Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testified that ...

1. ... even a Chareshes whose father married her off when she was a Ketanah - can be divorced, all the more so a Chareshes who accepted her own Kidushin as a Gedolah.
2. ... a Ketanah bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen - may eat Terumah, even though in the absence of her father, she was married off by her mother or brother and her Kidushin is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) Should the latter die - her husband inherits her.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda also testified that ...

1. ... a stolen beam which the thief built into his mansion - may remain intact, ad the thief need only pay its value. This is - because of Takanas ha'Shavin (to encourage the thief to own up and do Teshuvah [which he will not be inclined to do if he knows that he will be obligated to demolish his mansion, which incidentally, is what the people of Ninveh did in the days of Yonah]).
2. ... a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen - will atone for its new owner (through of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' [absolving him from bringing another animal in its place]) because of Takanas ha'Mizbei'ach (which will be explained shortly).

(d) The reason that Rebbi placed this Mishnah here is - because of the last two cases, which are based on a Takanas Chachamim (following the style of all the current Mishnos).

(a) Rava extrapolates a leniency regarding a Get from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda. After having shown the witnesses the Get (not in his wife's presence) that he is about to give his wife - he hands her the Get, and tells her to take 'this Sh'tar Chov'.

(b) It is not so obvious following the Tana's words that such a Get will be valid - because we might have thought that by referring to the Get as a Sh'tar Chov, he canceled the Get.

(c) We know that he did not in fact, cancel the Get - because had he meant to do so, he would informed the witnesses of this.

(d) The reason that he did this - is because he was embarrassed to tell his wife that he was divorcing her.

(a) We know that a Chareshes who married a Kohen is not permitted to eat Terumah - because instead of incorporating this concession in the Reisha (in the Din of Chareshes), the Tana switched to a Ketanah who is not a Chareshes.

(b) The reason for this Halachah cannot be because we are afraid that if she marries a Cheresh Kohen he may feed her (though it is unclear why she should be any worse than a Ketanah whose mother or brother married her off - see Maharsha) - because even if he did, we have a principle 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho'.

(c) We conclude that what we are afraid of is that perhaps a Cheresh Kohen will then feed his wife who is a Pikachas. Despite the fact that this Kidushin too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and he ought to be permitted at least to feed her Terumah de'Rabbanan (such as vegetables and fruit [other than grain, wine and oil]), nevertheless, he is not - because we are afraid that he might feed her Terumah d'Oraysa.

(d) We learned in our Mishnah that if a thief built a stolen beam into his mansion, he may pay the value of the beam ... . That is the opinion of Beis Hillel. According to Beis Shamai, he is obligated to demolish his mansion and return the beam.

(a) And we learned in our Mishnah that a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen - will atone for its new owner. According to Ula, min ha'Torah, whether the Chatas is known to have been stolen or not, it will not atone for the thief - because 'Yi'ush' on its own does not acquire (added to the fact that it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' - see Tosfos DH "Mai Ta'ama').

(b) Ula adds that the reason the Chachamim decreed that it should, is in order that the Kohanim should not be depressed - for having eaten Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah.

(c) The reason exactly as Ula states, yet the Mishnah gives the reason as 'Tikun Mizbei'ach' - because the Kohens state of depression will cause them to stop doing the Avodah.

(d) The Chachamim exempted the thief from bringing the Chatas that he was obligated to bring - based on the principle that Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' is not considered uprooting the Torah.

5)

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, min ha'Torah, the Chatas atones for the thief whether the theft is publicly known or not - because he holds that Yi'ush on its own acquires.

(b) The Chachamim decreed that if it is, it will not atone - so that the Mizbe'ach should not be 'accused' of eating stolen goods.

(c) According to Ula, it is easy to understand why the Tana talks specifically about a Chatas, rather than the more common Olah - because the Kohanim's mood is the result of having eaten the Korban, which would not apply to an Olah.

(d) The Tana talks about a Chatas according to Rav Yehudah, (despite the fact that we are only concerned with the *Mizbe'ach* 'eating stolen goods'), because it is a bigger Chidush to teach us that they even decreed by a Chatas, despite the fact that some of the Korban was eaten by the Kohanim and not the Mizbei'ach.

7)

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama says that someone who stole an animal and then declared it Hekdesh before Shechting or selling it - is Chayav to pay double, but Patur from paying four or five times.

(b) The thief is exempt from paying four or five times in the latter case - because the animal is no longer the owner's but belongs to Hekdesh (see the Rashba on the previous Amud).

(c) The Tana of a Beraisa adds to the Mishnah - that if the thief were to Shecht the same animal outside the Azarah, he would be Chayav Kareis for Shechutei Chutz.

(d) According to Ula, asks Rava, who maintains that Yi'ush does not acquire, how can he can possibly become Chayav Kareis. Rav Shizbi answers - that he is Chayav Kareis mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) When they all laughed at Rav Shizbi because they did not consider the notion of Kareis de'Rabbanan feasible, Rava commented - that when a great man says something, one should not laugh (but try to understand what he means).

(b) So Rava explains that what Rav Shizbi's meant was - that the Kareis came through a de'Rabanan (because the Rabbanan placed the animal in the domain of the thief in order that he should be Chayav in the event that he Shechts it outside the Azarah (just like they did with regard to the atonement and the K'nas).

(c) Rava was initially in a dilemma whether the Rabbanan placed the animal in the domain of the thief from the time of the theft - in which case he would acquire its shearings and its babies from the time of the theft until the time of the Hekdesh; or from the time that he declared it Hekdesh - in which case he would not.

(d) Rava concludes - like the second Tzad of the She'eilah, because he says, it is not logical for Chazal to present him with a prize for stealing.

(a) A Sikrikun is a gentile murderer, whom one tended to bribe with land.

(b) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah' - he is referring to the final battle against Titus leading up to the Churban Bayis Sheini.

(c) The sale is void, if someone purchases a field ...

1. ... from the Sikrikun and then from the owner - because the owner can argue either that he only agreed to sell the field to him because he was afraid of the Sikrikun, or that he preferred the field to be in the hands of a Jewish purchaser, because he was an easier person to deal with in Beis-Din.
2. ... that is designated for the wife's Kesuvah from the husband and then from the wife - because the wife can argue that she only agreed to the sale in order to satisfy her husband.

(d) If someone first purchased the field from the owner or the wife, and then from the Sikrikun or the husband - the sale is valid.

(a) The above is the opinion of the Mishnah Rishonah (which will be explained shortly). The Mishnah Acharonah requires someone who purchases a field from a Sikrikun to pay the owner a quarter of the price ([which in real terms means a third] rather than go with him to Beis-Din) - because the Chachamim assessed this to be the amount the Sikrikun deducted from its real price, when he sold it to him.

(b) Should the owner wish to redeem his field from the Sikrikun after the Sikrikun has offered it to the would-be purchaser (see Tosfos-Yom-tov) - he has first rights to do so.

(c) Rebbi and his specially-appointed Beis-Din decided - that if the Sikrikun held on to the property for twelve months, anyone may purchase it (and the owner cannot claim first rights to it), though the purchaser must still pay the quarter to the original owner.

(a) The problem we have with the Tana's statement that there was no Sikrikun during the time of the final battle with Titus, but there was afterwards is - that if anything, the opposite is true; if there was no Sikrikun during the time of the final battle with Titus, then there would certainly not have been any afterwards.

(b) The Din Sikrikun is - that someone who purchases a field from a Sikrikun, must verify the sale with the owner before it can be finalized.

(c) We therefore interpret 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah' to mean - that during the time of the battle with Titus, the Din Sikrikun did not apply?

(d) This ruling is based on the principle - 'Talyuhah ve'Zavin, Z'vinei Z'vina' (that if someone who has been forced to sell a field by being suspended on a tree, sells it, his sale is valid, because he really means to sell); likewise in our case, in the time of Titus, anyone who gave his field to a Sikrikun, really gave it to him with a full heart (as will now be explained).

(a) Rav Asi bases the opening statement in our Mishnah on the three orders issued by Titus. The first of these was that anyone who did not kill a Jew would himself be killed. Anybody who killed a Jew, following ...

1. ... the second command - would be fined four Zuzim.
2. ... the third command - would be killed.

(b) The first half of the opening statement ('Lo Hayah Sikrikun ... ') pertains - to the first two commands, where the threat of death was very real.

(c) Following the third command - the owner's reasoning in selling to the Sikrikun would be - 'Let him take the field today. Tomorrow, I sill take him to court'!

(a) We can learn from the Pasuk "Ashrei Adam Mefached Tamid ... " - to try and foretell the potential harm and damage that might result from our actions (before we perform them).

(b) That is precisely what happened in the episode of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. A certain man instructed his servant to invite Kamtza to his Se'udah, but not bar Kamtza - because he was friendly with the former, but hated the latter.

(c) Upon discovering that the servant had inadvertently mixed up the two names and invited bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza - he asked bar Kamtza to leave immediately.

(d) After he refused his offer of ...

1. ... payment for his portion - bar Kamtza offered to pay for half the Se'udah.
2. ... payment for half the Se'udah - he offered to pay for the entire Se'udah.

(a) The man then tool hold of bar Kamtza and led him out of the hall.

(b) The Ba'al ha'Se'udah was clearly guilty of not paying heed to the above Pasuk - by not reckoning how vicious someone who has been publicly embarrassed can become (and perhaps the Chachamim, who witnessed the scene, but remained silent, or Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas on the following Amud, who tolerated bar Kamtza) are included too) See also Agados Maharsha.