Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Savo el *Beiso* La'avot Avoto" - that although the Shei'ach Beis-Din may not enter the *the debtor's house* to take a Mashkon, he may, if necessary enter the house of the Areiv (the guarantor) to do so.

(b) Shlomoh ha'Melech advises a person who ...

1. ... became an Areiv - to pay up.
2. ... hurt his fellow-Jew with words - to appease the guy that he hurt.

(a) Alternatively the Tana learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Savo el Beiso *La'avot Avoto*" - that although the Sheli'ach Beis-Din may not enter the house of *a debtor* to take a Mashkon for a loan, he may enter it to take a Mashkon for rental that is owed.

(b) 'le'Tzad Sheini' means - 'alternatively' (like 'Davar Acher').

(c) Besides rental owed to as ass-driver and for renting an inn, the third example given by the Tana regarding this Halachah is - money owed for painting pictures on the walls of the client's house.

(a) The author of our Mishnah which establishes the Pasuk "Lo Sachbol Beged Almanah" whether she is poor or rich is - Rebbi Yehudah (as we see in the Beraisa).

(b) Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa permits taking the garment of a rich widow - because he tends to Darshen the Torah's reasons, and the reason here is obviously due to the bad name that one gives a poor Almanah by coming to her door every evening and morning, to return the Mashkon and take it back. But this is not applicable to a rich Almanah.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees because - Rebbi Yehudah Lo Darish Ta'ama di'K'ra.

(a) The above Tana'im seem to switch opinions however, in another Beraisa. Commenting on the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim", Rebbi Yehudah permits a king to have more than eighteen wives, provided they do not lead him astray. Rebbi Shimon forbids it.

(b) This appears to contradict their previous opinions; Rebbi Yehudah seems to Darshen the Torah's reasons and Rebbi Shimon doesn't. The solution to this discrepancy, lies in the continuation of the Pasuk. After "ve'Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim" the Torah continues - "ve'Lo Yasir Levavo".

(c) Based on their opinions in our Sugya, this explain why ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Ta'ama di'K'ra here - because seeing as we would normally have forbidden the king to have more than eighteen wives irrespective of whether they lead him astray or not, the Torah obviously adds "ve'Lo Yasur Levavo" to teach us that it is only forbidden if they do?
2. ... Rebbi Shimon doesn't - because seeing as he would normally have permitted the king to have as many wives as he wants, provided they do not lead him astray, why does the Torah need to add "ve'Lo Yasur Levavo", if not to teach us that many wives are forbidden anyway, and that even one wife is forbidden if she leads him astray.

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that one contravenes "Lo Yachbol" (in Ki Seitzei) because of two vessels when taking mill-stones, he means - that each of the two millstones constitutes an independent La'av.

(b)

1. 'Raschev' is - the upper millstone (from the word 'Li'rekov', to ride) and ...
2. ... 'Rechayim' - the lower one.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" - that the La'av extends to other vessels that are the source of one's income (and is not confined to a mill).

(a) According to Rav Huna, a creditor who takes a Rechayim or a Rechev contravenes two La'avin - "Lo Yachbol ... " and "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".

(b) Should he take both, he contravenes - three La'avin.

(c) According to Rav Yehudah - he only contravenes one La'av for taking either the Rechayim or the Rachav, and two, for taking both.

(d) He explains that "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" - comes to include other vessels that are the source of one's income (as we learned in our Mishnah).

7)

(a) The Torah writes in Bo "Al Tochal Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim, Ki-im Tz'li-Eish". "Na" means - half-done.

(b) According to Rava, someone who eats a Korban Pesach either half-done or plain cooked, receives two sets of Malkos. If he eats both at the same time - he will receives three.

(c) Abaye discounts the possibility of receive Malkos for "Ki-im Tz'li Eish", becaus 'Ein is Lokin al La'av she'bi'Kelalus' (there is no Malkos for a La'av which incorporates a number of La'avin, such as this one [in which case, it must come to teach us something else], as he will conclude).

(a) It looks as if Abaye holds like Rav Yehudah and Rava, like Rav Huna. But we reconcile ...

1. ... Rava with Rav Yehudah - by pointing out that "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" does not seem to pertain to "Rechayim va'Rachev" (but rather comes to incorporate other things), whereas "Ki-im Tz'li Eish certainly pertains to "Na" and "Mevushal".
2. ... Abaye with Rav Huna - by pointing out that he interprets "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" as an extra La'av, only because it is superfluous, whereas "Ki-im Tz'li Eish" is not, as we shall now see.

(b) Abaye's argument is based on a Beraisa. The Tana there learns from "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na ... Ki-im Tz'li Eish" - that the La'avin of Na and Mevushal only apply when the Mitzvah of Tz'li-Eish does (i.e. on the night of the fifteenth, but someone who eats it on the fourteenth or fifteenth by day, has not transgressed. Consequently, the Pasuk is not superfluous.