.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 4:1):</font></b> There are things that
               if they are used for Hatmanah, they get hot and cook
               the food, such as refuse of olives, manure, salt,
               lime, or sand.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> Letter of the law, Hatmanah in something
               that adds heat should be permitted from before
               Shabbos, for we permit Shehiyah (leaving food on a
               fire on Shabbos). Chachamim forbade Hatmanah in
               something that adds heat lest the pot boil on
               Shabbos, and he will need to expose it until it
               cools off, and he will cover it again on Shabbos. If
               so, he does Hatmanah with something that adds heat
               on Shabbos, which is forbidden. Therefore, we permit
               it Bein ha'Shemashos, for then Stam pots already
               boiled and ceased bubbling, and do not boil again.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</font></b> It is absurd to forbid from
                    before Shabbos and to permit Bein ha'Shemashos!
                    The Gemara says that normally pots are boiling
                    Bein ha'Shemashos. The Rambam says that they
                    ceased boiling! Indeed, the Rif's text was like
                    the Rambam, but his Perush is very messed up.
                    According to this text, the correct Perush is
                    that in something that adds heat, he showed
                    that he wants it hot for a long time, and
                    sometimes its heat wanes, and he will boil it
                    after dark. Abaye asked that if so, also Bein
                    ha'Shemashos we should forbid in something that
                    does not add heat. Since he delayed Hatmanah,
                    this shows that that he wants it hot for a long
                    time! Rava answered that for normally pots are
                    boiling Bein ha'Shemashos, and they will keep
                    their heat a long time. There is a better text.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> This is like the Ge'onim's text.
                    The Rambam holds that it was known that Bein
                    ha'Shemashos Hatmanah is permitted in anything.
                    The Mishnah teaches this. The Rif says so in a
                    Teshuvah (207). All the Acharonim disagreed,
                    for it is unreasonable to forbid from before
                    Shabbos and to permit Bein ha'Shemashos. Also
                    the Ra'avad's Perush is difficult. Also, it is
                    difficult to say that Remetz does not add heat!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Milchamos Hash-m:</font></b> The Rif rejected Rashi's
                    text, which is concerned 'Shema Yarti'ach' when
                    wrapping in something that does not add heat.
                    It cannot boil on its own! We do not suspect
                    lest a Yisrael cook on Shabbos! Rather, the
                    concern is only in something that adds heat.
                    Perhaps it will boil, and he will uncover it
                    and wrap it again.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> We must distinguish why Shehiyah was
                    forbidden lest one come to stoke a fire on
                    Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (39b DH mi'Ma'aseh):</font></b> R. Shmuel says that
               'Hatmanah is Batel' teaches that even b'Di'eved it
               is forbidden. R. Yonah says that this forbids even
               raw ox meat (which must cook for a long time, so
               stoking will not help).
<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 257:1):</font></b> Hatmanah is forbidden in
               something that adds heat, even before Shabbos.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Ein):</font></b> Rashi holds that the
                    primary decree was for something not fully
                    cooked. We decreed even about something fully
                    cooked until the oven is swept (from coals) to
                    ashes are put on the coals. The Rif's text was
                    different. The Ran and Perush ha'Mishnayos
                    explain that we are concerned lest the pot boil
                    on Shabbos, and he will need to expose it until
                    it cools off, and he will cover it again on
                    Shabbos. If so, he does Hatmanah with something
                    that adds heat on Shabbos, which is forbidden.
                    We permit Bein ha'Shemashos, for then Stam pots
                    already boiled and ceased bubbling, and do not
                    boil again.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (6):</font></b> Even if he did Hatmanah
                    (in something that adds heat) Friday morning,
                    he may not leave it this way until dark.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If one did so, the food is
               forbidden even b'Di'eved. This is only if it was
               cold and became hot, or he is pleased that it cooked
               more. If it is as warm as at first, it is permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source:</font></b> Ran and Ramban, in Beis Yosef DH
                    v'Chosav).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (5):</font></b> 'Like water heated on Shabbos' (38b)
                    connotes that we forbid only if it became
                    hotter.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Magen Avraham (4):</font></b> We do not forbid b'Di'eved
                    if one did Shehiyah (b'Isur, b'Shogeg). We are 
                    more stringent about Hatmanah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (5):</font></b> L'Chatchilah, it is
                    forbidden even if he does not want it to cook
                    more.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</font></b> The food is forbidden to
                    everyone until Motza'ei Shabbos. If the meat
                    was already fitting to eat, it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that if one forgot and b'Shogeg did
               Hatmanah in something that adds heat, one may eat
               it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Taz (2):</font></b> It seems that there is no argument.
                    This opinion permits only if the Hatmanah was
                    primarily in something that does not add heat, 
                    and burning coals were found nearby.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Kaf ha'Chayim 10):</font></b> The Mordechai
                    explicitly permits b'Di'eved if one did
                    b'Shogeg Hatmanah in something that adds heat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some forbid only if he did so for the sake of
               the night, but Hatmanah in something that adds heat
               is permitted for the sake of the next day. B'Di'eved
               one may rely on this, as long as he does not do so
               regularly.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magen Avraham (7):</font></b> We permit only if it was
                    already fully cooked. This is no more lenient
                    than Shehiyah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magen Avraham (8):</font></b> This opinion permits as long
                    as it was cooked k'Ma'achal ben Drusai (a third
                    or half). Then he will not stoke coals, for in
                    any case it will be cooked in time for the
                    morning meal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Gra (7,8) Shibolei ha'Leket equates Hatmanah to
                    Shehiyah. This is wrong. R. Yonah taught that
                    Hatmanah is more stringent.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (10):</font></b> The Mechaber forbids even
                    b'Di'eved. When necessary, one may rely on the
                    lenient opinion, especially if the food was
                    already fully cooked.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (11):</font></b> The lenient opinion also
                    permits if the food was fully cooked and
                    Hatmanah was done to eat it at night, for he
                    will not stoke.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishnah Berurah (12):</font></b> If he does not do so
                    regularly it is forbidden, for really the
                    lenient opinion was not accepted.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> He must distance plants because roots do
          not grow straight down, rather to the sides.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one plants the top of a growing
          vine into the ground, if it is less than three Tefachim
          deep, he may not plants seeds on top of it (because the
          area is considered a vineyard);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> He may plant seeds to the sides.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Chaga):</font></b> (Really, the roots grow straight down.) Plants
          must be distanced because they cause the surrounding dirt
          to soften.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He must distance urine three Tefachim from
          his neighbor's wall...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> One may urinate near his
          neighbor's wall. It says 'I will cut off (from the seed
          of Achav) one that urinates at the wall ...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah forbids urinating within three
          Tefachim of his neighbor's wall!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, the Mishnah prohibits pouring out urine
          near the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> One may not urinate within three Tefachim of
          his neighbor's wall, i.e. a brick wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a stone wall, it suffices to distance
               one Tefach, for this will not harm the wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the stone wall is built on a rock, one need
               not distance himself at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  	Rabah bar bar Chanah is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He brought a verse as support!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The prophecy was that there will not remain to
          Achav's house even what normally urinates at the wall,
          namely, a dog.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>BARRIERS THAT SHIELD FROM TUM'AH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	(We know that Tum'ah passes from one room to another if
          the wall between them has an opening of a square Tefach.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> When measuring the size of the opening, if
          there is a thin wafer in the hole there, the space it
          occupies is considered part of the opening.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Even a thick loaf does not diminish the gap!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He teaches a bigger Chidush.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A loaf does not diminish it, since he may want to
               eat it, so he is not Mevatel it (leave it to be part
               of the wall);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that he is Mevatel a wafer
               (which gets ruined quickly, so it diminishes the
               gap). He teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We already know that it cannot shield from
          Tum'ah, since it itself can become Tamei!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The wafer was kneaded with fruit juice (none of
          the seven liquids that enable food to receive Tum'ah ever
          touched the flour, so the cake cannot become Tamei).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If a box full of straw or a jug
          full of dried figs is in a window, and the straw or figs
          could stand there even if the box or jug was removed, the
          straw or figs block Tum'ah from passing through the
          opening. If they cannot stand by themselves, they do not
          block Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though straw is fit for an animal (to eat,
               so he will not be Mevatel it), it blocks Tum'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, the straw is spoiled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Still, it is fit for making mud!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, there are thorns in it (so
               it is not fitting).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It is fitting to burn!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses wet straw.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It is fitting to burn in a big fire!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Big fires are uncommon (so he is Mevatel
               it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Even though dried figs are fit to eat, they
          block Tum'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Shmuel and Rabah bar Avuha):</font></b> The case is, they
          are wormy.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHEAT SEEDS PLANTED AT THE SIDES OF A VINE SHOOT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that when one replants a shoot of a grapevine, he is not permitted to sow wheat seeds directly above the replanted vine shoots because of the Isur of Kil'ayim. However, one may sow wheat seeds on the sides.
</p><p>
Why is he permitted to sow wheat seeds on the sides of the vine? Even though the roots from the seeds will not extend to the sides (where the vine shoot grows), the roots of the vine shoot themselves will extend toward the seeds, and thus there should still be a problem of Kil'ayim. (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>, <b>RITVA</b> (19a), <b>TOSFOS RID</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RAN</b>, and <b>RITVA</b> answer that it is not considered 'Harkavah' (grafting) when the seeds and roots of wheat do not mix with the <i>grapevine</i> itself. When the seeds of wheat mix with the <i>roots</i> of the grapevine, even though the roots intermingle, this is not considered Kil'ayim. Only when the roots of the wheat mix with the grapevine itself is it considered Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
The Ramban adds that the reason why it is not considered Kil'ayim when the roots of one plant mingle only with the roots of the other (and not with the plant itself) is that in such a case, the roots of each plant absorb nourishment from the ground and produce a fruit that is not grafted. (The Ramban writes, however, that this reasoning needs further clarification.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> and the <b>RASHBA</b> answer that the roots of a grapevine descend further than three Tefachim into the ground (and they do not ascend upwards at all), and thus the roots that grow from the wheat seeds do not mingle with the roots of the grapevine. This is also the explanation of the <b>RAN</b> on the Rif in Kidushin (end of the first Perek).
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BARRIERS THAT SHIELD FROM TUM'AH (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How is the barrel positioned?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the opening faces out (away from the Tum'ah),
               the barrel itself blocks Tum'ah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Earthenware Kelim receive Tum'ah only from
                    their interiors!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the opening faces the Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> We can even say that it faces out. The case
          is, the barrel is made of metal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The following block Tum'ah: grass
          that was detached and placed in a window, or grew there
          by itself; rags smaller than three fingers by three
          fingers; a dangling limb or flesh of an animal; a bird
          that rested there; a Nochri who sat there, a (i.e.
          stillborn) baby born in the eighth month; salt;
          earthenware Kelim; and a Sefer Torah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The following do not block Tum'ah:</font></b> snow, hail,
               ice, frost, and water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> Grass is fit for an
               animal, and it blocks Tum'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It discusses poisonous grass.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The grass blocks, even if it grew by itself.
          It is destined to be cut, since it damages the wall!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses the wall of a
          ruin (the grass is not destined to be cut).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> It can even be a wall of an
          inhabited building. The grass is three Tefachim away (and
          does not harm the wall), but the top bends into the
          window.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why do rags block? They are fitting to patch
          torn clothing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The material is too thick to be used for a
          patch.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> They are fitting for a blood-letter (to
               clean the wound)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They are of sackcloth, which would
               scratch the skin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If so, why did the Beraisa say 'they
               are not three fingers by three fingers'? Sackcloth
               is not Tamei unless it is four Tefachim by four
               Tefachim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is not really sackcloth, just it is
               scratchy like sackcloth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does a dangling limb or flesh of an
          animal block Tum'ah? The animal may go away!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is tied down.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Someone may come and slaughter it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a non-Kosher animal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The owner might sell it to a Nochri!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a weak animal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He may cut it up to feed it to dogs!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That would cause needless pain to a
               living animal. He would not do this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does a bird that rested there block
          Tum'ah? It may fly away!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is tied down.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Someone may come and slaughter it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a non-Kosher bird.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The owner might sell it to a Nochri!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a Kalanisa (a very lean bird).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He may give it to a child to play with!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He would not, for it scratches.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Objection A Kalanisa does not scratch!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a different species, but it is as
               lean as a Kalanisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does a Nochri who rested there block
          Tum'ah? He will walk away!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He is tied down.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A friend will untie him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> He is a leper.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Another leper will untie him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he is a prisoner of the king.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER SHIELDS FROM TUM'AH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does a baby born in the eighth month
          block Tum'ah? His mother will take him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The baby blocks Tum'ah on Shabbos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> An eighth-month baby is (Muktzah) like
               a stone. One may not move him on Shabbos. However,
               his mother may bend over to let him nurse (without
               moving him), due to the danger (to him, and to her
               if she is too full of milk).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does salt block Tum'ah? It is fitting to
          use!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is bitter salt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It is fitting for tanning!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There are thorns in it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, it harms the wall. He will
               remove it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is resting on earthenware (and does
               not harm the wall).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The earthenware itself should block
               Tum'ah!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN ANIMAL'S DANGLING LIMB IN THE WINDOW</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which discusses various objects that can serve as part of a dividing wall between two rooms. An opening in a wall between two rooms must be less than a Tefach in order to prevent the Tum'ah of a Mes on one side of the wall from passing through the opening to the other side. These items, when placed in a window in a dividing all, diminish the size of the window to less than a Tefach.
</p><p>
The Beraisa states that semi-severed limbs and flesh hanging from an animal <i>do</i> serve as part of a dividing wall. The Gemara asks that a valid dividing wall must consist of items that will not be taken away. An animal with a dangling limb, however, certainly will be taken away to be slaughtered. The Gemara answers that the animal discussed in the Beraisa is a non-kosher one, and thus the owner has no use for it and will not take it away. The Gemara then asks that the owner will cut off the limb and feed it to his dogs. The Gemara answers that he will not cut it off in order to feed it to his dogs because of 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim,' the prohibition against causing pain to living creatures.
</p><p>
Why, though, is the Gemara not concerned that the owner will take the <i>entire animal</i> and slaughter it to feed it to his dogs? The limb should not be considered part of the dividing wall since it will be taken away with the rest of the animal.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Beraisa refers to a type of animal, such as a monkey, which is used as a pet. The owner will not give such an animal to the dogs, and it may be assumed that he will leave it in the window.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that it is unusual to slaughter an animal merely for the purpose of feeding it to dogs. Thus, it may be assumed that the owner will leave it in the window.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> answers that slaughtering a non-kosher animal is considered a form of 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim' and is prohibited, and thus the owner will not slaughter the animal in order to give it to dogs.
</p><p>
Apparently, the Rashba disagrees and maintains that although cutting off a limb of an animal constitutes 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim,' killing a non-kosher animal does not constitute 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim' and is permissible.
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI SHLOMO</b> questions the opinion of the Ri mi'Gash. He quotes the <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> (YD 2:10) who points out that it is clear from the Gemara in Chulin (7b) that killing an animal is not considered 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim.' The Gemara there relates that Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair refused to enter Rebbi's home because he owned dangerous mules. Rebbi begged him to enter his home and promised to cut off the hooves of the mules so that they would not be dangerous. When Rebbi Pinchas said that cutting off the hooves would be 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim,' Rebbi offered to kill them instead. Rebbi Pinchas responded that killing them would constitute 'Bal Tashchis.' The Gemara there clearly implies that killing a non-kosher animal does <i>not</i> constitute 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim,' because if it did, Rebbi Pinchas would have rejected Rebbi's second suggestion on that basis as well. Since Rebbi Pinchas cited 'Bal Tashchis' as the reason not to kill the mules, it is clear that the Isur of 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim' would not have prohibited killing the mules.
</p><p>
How does the Ri mi'Gash understand that Gemara, which apparently contradicts his opinion? Perhaps there is a difference between killing an animal for the benefit of another animal (such as to feed it to a dog) and killing an animal for the benefit of a person (such as to protect a person from the danger that the animal poses). (<b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l in <b>IGROS MOSHE</b> (CM 2:47:1) rules that one is permitted to kill creatures that are harmful or disturbing to people. He adds that it is preferable, where possible, not to use one's own hands to kill the creature, in order to avoid instilling in oneself the trait of cruelty.) (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN PEOPLE KEEP PROFESSIONALS OUT OF A MAVUY?</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'> 20b (Mishnah):</font></b> If one set up a store in a Chatzer,
               others can stop him because the noise of people
               entering and leaving disturbs their sleep. Rather,
               he may make Kelim in the Chatzer and sell them in
               the market. If noise of his hammer, millstone or the
               children disturbs their sleep, they cannot complain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the
               clauses?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Seifa teaches that people of
               another Chatzer cannot complain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (and Answer #2 - Rava):</font></b> If so, it should
               say so explicitly! Rather, the Seifa discusses one
               who teaches Torah to children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 21a - Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> People of a Chatzer can
               prevent a member from setting up practice as a
               doctor... or a teacher of children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That refers to teaching Nochri children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 21b (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy set up a mill
               (to grind for wages, or to rent it out), he can stop
               someone else in the Mavoy from setting one up, for
               this infringes on his livelihood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may set up a store next
               to another's store, or a bathhouse next to another's
               bathhouse. The first cannot protest, for each is on
               his own property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> People of a Mavoy may force one
                    another not to allow a tailor, tanner, teacher
                    of children or a craftsman to set up shop among
                    them. One cannot prevent his neighbor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can prevent him.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Surely, one can
               prevent someone from another city. If they both pay
               head-tax in the same city, he cannot prevent him.
               One cannot prevent someone from the same Mavoy.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Can one
               prevent someone from a different Mavoy?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Huna admits that one cannot prevent
               a teacher of children from entering the same Mavoy.
               Jealousy among Chachamim makes them learn better.
<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 (2:12):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow
               Rav Huna, for he holds like an individual (R. Shimon
               ben Gamliel). Also, Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is
               Basra, and he argues with Rav Huna. Since the
               question was not settled, they cannot stop him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> Rav Huna had not heard the Beraisa. Had he
               heard it, he would not have ruled like R. Shimon ben
               Gamliel against Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 6:8):</font></b> People in a Mavuy
               can force each other not to establish a tailor,
               tanner or any other profession among them. If there
               was such a professional in the Mavuy and they did
               not protest, or there was a bathhouse, store or
               mill, and someone else made another bathhouse or
               mill opposite it, he cannot stop him and say 'you
               cut off my livelihood!' This is even if the latter
               is from another Mavuy, for they already have such a
               professional.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (21b DH Kofin):</font></b> The Ri explains that Beraisa
               #3 means that people of a Mavoy can prevent a
               teacher of Nochri children, but one cannot force his
               neighbor. We cannot say so if Beraisa #1 discusses
               within a Mavuy, for it allows stopping a member from
               teaching children, i.e. Nochri children! Here, even
               R. Shimon ben Gamliel forbids only due to
               competition! However, the text of Beraisa #1
               discusses within a Chatzer. The Rashba says that
               Beraisa #3 allows stopping a teacher of Yisrael
               children, even after the enactment, i.e. when there
               is already a teacher there. Rav Yosef says that Rav
               Huna agrees about a teacher, and he holds like R.
               Shimon ben Gamliel! He must say that R. Shimon ben
               Gamliel does not argue about a teacher.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (CM 156:16):</font></b> People can protest against a
                    teacher from another Mavuy from teaching in
                    this Mavuy. We say that one cannot protest even
                    against one from another Mavuy when the Mavuy
                    is Mefulash, for in any case there is traffic,
                    like the Rif says. Rav Huna asked about
                    protesting due to competition in such a case,
                    when increased traffic does not apply.
<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 156:5):</font></b> People in a Mavuy can
               force each other not to establish a tailor, tanner
               or any other profession among them. If there was
               such a professional in the Mavuy and they did not
               protest, or there was a bathhouse, store or mill,
               and someone else made another bathhouse or mill
               opposite it, he cannot stop him and say 'you cut off
               my livelihood!' Even if the latter is from another
               Mavuy, they cannot stop him, for they already have
               such a professional.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Ramban asks,
                    according to Rashi, how could we say that one
                    cannot protest about another Mavuy? If he is
                    from another city, the entire city can protest!
                    Perhaps he holds that it discusses one from
                    another city who pays taxes here. Or, perhaps
                    the question was about in the same Mavuy, but
                    he can stop one from another city. Even though
                    the latter could rent a house here, and then no
                    one could stop him, right now others can stop
                    him. This is wrong. Some say that we discuss
                    one who seeks to enter the adjacent Mavuy. The
                    first can say that he does not want a
                    competitor in a Mavuy in which he is a partner.
                    Also, people of the first's Mavuy will go to
                    the latter's Mavuy. The Ran and Nimukei Yosef
                    wrote like the first version. I answer for
                    Rashi that <i>the people of the city</i> can protest
                    about another Mavuy.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH Nimtza):</font></b> The Halachah is, if the
                    latter is from the same city, the first cannot
                    protest even in the same Mavuy.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>SMA (16):</font></b> The Rambam explains that the Beraisa
                    allows people in a Mavuy to stop each other
                    from setting up a store due to increased
                    traffic. This must refer to a Mavuy she'Eino
                    Mefulash. Even if all but one agree, the one
                    can stop the others. This is why the Rambam
                    (and Shulchan Aruch, who cites the Rambam
                    verbatim) bring this law in the singular (<i>he</i>
                    can stop). The Beraisa says that one cannot
                    stop a neighbor, i.e. when there is already
                    such a professional in the Mavuy. One cannot
                    stop him in the same Mavuy, for he did not
                    protest against the first. Even the first
                    professional cannot stop him. One cannot stop
                    him even in another Mavuy, for the question was
                    not settled, so we are lenient for the
                    defendant, i.e. the one who wants to enter. The
                    Rambam holds that the Reisha discusses a Mavuy
                    she'Eino Mefulash, and is due to increased
                    traffic. The others consider a Mavuy she'Eino
                    Mefulash like a Chatzer; there, even if there
                    is already a professional, people can protest
                    due to increased traffic.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (10 DH v'Ika):</font></b> The Beraisa mentions only a
                    tailor, tanner or a craftsman, and so says the
                    Rambam. Why did the Tur mention also a weaver
                    or doctor? He explains that the Beraisa is not
                    concerned for noise, rather, for competition.
                    Therefore, all professions are the same. If so,
                    what is the Tur's source that a Mavuy she'Eino
                    Mefulash is like a Chatzer regarding noise? He
                    holds like the text of the Rif and Rosh, that
                    Beraisa #1 discusses a Mavuy, and allows people
                    to protest. This refers to a Mavuy Mefulash; if
                    it were not Mefulash, they would not have
                    reason to protest. Abaye permitted in a Mavuy
                    Mefulash.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> In our texts of the Rif and Rosh, Beraisa
                    #1 discusses a Chatzer.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (15):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel and his first
                    Tana argue about protest due to competition.
                    The Halachah follows the first Tana. When the
                    Beraisa discusses a neighbor, this must refer
                    to when there is no professional in the Mavuy.
                    If not, when does the Reisha say that he can
                    stop him? Within the Mavuy, the Seifa says that
                    he cannot stop him! We never resolved the
                    question about outside the Mavuy. Anyone from
                    the city (not only a neighbor) can stop someone
                    from outside the city!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Many say that people of a Chatzer or Mavuy
               she'Eino Mefulash can protest, but the other
               professional cannot protest.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (4):</font></b> The Rema holds like the Beis Yosef
                    said, that the Poskim other than the Rambam say
                    that the Mavuy can protest against the second,
                    even though they did not protest against the
                    first. I say that perhaps they agree to the
                    Rambam.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chazon Ish (CM 21 Likutim for Daf 149):</font></b> Income
                    is fixed from Rosh Hashanah, just one must
                    engage in wordly matters (Hishtadlus). It is
                    improper for a Chacham to try to cause a loss
                    to Rav Mari, even though had Isar died (without 
                    transferring the money), there would be no
                    Chiyuv to give the money to Mari, even to make
                    Chachamim happy (Tosfos 149a DH Migmarei).
                    Perhaps Rava wanted to use the money for needs
                    of the Tzibur. Mari was rich (Bava Metzia 73b);
                    he would not have minded if the money was used
                    for Tzedakah and Chesed, for he was a Talmid.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MAY PEOPLE PREVENT BUSINESS COMPETITION FROM ANOTHER CITY? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is too small to block the Tum'ah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One is liable for carrying
                    earthenware in a Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos if
                    it is big enough to put between bars in a
                    window. (Rashi - anything smaller than this has
                    no importance, it does not block Tum'ah; Tosfos
                    - since it has no use, he will not take it, so
                    the salt blocks the Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does an earthenware Kli block Tum'ah? One
          can use it
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is dirty.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It is fitting for a blood-letter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It has a hole in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does a Sefer Torah block Tum'ah? One can
          read from it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is worn out.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It must be buried!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Its 'burial' will be leaving in the
               window permanently.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> We may make a divider from anything except salt
          (lest it scatter) and fat (lest it melt).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> Even salt may be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Resolution #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> They don't argue. Sedom salt
          may be used, for it is hard and does not scatter.
          (Regular) salt may not be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Resolution #2:</font></b> Both can discuss (regular) salt,
          according to Rabah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> One may place the Korah (a beam to
               permit carrying in an alleyway) on two piles of salt
               (the weight stops the salt from scattering).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav discusses when there is no beam, and Shmuel
               discusses when there is a beam.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISTANCING TO PREVENT DAMAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A millstone's lower stone must be distanced
          three Tefachim. The upper stone will be four Tefachim
          away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> It makes the ground shake.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> The lower stone of a Chamor
          millstone (Rashi - it is driven by a donkey; Tosfos - one
          spins it using his feet, not his hands, or it rests on an
          edifice, and not on the ground) must be distanced three
          Tefachim. The upper stone must be distanced four
          Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Chamor millstone does not make the ground
               shake!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, it is due to the noise.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> The bottom of a Tanur (standard oven) must
          be distanced three Tefachim. The top will be four
          Tefachim away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference (Abaye):</font></b> The bottom of a Tanur should extend
          a Tefach past the top (in each direction).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is relevant to commerce (if one sold a Tanur
               unlike this, it is a mistaken sale.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS THAT HARM AN UPPER STORY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not set up a Tanur in his house
          unless there are four Amos above it. One may not set up a
          Tanur in an upper story unless there are three Tefachim
          of plaster below it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For a Kirah (a rectangular oven, which does not
               get as hot as a Tanur), one Tefach suffices.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If the oven caused damage, he must pay for it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon says, if he kept the proper distance, he is
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> A Tanur must have
          four Tefachim of plaster underneath. A Kirah must have
          three Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses baker's ovens. A
          baker's Kirah is as hot as a standard Tanur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not open a store...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If the pen preceded the storehouse, it is
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Questions (Abaye):</font></b> If someone cleaned his roof (in
          order to store food there), but did not yet put food
          there, is this already considered a storehouse?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he opened new windows in his Aliyah (in order
               to store food there), what is the law? If he built
               an Aliyah (to be a storehouse), what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	These questions are not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> If he put in
          dates and pomegranates, is this considered a storehouse
          (or only if he puts in grain, wine or oil)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> In truth, they permitted regarding wine...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> They permitted (a baker's or dyer's store)
          under wine, because the smoke improves the wine, but not
          a pen, for the stench spoils the wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even smoke of a candle harms wine of
          Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Sheshes):</font></b> (The heat and stench of) fodder harms
          wine just like a pen.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAKING NOISE IN A CHATZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one set up a store in a Chatzer, others
          can stop him because the noise disturbs their sleep;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, he may make Kelim in the Chatzer and sell
               them in the market.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If their sleep is disturbed by the noise of his
               hammer, millstone or children (coming to the store)
               they cannot complain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the clauses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Seifa teaches that people of
          another Chatzer cannot complain about the noise.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rava):</font></b> If so, it should say so explicitly!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Seifa discusses one who teaches
          Torah to children, after the enactment of Yehoshua ben
          Gamla.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) DAMAGE CAUSED BY ONE'S OVEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one may not construct an oven in his house when he has a neighbor above him, unless there are at least four Amos between the oven and the ceiling. If he has a neighbor below him, then he may construct an oven only if he builds a base of plaster beneath the oven at least three Tefachim high. The Tana Kama says that even if he has taken all of the required precautions, if his oven causes damage to his neighbor's property, he is obligated to pay.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bava Kama (61b) teaches that a person may light a fire in his own property when he places a certain distance between the fire and his neighbor's property. The Gemara rules that if the fire then damages his neighbor's property, he is <i>not</i> obligated to pay for the damages. The Mishnah here, which obligates the owner of an oven to pay even if he took the necessary precautions, seems to contradict that Gemara. How can the two be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RIF</b> in Bava Kama (25b) explains the difference between the two cases. The Gemara in Bava Kama refers to a case in which a person lights a fire on a single, isolated occasion. As long as he places the requisite distance between the fire and his neighbor's property, he is not obligated to pay for any damages, because if the fire does enter his neighbor's property, it is considered an Ones for which he is exempt. In contrast, the Mishnah here refers to an oven which is constantly used. The owner of such an oven must be extra cautious to ensure that the oven does not cause damage to his neighbor's property. If the fire of the oven causes damage, it is not considered an Ones, but rather it is considered a failure of the owner to guard his oven properly, and thus he is obligated to pay for the damages.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (155:1) answers that the case of the Mishnah here is a case in which the oven was placed at the minimum distance required. At that distance, the heat of the oven normally would not cause damage to the neighboring property, but it is <i>possible</i> that it will cause damage. Since it is possible that it will cause damage, the owner is required to be especially vigilant. Therefore, if damage does occur, the owner is obligated to pay. In contrast, the Gemara in Bava Kama refers to a case in which the fire was lit at such a distance that under normal circumstances it could <i>not</i> damage the neighbor's property, and the owner is not required to give the fire any extra attention. Therefore, if it does cause damage, it is an Ones and the owner is not required to pay.
</p><p>
The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (155:1) explains the reasoning of the Rif as well based on the words of the Ketzos ha'Choshen. In the case of an oven that is used regularly, on a daily basis, the Chachamim instituted a lenient rule and allowed the owner to move his oven only a minimal distance away from his neighbor's property. However, the owner must also guard the oven so that it will not cause damage. In the case in Bava Kama, since people do not regularly light fires in their fields, the Chachamim were stringent and required a person to move his fire a maximum distance away from his neighbor's property to avoid causing damage. Thus, if the fire does cause damage, the owner is not required to pay.
</p><p>
The <b>CHASON ISH</b> (Bava Basra 14:14) explains the reasoning of the Rif as follows. When a person lights a fire in an oven, he can assess the effect of the oven's heat by measuring the amount of air and the intensity of the heat. When the fire in an oven causes damage, it is not because the fire burned out of control, but because it was lit improperly in the oven. Thus, the owner could have foreseen that his oven would cause damage. In contrast, in the case in Bava Kama in which a person lights a fire in an open area, the factors that might spread the fire and make it cause damage are not foreseeable, and therefore the damage that the fire causes is an Ones and he is exempt. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TEACHING TORAH TO CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Yehoshua ben Gamla prevented Torah from
          being forgotten from Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	At first, a father taught Torah to his child Torah. An
          orphan did not learn;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What was the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They read 'v'Limadtem Osam' like 'Atem'
               (you yourselves, i.e. the fathers, are commanded to
               teach your children);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	They enacted to establish teachers in Yerushalayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They learned from 'u'Devar Hash-m
               mi'Yerushalayim.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Still, fathers took their children to Yerushalayim, but
          orphans did not go;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	They enacted to establish teachers in every province.
          Children would start learning at the age of 16 or 17.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	If the Rebbi got angry at the child, the child would
          leave;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yehoshua ben Gamla enacted to establish teachers
               in every region and city, and that children would
               begin learning at the age of six or seven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav (to Rav Shmuel bar Shilas):</font></b> Do not accept to teach
          children less than six;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After six, take them and stuff them with Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Hit children only with a shoe strap (it does not
               hurt much or cause damage).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If a child is learning, this is fine;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he is not, just put him with others who are
                    learning, and also he will learn.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> People of a Chatzer can prevent a 
          member from setting up practice as a doctor, blood-
          letter, weaver, or a teacher of children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That refers to teaching Nochri children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Two people in a Chatzer, one can
          prevent the other from setting up practice as a doctor,
          blood-letter, weaver, or a teacher of children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That refers to teaching Nochri children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One who owns a house in a joint
          Chatzer, he may not rent it to a doctor, blood-letter,
          weaver, or a Yisrael or Nochri teacher of children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That refers to the principal teacher of the
          city. (Other teachers assist him, and there is a great
          noise.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> After Yehoshua ben Gamla's enactment, we do not
          transport children from city to city (each city must get
          its own teacher).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do transport children from one synagogue to
               another.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We do not transport children across a river,
               unless there is a wide bridge across it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> A teacher should have 25 children. If there are
          50 children, we get two teachers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there are 40, the city hires an assistant to
               help.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH TEACHER TO TAKE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If a teacher learns, and there is another
          teacher available who learns more, we do not switch, lest
          the new teacher will (be haughty and) slacken from his
          obligation to teach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Dimi of Neharda'a):</font></b> Just the contrary,
          he will learn more. Jealousy among Chachamim makes them
          learn better.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If there are two teachers, and one learns more
          but the other teaches more precisely, we prefer the
          former. If he makes any mistakes, the children will later
          learn the correct version;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Dimi of Neharda'a):</font></b> No, we take the latter. Once a
          child learned incorrectly, the mistake will stick with
          him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Yo'av... Hichris Kol Zachar b'Edom.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> David:</font></b> Why did you kill only the men?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RENTING OUT ONE'S HOUSE TO SOMEONE WHO WILL MAKE NOISE THERE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that a homeowner in a jointly-owned courtyard may not rent his house to a Mohel, a blood-letter, a wool-comber, or a non-Jewish elementary school teacher, if the other homeowners object. A person with one of these occupations who takes up residence in the courtyard causes a significant increase in the noise level in the courtyard because of the large number of people who come to seek his services.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara prohibit only <i>renting</i> out one's house for those purposes? The Gemara should also prohibit <i>selling</i> a house to such people. (<b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> answers that it is obvious that selling a house to someone who will create a significant disturbance in the courtyard is prohibited. The Gemara wants to teach that even <i>renting</i> a house for such a purpose is prohibited, even though a rental might be for a short time. The Gemara teaches that even a temporary disturbance is also prohibited.
</p><p>
(b) The Rashash answers further that the <b>MORDECHAI</b> rules that one is <i>permitted</i> to <i>sell</i> a house for these purposes. The reason is that the neighbors always have the option to protest when the new owner begins to make noise in the courtyard, and they will be able to take him to Beis Din and force him to stop causing a disturbance. Since the neighbors have this recourse, one is not prohibited from selling the house in the first place. (According to this answer, if the buyer is not Jewish and will not agree to go to Beis Din, then the owner indeed may not be allowed to sell the house to him.)
</p><p>
Why does the same logic not apply to a rental? The owner should be permitted to rent out his house to anyone, and if the renter creates a disturbance, the neighbors will be able to take him to Beis Din.
</p><p>
The <b>S'MA</b> (CM 156:8) answers that when a person buys property, he does not always intend to use it immediately for his profession. A person may purchase property but not live in it until he retires from his profession, at which point he moves into the property. (He may allow a family member to live there in the interim.) Since it is not known whether the purchaser will use the house in a way that causes a disturbance, the sale is not a case of 'Bari Hezeika' and the owner therefore cannot be prevented from selling it. If the buyer later decides to use the house for a noisy purpose, the neighbors can summon him to Beis Din at that point. In contrast, a person who rents property usually moves into the rented property immediately; a person is not likely to rent property and refrain from living in it. Therefore, renting a house to a person who practices a noisy occupation is 'Bari Hezeika,' and the owner is not allowed to rent out his house to such a person. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>  MAY ONE SELL BELOW THE MARKET PRICE?</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 - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A grocer may not give treats
               to children, for this accustoms them to buy from
               him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Chachamim argue with R. Yehudah only because
               the grocer can say 'just like I give nuts, you can
               give almonds.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 89a (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha' teaches that we
               appoint people to inspect and punish for false
               measures. We do not appoint for prices.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The Nasi's house appointed supervisors for measures
               and prices. Shmuel told Karna to teach them that we
               appoint only for measures. Karna taught that we
               appoint for measures and prices. Karna holds like R.
               Yitzchak.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> We appoint for measures and
                    prices, due to swindlers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Metzia 60a (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One may not
               sell for less than the standard price;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he should be blessed for this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is Chachamim's reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This will reduce the price.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yuma 9a (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim did not obligate bakers
               (who buy grain from Amei ha'Aretz) to separate
               Ma'aser Sheni and take it to Yerushalayim, because
               the kings' officials beat people and force them to
               sell cheaply.
<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 33b and 4:24):</font></b> Chachamim
               permit giving nuts because the other grocers can do
               the same if they want.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (DH Gemara):</font></b> When hoarders see
                    that prices declined, they will sell for less.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 18:4):</font></b> A grocer may give
               parched grain and nuts to children or slaves, to
               accustom them to buy from him. One may sell for less
               than the standard price so more will buy from him on
               credit. Other merchants cannot stop him. This is not
               deception.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ohr Some'ach (Milu'im after Sefer Zemanim, and
                    Chidushav on Bava Metzia 60a):</font></b> Obviously,
                    lowering prices helps buyers. Why did the
                    Gemara ask Chachamim's reason? Rashi answered
                    (that we asked why he is blessed). The Rambam
                    holds that he induces people to buy from him on
                    credit, and through this he charges more than
                    the market price. We permit him only because
                    this reduces the price for people who buy from
                    others. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Malveh
                    8:1) forbids charging more due to credit (this
                    is Ribis)! We must say that credit from a store
                    is different, for they do not set a payment
                    date. He pays the next time he borrows. This is
                    why we say (Shevi'is 10:1) that the first such
                    debts are cancelled in Shemitah (for they
                    became regular loans). No Poskim bring the
                    Rambam's opinion.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yerucham (Meisharim 9:5):</font></b> The Ri mi'Gash
                    says that we appoint people to fix prices for
                    vendors. They may not sell for more or less.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Tosfos Yom Tov (Ma'aser Sheni 5:2):</font></b> Initially,
                    they enacted to bring (and not redeem) Kerem
                    Reva'i to Yerushalayim from nearby places, to
                    beautify the markets of Yerushalayim. When
                    there were too many Peros, they enacted to
                    redeem it outside. They stipulated that when
                    they want, they can revert to the old law. R.
                    Yosi says, the enactment to redeem was after
                    the Churban. They stipulated to revert to the
                    old law when the Mikdash will be rebuilt.
                    Surely, the latter enactment was (not that one
                    may, rather,) that one must redeem it, for
                    there were too many Peros and no buyers. This
                    is like R. Yehudah, who forbids lowering
                    prices. R. Yosi holds like Chachamim. They did
                    not want to beautify markets in the hands of
                    Nochrim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> Rebuttal (Chasam Sofer Beitzah 5a DH v'Hinei):
                    Surely all agree that one must redeem when
                    Peros are too cheap and merchants cannot make
                    any profit. We cry out in prayer (or blow the
                    Shofar) due to a drop in prices of merchandise,
                    even on Shabbos (Bava Basra 91a)! Rather, they
                    argue about whether the enactment to redeem
                    (and the stipulation to allow retracting this)
                    was made when prices were low, or after the
                    Churban.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yad Ramah (Bava Basra 89a 132):</font></b> Shmuel holds
                    that we do not appoint people to supervise that
                    vendors not sell for too <i>little</i>, for such
                    supervision would hurt buyers. We rule like
                    Chachamim, who bless one who sells for less! R.
                    Yitzchak said that we appoint for measures and
                    prices, due to swindlers. If the only concern
                    was selling for too much, he should have said
                    'due to people who jack up prices!' Rather, we
                    are concerned lest one sell for less and
                    accustom people to buy from him because he
                    sells cheaply, and he will deceive them through
                    (false) measures, weights or mixing bad Peros
                    with good Peros. In all, they will get Peros
                    worth less than what they pay for! We conclude
                    that we do not supervise lest vendors do not
                    sell for too little; we do supervise that they
                    not sell for too much, like it says in Yuma.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (CM 156:5, b'Sof):</font></b> If Reuven and Shimon live in
               one city, and Reuven wants to lend to Nochrim for
               less Ribis than Shimon charges, Shimon cannot stop
               him. The same applies to all similar cases.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Darkei Moshe (228:3):</font></b> R. Yerucham (31:6 101:4)
                    says that if Reuven and Shimon live in one
                    city, and Reuven wants to lend (to Nochrim) for
                    less Ribis than Shimon charges, Shimon cannot
                    stop him, like we say in Bava Basra regarding a
                    grocer.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pischei Teshuvah (8):</font></b> There were two villages
                    near each other. One wanted to sell whiskey and
                    beer for less than the fixed price. The other
                    village complained that this will attract its
                    people to go there to buy. Panim Me'iros (1:78)
                    ruled that even if the residents are Yisre'elim
                    who will benefit from the lower price, the
                    other vendors can stop them. In Bava Metzia, we
                    asked why Chachamim permit selling for less
                    than the market price, and answered that it
                    will cause others to sell cheaply, and the
                    price will decline. It was not obvious that
                    Chachamim permit because it benefits buyers!
                    This shows that we are not concerned for the
                    benefit of buyers, since other vendors lose.
                    The government sets a price. This is like Dina
                    d'Malchusa Dina (the law of the kingdom is
                    binding). Therefore, we needed to say that the
                    price will change. This refers to selling Peros
                    and grain. Rashi explained that when hoarders
                    see that the price declined, they will sell for
                    less. Selling beer (for less) will not reduce
                    the price of grain. Surely, when the buyers are
                    Nochrim, one village can protest. The Rema
                    permits charging less Ribis, for there is no
                    fixed rate for it. Anyone may charge a bit less
                    to encourage Nochrim to borrow from him, just
                    like a grocer may give treats to children to
                    accustom them to buy from him. However, one may
                    make better beer to encourage people to buy
                    from himself. E.g. others make three measures
                    of beer from a Se'ah of grain, and he makes two
                    and a half measures. This is like a grocer who 
                    gives nuts, and says 'you can give almonds.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Pischei Teshuvah (8):</font></b> We may infer that the
                    Chasam Sofer (CM 175) is even more stringent,
                    and forbids selling to the other village even
                    without lowering prices. A case occurred in
                    which Reuven bought from a noble exclusive
                    rights to sell drinks. Shimon bought such
                    rights from another noble, and people buy from
                    him covertly. He did not entice them; they come
                    by themselves. Reuven lost. The Chasam Sofer
                    ruled that if Shimon gave nuts or lowered
                    prices to attract people, he transgressed. R.
                    Yehudah and Chachamim would not argue about
                    this. If Shimon did not do so, he did not
                    transgress. If people come to buy from him, he
                    need not dispel them. However, Reuven can
                    protest due to Dina d'Malchusa. The first noble
                    decreed that people under his rule may buy
                    drinks only from Reuven. This is like his tax.
                    One who transgresses this is stealing. Reuven
                    is in place of the noble. When Shimon sells to
                    villagers under the rule of the second noble,
                    this is (Lifnei Iver,) like giving a limb from
                    a live animal to a Nochri who could take it
                    himself. One may protest against him, like one
                    who divides with a thief.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 228:18):</font></b> A grocer may give
               parched grain and nuts to children, to accustom them
               to buy from him. One may sell for less than the
               standard price so people will buy from him. Other
               merchants cannot stop him.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yo'av:</font></b> It says 'Timcheh Es Zachar (the males of)
               Amalek'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> David:</font></b> The word is 'Zecher (the remembrance of)'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yo'av:</font></b> I was taught 'Zachar'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> They called Yo'av's Rebbi (from when he was a
               child), who said that he taught 'Zecher'. Yo'av drew
               his sword to kill him (for not having listened to
               how Yo'av learned the verse).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His Rebbi:</font></b> Why do you want to kill me?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yo'av:</font></b> 'Arur Oseh Meleches Hash-m Remiyah'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His Rebbi:</font></b> Let it suffice that I am cursed!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yo'av:</font></b> 'V'Arur Mone'a Charbo mi'Dam'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Some say that he killed him. Others say that he
                    did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> The following may be fired (for negligence)
          without warning: one who teaches children, a planter, a
          slaughterer, a blood-letter, and the town scribe (Rashi -
          to write Sifrei Torah; Tosfos - to write documents);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The general rule is, if a worker's mistakes
               cannot be corrected, we consider him to be warned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>INFRINGING ON ANOTHER'S LIVELIHOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy set up a mill (to
          grind for wages, or to rent it out), he can stop someone
          else in the Mavoy from setting one up, for this infringes
          on his livelihood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One who wants to spread a fish net
          must distance himself from a fish (that another fisherman
          has been following - Rashi; R. Gershom - from the net of
          another fisherman) as far as a fish goes (from its
          place).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How much is this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is a Parsah
               (about four kilometers).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is different, for the first fisherman
          invested food and is confident of getting the fish
          (Rashi; Rabeinu Gershom - the second fisherman drops
          food, which causes fish in the first one's trap to leave,
          this is theft).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion (Ravina):</font></b> Rav Huna holds like R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A grocer may not give treats to 
          children, for this accustoms them to patronize him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rava):</font></b> He can even hold like Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue with R. Yehudah only because the
               grocer can say 'just like I give nuts, you can give
               almonds.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim agree that another person may not set
               up a store in the Mavoy, for this infringes on the
               livelihood of the first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may set up a store next to
          another's store, or a bathhouse next to another's
          bathhouse;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first cannot protest, for each is on his own
               property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> People of a Mavoy may force one
               another not to rent a house to a tailor, tanner,
               teacher of children or a craftsman from outside the
               Mavoy (if someone in the Mavoy does this);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One cannot prevent someone in the Mavoy from
               offering the same service as he does.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can prevent him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Surely, one can prevent
          someone from another city from offering the same service
          as he does;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If they both pay head-tax in the same city, he
               cannot prevent him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One cannot prevent someone from the same Mavoy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Can one
          prevent someone from a different Mavoy?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Huna admits that one cannot prevent a
          teacher of children from entering the same Mavoy;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Jealousy among Chachamim makes them learn better.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) INFRINGING ON ONE'S LIVELIHOOD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna says that if a person who lives in a semi-public alley ('Mavoy') sets up a mill to grind flour, he has the right to prevent a neighbor from building a second mill. He can claim that the second neighbor will take away his customers (and thus his livelihood) if he sets up a second mill.
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to prove Rav Huna's ruling from the law that if a fisherman has already found the hole in which a fish lives, he has the right to prevent other fishermen from spreading their nets, up to a radius of one Parsah from the hole, even though he has not yet caught the fish. This law seems to support Rav Huna's ruling that a person has the right to prevent others from taking away his potential livelihood.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Marchikin) asks that the right of a fisherman seems to contradict the principle taught by <b>RABEINU TAM</b> concerning the Halachah of 'Ani ha'Mehapech b'Chararah' (see Kidushin 59a). The Halachah of 'Ani ha'Mehapech b'Chararah' states that if one person is trying to buy a certain object or obtain a certain job and a second person preempts him, the preemptor is considered a 'Rasha.' Rabeinu Tam maintains that if the second person preempts the first in picking up an object of Hefker, he has done nothing wrong and he is <i>not</i> considered a Rasha; since he would not have been able to acquire the object elsewhere, he is entitled to take it first.
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Tam, why are the other fishermen not allowed to spread their nets? Even if one fisherman clearly began to attempt to trap a certain fish, the other fishermen should be permitted to trap it because the fish is Hefker, and they will not be able to find such a fish elsewhere.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (59a, DH Ani) answers in the name of <b>RABEINU MEIR</b> (the father of Rabeinu Tam) that in the Gemara's case of the fishermen, the first fisherman lowered into the water a dead fish which attracted all of the other fish. Since the first fisherman has performed an action to attract the other fish, his colleagues are not allowed to take those fish even though they are Hefker.
</p><p>
The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (273:4) challenges this answer from another Gemara in Kidushin. The Gemara in Kidushin (25b, according to the explanation of Tosfos there) explains how it is possible to acquire an elephant with a Kinyan of 'Hagbahah' (lifting it up): the purchaser lifts tree branches above the elephant's head so that the elephant jumps up to eat them. Since the elephant raises itself as a result of the purchaser's action, it is considered as though the purchaser has done 'Hagbahah' and lifted the animal, and thus he fully acquires the animal.
</p><p>
The Ketzos ha'Choshen reasons that according to this explanation, a fisherman who uses a dead fish to attract other fish makes a Kinyan on the fish. Just as the Kinyan of 'Hagbahah' is accomplished when the purchaser causes the elephant to lift itself, a Kinyan of 'Meshichah' should also occur when the fisherman places a dead fish in the water that causes other fish to move toward it. The fisherman should be considered to own the fish as a result. Why, then, does Tosfos say merely that if other fishermen take the fish, they are infringing on the first fisherman's livelihood? Since the first fisherman has already acquired the fish, the other fishermen who take them are committing an act of outright theft!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (273:3) answers that there is a distinction between a direct action and an indirect action on the part of the purchaser. In the case of the elephant, the purchaser can acquire the elephant only if he actually holds the tree branches at the time the elephant jumps up to eat them. If he has already let go of the branches, he only <i>indirectly</i> causes the animal to jump up, and he is not considered to be performing a Kinyan of 'Hagbahah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Kidushin (22b) says that if a person calls to an animal and thus causes the animal to come to him, he is considered as though he pulled the animal with his hands and it is a valid Kinyan of 'Meshichah.' That is because the owner did something which directly caused the animal to move toward him. In contrast, when the first fisherman places a dead fish in the water and then goes away, he does not directly cause the fish to come, and therefore he does not fully acquire the fish that come. If someone else then takes the fish, it is not considered an act of theft because the first fisherman did not own the fish in the first place. Rather, the person who takes away the fish is considered a 'Rasha,' for he encroaches on the first person's livelihood when he preempts him and captures the fish. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RIGHTS OF VISITORS TO SELL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Rav Huna admits that
          peddlers of the city cannot prevent traveling peddlers
          from selling their wares.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ezra enacted that peddlers may go from city to
               city in order that cosmetics will be readily
               available to women.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	They are allowed to go around the city and sell, but
          they may not fix a place to sell;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Chacham is allowed to fix a place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Rava allowed R. Yoshiyah and Rav Ovadyah to fix a
          place;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not (normally) the Halachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why did he allow them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It was so they should not lose time from
          learning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	People selling baskets (some say - pots) came to Bavel.
          People of the city came to stop them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> They came from elsewhere. They may sell
               to people from elsewhere who come on the market day;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They may sell only in the market. They may not go
               around the city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	People selling wool came to Pum Nahara. People of the
          city came to stop them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Kahana:</font></b> They may stop you.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The sellers:</font></b> We sold on credit. We must tarry
               here to collect the money (and we must sell for our
               livelihood)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Kahana:</font></b> You may sell what is needed for your
               livelihood, but only for the time needed to collect
               your money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Rav Dimi of Neharda'a brought dried figs on a ship.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Reish Galusa (the executive head of Yisrael
               in exile, to Rava):</font></b> See if he is a Chacham. If he
               is, give to him exclusive rights to sell figs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava told Rav Ada bar Aba to test him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ada:</font></b> If an elephant swallowed a basket, and
               excreted it, does it still receive Tum'ah (or is it
               Tahor, like Kelim of dung)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Rav Dimi did not know. Rav Ada teased him, and
               did not give to him exclusive rights to sell figs.
               The figs spoiled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rav Dimi complained to Rav Yosef.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> Hash-m avenged the injustice done to
               the king of Edom. He will avenge your affliction.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Pish'ei Mo'av... Lo Ashivenu' - they will be
                    punished for burning the bones of the king of
                    Edom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Rav Ada died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> I am responsible, for I cursed him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Dimi:</font></b> I am responsible. He was punished for
               the loss of my figs.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Abaye:</font></b> I am responsible. He used to tell people
               'rather than learn without satisfaction from Abaye,
               learn from Rava!'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> I am responsible. He used to tell butchers
               that he will buy before my servant, for he is
               greater.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> I am responsible.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak used to expound on
                    Shabbos. Beforehand, he would review with Rav
                    Ada. One day Rav Ada was detained by Rav Papa
                    and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who wanted to
                    hear teachings of Rava that they had missed.
                    The Talmidim asked Rav Nachman to begin.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> I am waiting for the casket of
                    Rav Ada.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Word spread that Rav Ada died.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b>  Presumably, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was
               responsible.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>BUILDING WALLS NEAR WALLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven's wall was near Shimon's wall (and 
          it fell), he may not build another wall within four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven wants to build a wall opposite Shimon's
          window, the wall must be at least four Amos higher than
          or four Amos lower than the window, and (if it is higher)
          at least four Amos away from the window.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara):</font></b> How was he allowed to build the first wall so
          close?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Mishnah (does not discuss
          a wall that fell, rather it) says that he may not build a
          wall within four Amos.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PRIVILEGES FOR TORAH SCHOLARS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Dimi of Neharde'a came to town with merchandise of dried figs to sell. The Reish Galusa asked Rava to determine whether or not Rav Dimi was a Talmid Chacham. If he was a Talmid Chacham, then he would be granted the right to sell his figs in the city before anyone else could sell figs there.
</p><p>
Rav Dimi was examined with a difficult question regarding the Halachos of Tum'ah and Taharah. He did not answer the question adequately and was not granted the monopoly on figs.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd in <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> (#73) quotes the <b>ROSH</b> (1:26) who writes that when the Gemara earlier says that Talmidei Chachamim are exempt from paying taxes, that exemption applies only to Talmidei Chachamim 'whose sole occupation is Torah study.' Rav Elchanan Wasserman adds that even if a Talmid Chacham has a trade or business from which he earns his livelihood, he still is entitled to the exemption from taxes on two conditions: that he uses all of his extra time to learn Torah and to review his studies, and that his business provides him only with his basic necessities and does not make him wealthy. Since he ceases his Torah study only to earn the minimum amount of money needed to live, such a person is considered a 'Talmid Chacham' with regard to the tax exemption.
</p><p>
According to the Rosh's ruling as explained by the Kovetz Shi'urim, the definition of a Talmid Chacham is a person who spends every possible moment engaged in Torah study. The status of Talmid Chacham does not depend on a person's ability to resolve difficult questions. Why, then, was it necessary to test Rav Dimi with a difficult question? Rav Dimi surely used every spare moment to learn Torah, and even though he was not an expert in every aspect of the Torah, he still should have qualified for the monopoly on figs.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> distinguishes between the level of scholarship necessary to receive a tax exemption and the level necessary to obtain a monopoly on trade. A person must have a higher, more advanced level of knowledge in order to obtain exclusive rights to market his merchandise. When one merchant is given a monopoly on the sale of a certain item, all of the other merchants experience a financial loss because they cannot sell their merchandise in the market. When a person receives an exemption from taxes, on the other hand, his exemption has no negative effect on others, and thus he is entitled to an exemption even if his level of scholarship is lower.
</p><p>
However, this distinction is questionable. A Talmid Chacham's exemption from the obligation to pay taxes also causes a financial loss to others, because it places an additional burden on the rest of the community who will have to compensate for what the Talmid Chacham does not pay. Why, then, is a Talmid Chacham exempt from taxes on the grounds that others will not suffer financially on his account?
</p><p>
The answer to this question lies in the statement of the Gemara earlier (8a), 'Misfortune comes to the world only because of the unlearned.' Accordingly, had all of the members of the community been Talmidei Chachamim, the king would not have imposed the tax on the public in the first place. Thus, it is not the Talmid Chacham's exemption from the tax that causes an additional burden on the rest of the people; rather, it is their own lack of the merit of Torah study.
</p><p>
Accordingly, any Talmid Chacham who spends all of his spare time learning is granted an exemption from taxes, since the very act of learning prevents misfortune from coming to the world. A person does not have to be an expert in all parts of Torah in order to be exempt from taxes. In contrast, a Talmid Chacham merits a trade monopoly only when he has attained a mastery of the entire Torah. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>  MAY PEOPLE PREVENT BUSINESS COMPETITION FROM ANOTHER CITY?</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'> 21b (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a member of a Mavoy set up a mill
               (to grind for wages, or to rent it out), he can stop
               someone else in the Mavoy from setting one up, for
               this infringes on his livelihood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may set up a store or
               bathhouse next to another's. The first cannot
               protest, for each is on his own property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> People of a Mavoy may force one
                    another not to allow a tailor, tanner, teacher
                    of children or a craftsman to set up shop among
                    them. One cannot prevent his neighbor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can prevent him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Surely, one can
               prevent someone from another city. If they both pay
               head-tax in the same city, he cannot prevent him.
               One cannot prevent someone from the same Mavoy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Can one
               prevent someone from a different Mavoy?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 22a:</font></b> People selling baskets (some say - pots) came
               to Bavel. People of the city came to stop them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> They came from elsewhere. They may sell in
               the market to visitors who come on the market day.
               They may not go around the city.
<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 (2:12):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow
               Rav Huna, for he holds like an individual (R. Shimon
               ben Gamliel). Also, Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is
               Basra, and he argues with Rav Huna. Since the
               question was not settled, they cannot stop him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shechenim 6:8):</font></b> If a stranger from
               elsewhere came to set up a store or bathhouse
               opposite an existing one, they can stop him. If he
               pays taxes to the king with them, he cannot stop
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Teshuvah, cited in Tur CM Sof 156):</font></b> If a
               Yisrael wants to move to a village and earn money
               there, and the villagers protest, lest he cut off
               their livelihood, they cannot stop him. The Gemara
               said only that people of the city can stop an
               outsider, but surely one may live whenever he wants,
               and people of the city cannot stop him. Did the
               first residents acquire a Chazakah?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri (2:12):</font></b> Mahari'ach was unsure
                    whether residents can stop him from becoming
                    part of the city. Or Zaru'a rules like Rashi,
                    who says that they can; he says that R. Tam
                    disagrees.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Darkei Moshe 156:8):</font></b> Rashi and R. Tam
                    discuss when he wants to live outside, pay
                    taxes and be like a resident. The Rosh
                    discusses one who wants to move to the city. He
                    could hold like Rashi!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (513):</font></b> The Ri says that when basket
               sellers came to Bavel, the resident sellers were
               able to stop them only if they sold as cheaply as
               the visitors. If the residents want to sell for more
               than the visitors, the people of the city can say
               'we want to buy from the visitors. Unless you will
               sell as cheaply as them, they will sell against your
               will.' I disagree, for they have no claim (Rema -
               their claim is only) against the visitors; R.
               Yehudah and Chachamim argue about whether or not a
               grocer may sell for less than the going price.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> It seems that the Rema explains that the
               Mordechai disagrees because the local vendors' claim
               is only against the visitors. The other residents
               are not parties in this case. Without the Rema's
               Hagahah, the Mordechai says that they (the other
               residents) have no claim, and are not parties in the 
               case.
<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 156:5):</font></b> If a stranger from
               elsewhere came to set up a store or bathhouse
               opposite an existing one, they can stop him. If he
               pays taxes to the king with them, he cannot stop
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH b'Hezek):</font></b> Rashi explains that Rav
               Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua allows one to prevent
               someone from another city from offering the same
               service as he does, because he infringes on his
               income. He was unsure whether one can stop someone
               offering the same service in another Mavoy
               (alleyway). Also Tosfos says that the entire city
               can stop someone from another city, unless he pays
               taxes with them. Then, only a similar professional
               can stop him from entering his Mavoy. The Magid
               Mishneh says so in the name of Mefarshim; the Tur
               holds like this. It seems that the Rambam holds that
               if he pays taxes with them, a similar professional
               cannot stop him from entering his Mavoy.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Nimtza):</font></b> The Halachah is, if the
                    latter is not from this same city and does not
                    pay head-tax to this mayor, people of the city
                    can stop him from setting up anywhere in the
                    city. If the latter is not from this same city
                    but pays head-tax to this mayor, he can compete
                    with the first, but not in the same Mavoy. If
                    he does not pay property tax, but wants to pay 
                    head-tax, some say that one can stop him from
                    competing in his Mavoy until the latter rents a
                    house and becomes a resident of this city. If
                    the Mavoy is not Mefulash (it opens to Reshus
                    ha'Rabim only on one side), and he wants to
                    enter on the side such that a Nochri cannot get
                    to Reuven's house without passing by this one's
                    door, he cannot stop him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (16):</font></b> If one from another city pays taxes
                    here, it is as if he lives with them, so they
                    cannot stop him. The opposing opinion holds
                    that the Beraisa discusses a Stam Mavoy, which
                    is Mefulash. There is no claim of increasing
                    traffic there, only a claim of competition. Why
                    can only someone from that Mavoy protest, but
                    the entire city cannot protest? We must say
                    that he pays tax here.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (3):</font></b> What was Rav Huna's question? Surely
                    the outsider is no worse than one from another
                    city who pays taxes here. Surely they cannot
                    stop him when there is another professional
                    here! This is not difficult for those who
                    explain that the Rambam discusses protest due
                    to competition.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (17):</font></b> Here, the concern is only
                    competition.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Many say that in any case he may not enter a
               Mavoy with professionals, for the professionals can
               stop him, since he is from another city. People from
               another Mavoy (that he wants to enter) cannot stop
               him, since he pays taxes (with them). People of the
               city can protest in any case, and they can say 'we
               cannot sleep due to the noise of people entering',
               even if there is already such a professional in the
               Mavoy.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (20):</font></b> 'People of the city' means people of
                    the Chatzer (<b>SMA</b> 17 - or Mavoy she'Eino
                    Mefulash); they can protest due to traffic.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (21):</font></b> According to Tosfos and the Rema,
                    there are four levels. People of the Chatzer
                    can always protest. People of a Mavoy she'Eino
                    Mefulash can protest against people of another
                    Mavoy, due to increased traffic. People of a
                    Mavoy Mefulash cannot protest even against
                    people of another Mavoy, but they can protest
                    against people of another city, even if they
                    pay land tax here. People of another Mavoy (not
                    where the professional wants to set up shop)
                    can protest only against people of another city
                    who do not pay land tax here.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If one did not pay tax until now, and now he
               wants to engage in his trade and pay taxes, some say
               that those of his trade can stop him, until they
               rent a house to him and he is like a city resident.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (18):</font></b> The Rema discusses when people of the
                    city do not protest. If not, the Rema would
                    contradict what he says in Se'if 7.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (7):</font></b> If one wants to move to a city, pay taxes
               and be like one of the residents (and have rights to
               earn money there), some say that he may, for one may
               live anywhere. The first residents did not acquire a
               Chazakah. Some disagree and say that the first
               residents can stop him, especially nowadays that we
               live among Nochrim, and there is concern that if
               more residents come, there will be problems from the
               Nochrim. One who comes to live here is like a Rodef
               (one who seeks to kill another).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (25):</font></b> The Cherem is not on the immigrants
                    (only on the residents).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (47):</font></b> Rodef applies even without intent to
                    harm (Bava Kama 117b)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> All agree that the residents can close the
               door and cause the leaders to protest against
               immigrants, or other ways to stop them. In some
               places they make a Cherem Chezkas Yishuv (not to let
               outsiders into one's house). Then they force through
               Cherem, not through letter of the law. They can
               decree not to do business with people who immigrate
               without permission.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (48):</font></b> Even R. Tam says only that they
                    cannot stop him through Beis Din, for the city
                    is like Hefker, and whoever is first gets it,
                    but they can stop one from taking it. Even if
                    one spread his Talis over a Mitzvah, (since he
                    did not acquire) we take it from him (Pe'ah
                    4:3).
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>CAN PEOPLE KEEP PROFESSIONALS OUT OF A MAVOY? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


