Previous daf

1)

(a) When the master whose Eved fled from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, ran after him to bring him back Rebbi Ami instructed him - to set him free (and Beis-Din would write a document obligating the Eved to pay him the value that they would assess). If he persisted, they warned him, they would simply set him free, based on the ruling of Rebbi Achi b'Rebbi Yoshiyah in a Beraisa.

(b) Rebbi Achi b'Rebbi Yoshiyah learned that it is forbidden to return an Eved in such a case from the Pasuk - in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sasgir Eved el Adonav".

(c) He declines to learn that it refers to a Nochri who undertakes not to serve idols, due to the Lashon "mi'Im Adonav", rather than "me'Im Aviv (or "mi'Im Elohav"). He also refutes the suggestion that the Pasuk is referring to an Eved who runs from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz, because the Pasuk continues "Asher Yinatzel Eilecha" (implying that he ran *to* Eretz Yisrael)) - when it should rather have read "Asher Yinatzel 'me'Imach".

(a) Rebbi Achi b'Rebbi Yoshiyah ultimately establishes the Pasuk - by an Eved who runs from Chutz le'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi establishes the Pasuk by someone who bought an Eved in order to set him free.

1. This speaks, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains - when he wrote 'le'she'Ekachech, Harei Atzmecha Kenuyah Lach me'Achshav'.
2. Rebbi's Chidush is - that 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' (like Rebbi Meir).

(a) When an Eved belonging to Rav Chisda fled to the Bei Kuta'i, and Rav Chisda sent them a message requesting his return - they quoted him the Pasuk 'Lo Sasgir Eved el Adonav'.

(b) To which Rav Chisda replied - that the Pasuk refers to an Eved who fled from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, as Rebbi Achi b'Rebbi Yoshiyah explained (and not from Bavel to Bavel, as his Eved had done).

(c) He quoted Rebbi Achi b'Rebbi Yoshiyah rather than Rebbi - because he found his explanation more conducive to the Pesukim.

(a) In order to retrieve his lost donkey, Abaye sent the Bei Kuta'i a Si'man that it had a white belly.

(b) They were not impressed however - because all donkeys have white bellies.

(c) They nevertheless returned it to him - because they were convinced that he was a Talmid-Chacham and was telling the truth (though it is unclear on what grounds they had the authority to return it on that basis).

(a) Chazal decreed redeeming captives for more than their value. The reason for this was either so as not to overburden the community - or so as not to encourage the Nochrim to capture Jews so as to obtain high ransoms for them.

(b) The ramifications of these two reasons - will be when someone (e.g. a rich relative) is willing to pay the exorbitant price demanded.

(c) There is no proof from Levi bar Darga, who redeemed his daughter for thirteen thousand golden Dinrim - because it may well be that he acted against the Halachah.

(d) Chazal decreed at the same time - that one may not help captives to escape, because of Tikun ha'Olam.

(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the reason for the latter decree is not because of Tikun ha'Olam, but because of Takanas ha'Shevuyin. The meaning of ...

1. ... Tikun ha'Olam is - so that future captives should not be clamped in chains as a result.
2. ... Takanas ha'Shevuyin - is to protect current captives from being clamped in chains, not future ones.

(b) The difference between the two is there where there is only one captive, and it is only the well-being of future captives that is at stake.

(c) Rav Ilish was amazed when he saw the daughters of Rav Nachman - stirring a boiling pot with their bare hands.

(d) He quoted the Pasuk in Koheles - Adam Echad be'Elef Mata'si, ve'Ishah be'Chol Eileh Lo Matza'si' (where Shlomoh Hamelech seemed to have forgotten about the daughters of Rav Nachman).

(a) Rav Ilish was captured at the same time as Rav Nachman's daughters. The message he received from the birds via a man who was able to decipher bird's talk was - 'Ilish, run away ... !'

(b) He declined to accept the message from the raven - because, he said, the raven is a liar (i.e. it is unreliable, as we find with No'ach).

(c) He ultimately accepted it - from the dove, to which Yisrael is compared.

(d) The man who had deciphered the message fled together with him - Rav Ilish miraculously succeeded in escaping across the bridge to freedom, but his companion was caught and killed.

(a) Before fleeing, he overheard them - referring to their captors as husbands (no less than the ones they had left behind), ascertaining that they were not as righteous as he had thought they were.

(b) He listened specifically in the vicinity of the bathroom - because that was where women used to discuss their affairs.

(c) They decided to ask their captors - to move them further away from home, to discourage their original husbands from coming to ransom them.

(d) So he attributed their ability to stir the boiling pot with their bare hands - to witchcraft.

9)

(a) Rav Budya extrapolated from the Mishnah, which cites the decree of Chazal not to purchase Sefarim, Tefilin and Mezuzos from Nochrim for more than their value - that one may purchase them for their market value, and he inferred from this that one is permitted to subsequently use them.

(b) To which Rav Ashi replied that the Tana may well mean that one must redeem them because of the possibility that they were written Lishman, but that, seeing as they may not have been, they must be placed in Genizah.

(a) Rav Nachman says that a Sefer-Torah that was written by ...

1. ... a Min (someone who is addicted to Avodah-Zarah) - must be burned (because it was certainly written in the name of idolatry).
2. ... a Nochri - must be placed in Genizah (as we just explained).

(b) And he says that a Sefer-Torah that one obtains from ...

1. ... a Min - must be placed in Genizah (because he may have written it).
2. ... a Nochri - must, according to some, be placed in Genizah (because *he* may have written it, in which case it must go into Genizah); whereas according to others, it may be used, because it may have been written by a Jew, and even if the Nochri wrote it, he may have written it Lishmah.

(c) We establish the Beraisa that ...

1. ... requires a Sefer-Torah that is written by a Nochri to be burned according to Rebbi Eliezer who says - that even a Nochri always has his Avodah-Zarah uppermost in his mind .
2. ... permits one to read from such a Sefer like the Tana who specifically permits it, provided the Nochri wrote it Lishmah. The Tana of a third Beraisa (cited by Rav Hamnuna Brei de'Rava mi'Pashrunya) invalidates a Sefer written by a Masur, a Nochri, an Eved, a woman, a Katan, a Kuti or a Yisrael Mumar - on the basis of the Hekesh "u'Keshartam u'Chesavtam" (Eikev), which teaches us that only someone who is subject to the Mitzvah of wearing Tefilin may write them (and Sefarim and Mezuzos are compared to Tefilin).

(d) In this list, a Mumar and a Masur have simply thrown off the yoke of Mitzvos, and this Tana considers Kutim Geirei Arayos (insincere Geirim). Women and Avadim are not subject to the Mitzvah of Tefilin - because it is a 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah' (seeing as it does not apply on Shabbos and in the night).

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa invalidates Tefilin that have been overlaid with gold or that are covered with the skin of a non-Kosher animal - because the Torah writes in Parshas Bo (with regard to Tefilin) "be'Ficha", from which we learn that only what is permitted to eat is eligible for Tefilin.

(b)

1. ... He permits Tefilin that are covered with the skin of a Kasher animal.
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids them, because the Tefilin must be made from skin that has been tanned Lishmah.

(c) We reconcile this with the above-quoted Beraisa which permits reading from Sefarim written by Nochrim, even though they were not written Lishman - by establishing that Beraisa by a Nochri who reverted to his former beliefs, but who knows that Tefilin must be written Lishman.

(d) We trust a Ger who has reverted to his previous beliefs to write a Get Lishmah - only because the Beraisa speaks when he did so out of fear, not out of conviction.

(a) The prohibition to redeem Sefarim from a Nochri for more than their current value is not absolute - because the Beraisa permits up to one Tarpe'ik more, which Rav Sheishes explains to be one Sela Medinah or half a Dinar.

(b) Abaye offered that Arab woman who brought him a Chaysa de'Tefili (a sack of Tefilin) - a few dates per pair.

(c) She became so angry that she threw the entire sack in the river.

(d) Abaye subsequently commented that he should not have belittled the Tefilin to that extent.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids someone who divorced his wife because of a rumor that she had committed adultery or because she had made Nedarim, to take her back. The prohibition in the case of Nedarim only applies, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, if the Neder was publicly known. The reason for the prohibition according to him is - to prevent the B'nos Yisrael from becoming lax in Nedarim, and this is only applicable in the case of Nedarim that are publicly known.
2. ... Rebbi Meir, if the Neder requires a Chacham to annul it, and he could not have done so himself. The reason for the prohibition, according to Rebbi Meir is - to prevent the husband from claiming that had he known that a Chacham was able to annul the Neder he would never have divorced her (and her Get is null and void and her children from the second husband Mamzeirim ['Kilkul']). And Kilkul will not apply there where he as able to annul his wife's Nedarim but failed to do so.

(b) When Rebbi Elazar says 'Lo Asru Zeh (Tzarich) Ela Mipnei Zeh' (Eino Tzarich) - he (too holds of the reason of Kilkul, like Rebbi Meir, and he) means that on the contrary, in the case of 'Tzarich' Kilkul does not apply, because a man does not wish his wife to go to Beis-Din, and it is only Nedarim that he could annul himself that we are afraid of Kilkul (because he will say, that had he known, he would have annulled the Nedarim).

(c) According to the first Lashon of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman, the Tana Kama only says 'Lo Yachzir' (by Shem Ra and Neder) if the husband specifically stated that he was divorcing his wife for those reasons - because in his opinion, the reason of the Tana Kama is because of Kilkul, and it is only if he specified why he is divorcing her that he can later claim that he would not have done so had he known ... .

(d) According to the second Lashon, the reason for the decree is to prevent the B'nos Yisrael from becoming lax in their morals and in Nedarim. What Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman says there is - that we make him declare that this is why he is divorcing her. However, whether he said it or not, he is not permitted to take her back.