(a)It is permitted to eat from ...
1. ... the grapes in the house 'Ad she'Yechalu Dali'os she'be'Avel'. What are 'Dali'os she'be'Avel'? Is it ever possible to eat after this time?
2. ... olives until the last olives in the fields in Teko'a or in Gush Chalav are finished. What does this mean?
3. ... dried figs as long as there are Pagei Beis Hini still in the fields. What does Rebbi Yehudah say about Pagei Beis Hini?
4. ... dates, as long as there are still dates to be found in the fields of Tzavar. The above dates coincide with the times given in another Beraisa: grapes until Pesach, olives until Shavu'os, dried figs until Chanukah and dates until Purim. How else can we reconcile the two seemingly different time lists?
(b)What does Rav Bibi quoting Rebbi Yochanan say about the final date for dried figs and dates in connection with the latter Beraisa?
1. The 'Dali'os she'be'Avel' - are the grapes on the trellises of Aveil Keramim, which were the last to ripen, and which therefore served as the gauge for 'Kalu min ha'Sadeh l'Chayah'. Sometimes there are late grapes elsewhere which ripen after those of Avel. In that case, one may still rely on them.
2. The last olives means - when the poor go out to the fields to search for olives and are unable to find a quarter of a Kav of edible olives anywhere on the trees.
3. Rebbi Yehudah says about Pagei Beis-Hini - that they were not mentioned in this regard at all, only with regard to Ma'aser, as the Beraisa states 'Pagei Beis-Hini ... Chayavin b'Ma'aser'.
4. We already learned in the first Beraisa, that if there are later fruits, that one may rely on them for Bi'ur. Consequently, the latter Beraisa is giving us the dates of the late fruit.
(b)Rav Bibi quoting Rebbi Yochanan switches round the last two cases in the latter Beraisa. He learns 'dates until Chanukah and dried figs until Purim'.
(a)What do the following mean:
1. Siman l'Harim, Milin?
2. Siman la'Amakim, Dekalim?
3. Siman li'Nechalim, Kanim?
4. Siman li'Shefalah, Shikmah?
(b)What are the Halachic ramifications of the above? Why do we need to know the definition of
1. a mountain and a valley?
2. a wadi?
3. a plain?
1. Siman l'Harim, Milin - means that the gall-nut tree grows well in the mountains, whereas no other tree does (see Ya'avetz). That explains why mountain-fruit is not subject to Bikurim.
2. Siman la'Amakim, Dekalim - means that the date-palm grows well in the valley.
3. Siman li'Nechalim, Kanim - means that canes (or reeds) grow well in a wadi.
4. Siman li'Shefalah, Shikmah - means that the Shikmah-tree (a tree that does not grow fruit) grows well in the lowlands.
(b)We need to know the definition of ...
1. ... a mountain and a valley - because, as the Mishnah writes in Bikurim, one does not bring Bikurim from the date-palms that grow in the mountains, nor from any fruits (other than dates) that grow in the valley.
2. ... a wadi - for the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah, which had to have its neck broken in a wadi (of virgin soil).
3. ... a plain - so that if someone specifies that he will sell his friend a plain, that that is what the purchaser receives. In fact, the Gemara concludes, this last answer could apply to the other three cases, too.
(a)Why do some places have the Minhag not to sell small animals (such as sheep and goats) to non-Jews?
(b)And why, in any event, is selling them large animals (horses and cows) prohibited?
(c)According to the Tana Kama, may one sell them animals horses, shall we say, that are too young to work, or wounded animals that are unable to work?
(d)Rebbi Yehudah permits the sale of wounded animals to gentiles. What does Ben Beseira permit?
(a)Some places have the Minhag not to sell small animals (such as sheep and goats) to non-Jews - because they decree small animals because of large ones.
(b)It is forbidden to sell them large animals in any case - because one might come to sell or to hire them animals as Shabbos is entering, and violate Shabbos in the process.
(c)The Tana Kama does not differentiate between fully-grown, un-blemished horses, shall we say, and horses that are too young to work, or that cannot work due to a wound.
(d)Ben Beseira permit selling them a horse - because horses are used mainly to transport people, and there is no Isur d'Oraisa even for one person to carry another, since 'Chai Nosei es Atzmo'. Consequently, there is no Isur of "Behemtecha" either.
(a)What is the reason for the Minhag not to eat roasted meat at the Seder?
(b)Is this confined to an animal that was designated for Pesach when it was still alive, or does it make no difference when it is designated?
(c)Why does the prohibition not apply to designating wheat for Pesach? Why might we have thought that it does?
(a)The reason for the Minhag not to eat roasted meat at the Seder - is because it looks as if one is designating the Pesach to eat outside the Beis Hamikdash.
(b)This Isur applies even to designating meat from an animal that has already been Shechted.
(c)This prohibition does not however, apply to designating wheat for Pesach - because this has no connection with Kodshim, and can only be understood for what it is: namely, 'wheat that is guarded (from becoming Chametz) for Pesach'. Though we might have thought otherwise. We might have thought that he means to designate the wheat to sell and to buy with the proceeds, a Korban Pesach.
(a)What custom did Todos from Rome institute?
(b)What message did the Chachamim send to him?
(c)What does the Gemara ask on Rav (who forbade designating one's animal for Pesach) from the Lashon 'Mekulasin'?
(d)How do we reconcile the two?
(a)Todos from Rome instituted the custom to eat whole roasted kid-goats at the Seder (prepared in the same way as the Korban Pesach was - which will be described in Perek Keitzad Tzolin).
(b)The Chachamim sent him a message that if he hadn't been Todos, they would have placed him in Cherem, for all but feeding his fellow-Jews Kodshim outside the Beis-Hamikdash.
(c)From the above episode, asks the Gemara, it appears that it is only a kid-goat that is roasted whole (and known as 'Mekulas') that is forbidden; so how can Rav forbid all roasted meat?
(d)A Ge'di Mekulas, answers the Gemara, is forbidden whether one specifically designates it for Pesach or not, whereas Rav, who forbids any animal, means that it is forbidden to designate it for Pesach.
(a)The author of the Beraisa concerning Todos from Rome is quoted as being Rebbi Yosi. Rav Acha quotes Rebbi Shimon. The Mishnah in Erchin says, 'Rebbi Shimon Poter, she'Lo Hisnadev k'Derech ha'Misnadvin'. What is the Mishnah referring to, and what does it mean?
(b)How does this clash with Rav Acha?
(c)The Gemara accepts this Kashya on Rav Acha. But not before it has retorted that establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Yosi does not appear to be any better, since Rebbi Shimon himself follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi. What presumption does the Gemara make in order to ask this Kashya? What is the Kashya?
(d)What is the answer?
(a)'Rebbi Shimon Poter, she'Lo Hisnadev k'Derech ha'Misnadvin' - is referring to someone who undertakes to donate a Minchah of barley- flour, in which case Rebbi Meir obligates him to bring one of wheat (since all regular Menachos consist of wheat), and a person is bound by his opening words, which contain all that he initially means to say (so since he said 'Harei Alai Minchah min ha'Se'orim' he has to bring a regular Minchah - from wheat). Rebbi Shimon disagrees; according to him, since he added 'min ha'Se'rorim', he did not undertake to bring a Minchah like everyone else does and he is Patur, because a person is bound by all his words. He obviously thought that one can bring a Minchah from barley, and in reality, one cannot.
(b)According to Rebbi Shimon, why was Todos taken to task for 'all but feeding his fellow-Jews Kodshim outside the Beis Hamikdash'? First of all, he did not even declare the animal Hekdesh, and, even if he had, according to Rebbi Shimon, who takes the words of the sanctifier at surface value, his declaration would have been meaningless, since nowadays, there is no such thing as a Korban Pesach?
(c)Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'she'Lo Hisnadev k'Derech ha'Misnadvim', also has to come on to the Svara of 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas' (that we take into account all of the person's words - even his concluding ones - like Rebbi Yosi in Temurah, who disagrees with Rebbi Meir). Now the Gemara thought that, since Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yosi (by 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas'), does it not follow that Rebbi Yosi holds like Rebbi Shimon (by the Svara of 'she'Lo Hisnadev k'Derech ha'Misnadvim'?). If that is so, asks the Gemara, one cannot establish the Chachamim in the Beraisa of Todos like Rebbi Yosi, any more than Rebbi Shimon.
(d)'No!' answers the Gemara. Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yosi (since there is no other way of explaining his words. But Rebbi Yosi does not hold like Rebbi Shimon (regarding 'she'Lo Hisnadev k'Derech ha'Misnadvim')- since there is no indicate that. Consequently, we remain with the Gemara's initial statement, that the Chachamim of Todos follow the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.
(a)The Gemara asks whether Todos from Rome was a great man (a scholar) or a bully. What difference does it make which of the two he was?
(b)What is the answer, and what is the proof?
(c)What do we Darshen from the Pasuk in Koheles "Ki b'Tzel ha'Chochmah b'Tzel ha'Kesef", and what does this have to do with Todos from Rome?
(a)The Gemara asks whether Todos from Rome was a great man (a scholar) or a bully - there is no Halachic difference between the two; it is just a matter of whether the Chachamim (who sent to him 'If you would not be Todos, we would place you in Cherem') desisted from doing so out of deference to his greatness, or whether it was because they were afraid of him (though one would then need to explain why the Mitzvah of "Lo Saguru Mipnei Ish" should not apply. Perhaps "Lo Saguru" ... only applies to withholding an obligatory ruling [such as by money-matters, where someone else's money is at stake, but not to matters such as placing in Cherem, which is not obligatory - at least not when it is not a matter of Kavod ha'Torah).
(b)The Gemara proves from the fact that Todos explained Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah's motive for allowing themselves to be thrown into furnace. They did so, he explained, because they Darshened a Kal va'Chomer from the frogs in Egypt, who are not commanded to sanctify G-d's Name, and yet some of whom jumped into fires, risking their lives to carry out the will of Hash-m, who had said "u've'Sanurecha". So they themselves, they reckoned, who are, are certainly obligated to do so. Clearly then, Todos was a learned man, and it must have been in deference to his greatness that they desisted from placing him in Cherem.
(c)From the Pasuk "Ki b'Tzel ha'Chochmah b'Tzel ha'Kesef" we Darshen that anyone who helps Talmidei-Chamamim to set up a business by supplying them with goods to sell, will sit together with the Talmid-Chacham whom he helped in Olam ha'Ba. And this, according to Rebbi Yochanan, is what Todos from Rome used to do.
(a)What are the two Minhagim regarding kindling lights in all the rooms on Yom Kippur night, and what are their respective reasons?
(b)Everyone agrees that one does however, light in the Batei Kenesiyos and the Batei Medrashos. In which other two areas may one light according to all opinions?
(c)How does Rava explain the Pasuk in Yeshayah "v'Amech Kulam Tzdikim, Le'olam Yirshu Aretz"?
(a)Some have the Minhag on the eve of Kol Nidrei, to kindle lights in all the rooms, in honor of Yom Kippur. They are not perturbed by the fact that perhaps, as a result, he will see his wife and fancy her (bear in mind that marital relations is forbidden on this holy night). This is because, in their opinion, the opposite effect will be achieved: namely, that due to the prohibition of marital relations by the light of a lamp, he will be more likely to desist. Others claim that, to the contrary, it is the first suspicion that one must fear most (namely, that he will see his wife and fancy her).
(b)Besides lighting in the Batei Knesiyos and the Batei Medrashos - one also lights in the dark streets and beside the beds of the sick.
(c)Rava applies the Pasuk "v'Amech Kulam Tzdikim, Le'olam Yirshu Aretz" - to our very Mishnah: Even though some do light lights and some don't, both are righteous since they are both acting for the sake of Hash-m ('Zeh va'Zeh, Divrei Elokim Chayim').
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that the Berachah of 'Borei Me'orei ha'Esh' is confined to Motzei Shabbos. Why is that?
(b)Why did Ula give Rabah bar bar Chanah a dirty look?
(c)Why would Rebbi Yochanan not have said such a thing?
(d)Why should one recite the Berachah over light on Motzei Yom Kippur?
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that the Berachah of 'Borei Me'orei ha'Esh' is confined to Motzei Shabbos - because that is when it was first created (as we shall see later).
(b)Ula give Rabah bar bar Chanah a dirty look - because he thought (erroneously as it transpired) that Rebbi Aba, who quoted Shmuel's previous statement in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, had heard that from Rabah bar bar Chanah (as indeed, some just quoted him as having said), a fact which he rejected (because, as we shall see, he disagreed with the actual statement).
(c)Rebbi Yochanan would not have said such a thing - because of the Beraisa, which Rabah subsequently cites, which adds Yom Kippur to the statement.
(d)The reason that one recites the Berachah over light on Motzei Yom Kippur - is because (unlike other Yamim-Tovim) it was forbidden to kindle lights during the entire day, and it is has only just become permitted once again.
(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah corrected Ula. When he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, he was referring to a comment Rebbi Yochanan had made on the Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar as saying that when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, everyone agrees that one kindles the lights because of Kevod Shabbos. What did Rebbi Yochanan comment on that?
(b)Did Ula accept Rabah bar bar Chanah's new statement?
(c)To whom did Rav Yosef apply the Pasuk in Mishlei ...
1. ... "Mayim Amukim Eitzah b'Lev Ish"?
2. ... "v'Ish Tevunah Yidlenah"?
(a)Rebbi Yochanan commented (on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permitted kindling a light on Kol Nidrei night when it fell on Shabbos, even to those who did not do so on other years) - that the Chachamim disagreed, and that they did not differentiate between the two.
(b)With that statement - Ula agreed.
(c)Rav Yosef applied the Pasuk in Mishlei ...
1. ... "Mayim Amukim Eitzah b'Lev Ish" - to Ula, who gave Rabah bar bar Chanah a dirty look, but did not say anything.
2. ... "v'Ish Tevunah Yidlenah" - to Rabah bar bar Chanah, who understood perfectly what Ula was thinking.