Previous daf

1)

(a) Due to the strong-arm tactics Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel used in his home - the members of his household once replaced the limb of a Shechted animal that became lost with one that they took from a live animal (Eiver min ha'Chai), which he almost ate.

(b) We reject the initial statement, that he actually ate it - because Chazal have said that if Hashem spares even the animals belonging to Tzadikim from eating what is forbidden (such as the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair), then He will certainly spare the Tzadikim themselves from doing so.

(c) When Mar Ukva ...

1. ... asked Rebbi Elazar what he should do about tough guys who were causing him trouble - he first made Sirtut, then quoted him the Pasuk in Tehilim "Amarti Eshmerah Darki me'Chato bi'Leshoni ... be'Od Rasha Lenegdi" (instructions to bear it in silence).
2. ... insisted that they were making his life unbearable - he quoted him the Pasuk there "Dom la'Hashem ve'Hischolel Lo", implying that he should go to Shul every morning and evening to Daven (or to the Beis ha'Medrash to learn Torah), and they will fall away automatically.

(d) The words had hardly left Rebbi Elazar's mouth - when Geniva (the culprit) was captured by the king's men and sentenced to death.

(a) Mar Ukva send a message containing the Pasuk "Al Tismach Yisrael el Gil ka'Amim" - in response to the She'eilah whether one is permitted to have music at parties.

(b) He did not quote the Pasuk "be'Shir Lo Yishtu Yayin ... " - because one might confine that prohibition to musical instruments, but not to songs that one sings without it.

(c) Rav Huna bar Nasan was not impressed when Rav Ashi informed him that the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Kinah ve'Dimonah ve'Adadah" were names of towns. He quoted Rav Gevihah from Argizah, who had a far more sophisticated interpretation of the Pasuk.

1. ... Rav Gevihah from Argizah interpreted it - to mean that if someone is angry with his friend but he nevertheless controls his anger and remains silent (like Mar Ukva and Rebbi Elazar cited above), the One who dwells forever will take up his case.
2. ... Rav Acha from Bei Chuza'a explain the Pasuk there "Tziklag u'Madmanah ve'Sansanah" - to mean that if someone has reason to cry out against his friend for stealing from him to the point that his entire livelihood is threatened, but remains silent, the One who dwelt in the Burning Bush will take up his case.

(a) When the Resh Galusa (the Exilarch) asked Rav Huna the source for the prohibition of Chasanim wearing crowns and the instrument called 'Eirus', he cited a Mishnah which specifically described it as an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan. This decree was instituted - at the time that Vespasian attacked Yerushalayim (before the final attack of Titus).

(b) When Rav Huna left the room, Rav Chisda quoted the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Koh Amar Hashem ... Hasir ha'Mitznefes ve'Harim ha'Atarah ... " - which he interpreted to mean that when the Kohen Gadol no longer wears the Mitznefes, one should remove the crown worn by the Chasanim (raising this prohibition from the status of a Rabbinical decree to one that has a source in a Pasuk).

(c) The correct interpretation of the Pasuk is - that when the Kohen Gadol stops wearing the Mitznefes, the King will stop wearing his crown, a prophecy that Tzidkiyahu would go into Galus at that time.

(d) Although Rav Huna did not agree with Rav Chisda's interpretation - he nevertheless praised him for it. 'His name is Chisda', he said 'and his statements are nice (Chisda'in)'.

(a) Despite Chazal's decree, forbidding Chasanim to wear crowns, Mar bar Rav Ashi justified to Ravina the crown that he was weaving for his daughter's wedding - by pointing out that this particular decree was confined to Chasanim and did not pertain to Kalos.

(b) Rav Avira (sometimes quoting Rav Ami and sometimes, Rav Asi) explained the conclusion of the previous Pasuk "Zos, Lo Zos, Hashafalah Hagbe'ah, ve'Hagavo'ah Hashpil". When the angels asked Hashem "Zos" - they meant 'Is this what Yisrael deserve for pronouncing "Na'aseh" before "Nishma"?

(c) Hashem replied - "Lo Zos, Hashafalah Hagbe'ah, ve'Hagavo'ah Hashpil"; 'Is this not what they deserve, for lowering what is high, and raising what is low, when they placed an image in the Heichal'?

(a) Based on a Pasuk in Nachum, Rav Avira (sometimes quoting Rav Ami and sometimes, Rav Asi) Darshened - that someone whose income is tight should give Tzedakah, how much more so someone who is well-off. (b) And Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael says - that someone who cuts off from his property to give Tzedakah will be spared from the Din of Gehinom.

(c) He illustrates this with a parable about two lambs crossing a river, one of them shorn, the other, with its wool still intact. The one that will cross safely is the one that is shorn, the other one will drown.

(d) He learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Chein Nagozu ve'Avar" - that the sheep that is shorn will cross.
2. ... "ve'Inisicha Lo A'anech Od" - that if a poor man (who has suffered affliction and who) collects his income from Tzedakah, nevertheless gives Tzedakah, he will never again suffer the pangs of poverty.

6)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa states that if someone is traveling (in a northerly direction) from Acco to K'ziv (or to Lavlevo, according to Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father) whatever is ...

1. ... to the right of the path - is considered Chutz la'Aretz and is therefore Metamei Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz..
2. ... to the left of it - is considered Eretz Yisrael.

(b) The ramifications of this distinction, besides that of Tum'ah, are - whether Ma'asros and Shevi'is apply to what grows there or not.

(c) The Din of the Beraisa not apply - when one knows for sure that any particular place along that path is part of Eretz Yisrael or is not. The Tana's Din is confined to places that are a Safek.

(d) According to this Tana - Acco would appear to be south of the border and K'ziv (or Lavlevo) constitutes the northern border (whereas the Tana of our Mishnah clearly considers Acco as the northernmost point of the border). Note: according to this text, Acco will be on the east side of Eretz Yisrael. See Hagahos ha'Gra however, who switches the text from 'Temei'ah' to 'Tehorah' and vice-versa, because Acco and K'ziv are known to be on the west.

(a) Abaye reconciles the Tana of our Beraisa with our Mishnah, which clearly considers Acco to be in the extreme north of Eretz Yisrael (as we just stated) - by explaining that, although Acco is the northernmost point of Eretz Yisrael, there is an additional strip of land that protrudes northwards from Acco, extending as far as K'ziv.

(b) The problem with Abaye's answer is - that it hardly seems appropriate for the Tana to use such a thin, insignificant strip of land as a sign.

(c) We resolve this problem from a Pasuk in Shoftim however - which does the same thing.

(d) With regard to the path that led northwards from Beis-Eil to Sh'chem ...

1. Shiloh was - on the east of the path, immediately to the north of Beis-Eil.
2. Levonah was - also on the east of the path, but north of Shiloh.

(a) One Beraisa considers a Get that was written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael to have been brought from Eretz Yisrael. According to others - it is as if the Get was brought from Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles the two Beraisos - by establishing the former like the Rabbanan (of the Beraisa that we are about to discuss), and the latter like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Chalah writes that if one planted something in earth of Chutz la'Aretz that is being brought to Eretz Yisrael by boat, it is subject to Ma'aser and Shevi'is. Rebbi Yehudah qualifies this - establishing it specifically by a boat that is dragging on the sea or river bed, but not by one that is sailing on the surface.

(d) Abaye establishes both previous Beraisos like Rebbi Yehudah, establishing the Beraisa that considers the boat to be Eretz Yisrael - when the boat is dragging on the sea or river bed.

(a) Rebbi Zeira attempts to compare the Din of a holed pot placed on posts (in which one planted grain) to earth on a boat, in which case grain that is planted in it - will be subject to Ma'aser and Shevi'is according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) Abaye disagrees. He differentiates between ...

1. ... a holed pot on posts and a ship (according to Rebbi Yehudah). It is the latter, he maintains - that Rebbi Yehudah does not consider Eretz Yisrael, because it moves, but he will concede that a holed pot on posts is considered Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... a holed pot on posts and a ship in water (according to the Rabbanan). It is the latter, he maintains - that the Rabbanan consider Eretz Yisrael, because the water is considered an extension of the land, but they will concede that a holed pot on posts is not considered Eretz Yisrael, because the air interrupts between the pot and the ground.

(c) The reason that the pot is only considered joined to the ground if it is holed, whereas the boat is considered joined even if it is not is - because the former is speaking about a wooden pot, and the latter, about an earthenware boat (see Tosfos DH 'Atzitz').