Previous daf

1)

(a) When Levi said to Aryoch (alias Shmuel), 'Safek Li va'Ana Eichol', he meant - that Shmuel should go and pick the Orlah fruit not in his presence, so that, as far as he was concerned, it would be a Safek Orlah, which he would subsequently be permitted to eat.

(b) Rav Ivya and Rabah bar Rav Chanan used to go one stage further and pick for each other, each one not in the other's presence.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan was most unhappy about a statement made by Charifi de'Pumbedisa (Eifah and Avimi, sons of Rachbah of Pumbedisa), who said - that Orlah does not apply at all in Chutz la'Aretz.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan said to Rav Yehudah that ...

1. ... Safek Orlah - should be concealed.
2. ... Vaday Orlah - must be destroyed.
3. ... anyone who declares that there is no Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - will not have heirs who will inherit his portion in Eretz Yisrael.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan told Rav Yehudah that ...

1. ... Vaday Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - must be destroyed.
2. ... Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - should be kept quiet (even though strictly speaking, it is permitted, the Poskim should issue this ruling discreetly).

(b) The Chirifi of Pumbedisa based their opinion on a quotation by Rebbi Eliezer, who says - 'Ein Orlah be'Chutz la'Aretz'.

(c) The problem with this from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who said 'Af ha'Kil'ayim' - is that 'Af ha'Kil'ayim' indicates that Rebbi Eliezer certainly agrees with the Tana Kama, who forbids *Orlah* and Kil'ayim, and only comes to add Chadash (see also Tosfos DH 'T'ni').

(d) We amend Rebbi Eliezer's statement to read - just 'Chadash'.

(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with the Chirifi of Pumbedisa. He says that Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b) Rebbi Zeira's problem with this from the Mishnah in Orlah 'Safek Orlah ... be'Surya Mutar' is - that if Orlah were really 'Halachah ... ', then how could the Tana be so lenient with Safek Orlah (since when do we go le'Kula by Safek Halachah?)

(c) Rebbi Asi reconciles Rebbi Yochanan with the Mishnah in Orlah - by establishing the wording of the actual Halachah as 'S'feika Mutar, Vada'ah Asur'.

(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan also stated 'Lokin al ha'Kil'ayim Divrei Torah'. Rebbi Elazar asked him from the Mishnah in Orlah, which presents Kil'ayim as 'mi'Divrei Sofrim' - to which he replied that Rebbi Yochanan was speaking about the Kil'ayim of grafting, whereas the Mishnah in Orlah refers to K'lai ha'Kerem.

(b) And Rebbi Asi connects this with a statement of Shmuel, who learns a Hekesh from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "es Chukosai Tishmoru; Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim". The two regards which Shmuel learns Sadeh from Beheimah - are 1. that we are speaking about an identifiable object (a tree) just like an animal (and not just seeds); 2. that grafting a tree, like K'lai Beheimah, extends to Chutz la'Aretz.

(c) And he learns from "es Chukosai Tishmoru" - that the Torah is talking about laws that were commanded a long time ago ('Chukim she'Chakakti Lecha K'var'), to teach us that the B'nei No'ach were already commanded these Halachos.

(d) The word "Sadcha" (implying specifically Eretz Yisrael) then comes to preclude - K'lai Zera'im in a vineyard (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Hu').

(a) Rav Chanan (or Rav Nachman) and Rav Anan were traveling together when they saw a man sowing K'lai Zera'im. Rav Chanan (Rav Nachman) declined ...

1. ... to put him in Cherem, at Rav Anan's suggestion - because the local people, he maintained, were not expert in these Halachos (transgressing out of ignorance rather than out of wickedness).
2. ... to place in Cherem someone who was sowing wheat and barley in a vineyard - because of Rebbi Yoshiyah, who confined the La'av of Kil'ayim (in Chutz la'Aretz, see Tosfos DH 'Lo Kayma-Lan") to sowing wheat, barley and grape-seeds in one throw.

(b) Based on Rebbi Yashiyah, Rav Yosef used to - used to mix seeds and sow them.

(c) Abaye queried him however - from the Mishnah in Orlah 'ha'Kil'ayim mi'Divrei Sofrim', in which case Rav Yosef had contravened an Isur de'Rabbanan.

(d) Rav Yosef established the Mishnah in Orlah by K'lai ha'Kerem, whereas he had planted K'lai Zera'im. The basis for such a distinction is - the fact that whereas the former is Asur be'Hana'ah in Eretz Yisrael, the latter is not.

(a) Rav used to plant rows of vegetables - for the benefit of his Talmidim.

(b) Rav Yosef subsequently cited this to try and prove - that K'lai Zera'im does apply in Chutz la'Aretz, too.

(c) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's proof however. It could not have been because of Kil'ayim that Rav planted the vegetables in this way, he maintained - because then he would have planted them all in one row, leaving a space between one species and another, as prescribed by the Mishnah in Kil'ayim.

(d) He may therefore have planted them like that for aesthetic reasons - or it may have been to make it easier for the Shamash to cut them later.

7)

(a) According to the initial interpretation of our Mishnah, a person who performs a Mitzvah - receives good, lives a long time and inherits the World to Come.

(b) Someone who does not perform a Mitzvah, according to the Tana - loses all three.

(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah says that for the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Eim, Gemilus Chasadim, Hachnasas Orchim and Hava'as Shalom Bein Adam la'Chaveiro - one receives the fruits in this world, though the principle is put away for the World to Come.

(b) The Tana also includes Torah-study in this list - which is nevertheless different than all the others - inasmuch as it is equal to them all.

(c) The Mishnah in Pe'ah poses a problem on our Mishnah - since it confines reward in this world to the few Mitzvos that it enumerates, whereas our Mishnah extends it to all Mitzvos.

(d) According to Rav Yehudah, our Mishnah is speaking when a person performed one Mitzvah more than his sins. This does not mean that the Mishnah in Pe'ah speaks when one of the Mitzvos listed is the only Mitzvah that he ever performed - but as Rav Shmayah explains, when his Mitzvos and his sins are exactly equal.

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says about someone who has more Mitzvos than Aveiros 'Meri'in Lo, ve'Domeh K'mi she'Saraf Kol ha'Torah Kulah ... ' and vice-versa - he means that a Tzadik will be paid for his Aveiros in this world, in order to receive the reward for his Mitzvos in the World to Come, whereas a Rasha will be paid for his Mitzvos in this world, in order to deprive him of his portion in the World to Come.

(b) When, in order to reconcile this with our Mishnah, Abaye explains our Mishnah 'de'Mesaknin Lo Yom-Tov ve'Yom Bish', he means - that 'the good' in our Mishnah refers to the punishment he will receive here for his Aveiros, which is good for him in the long term; and that 'the bad' refers to the reward for his Mitzvos, which in the long term, will be detrimental.

(c) Rava understands our Mishnah as we did originally. But he establishes the Mishnah in Pe'ah like Rebbi Ya'akov, who says - 'S'char Mitzvah be'Hai Alma Leika' ('There is no reward for Mitzvos in this world!').

(d) Rebbi Ya'akov bases his theory - on the fact that a person can go up to the attic to fetch some baby birds for his father, entailing two Mitzvos for which the Torah prescribes long life, and on the way down, he slips and breaks his neck. Where is his reward in this world?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov knows that this can happen, because he actually witnessed such an incident. He knew that the son did not fall off the ladder on account of ...

1. ... sinful thoughts - because Hashem does not punish for sinful thoughts that are not brought to fruition.
2. ... idolatrous thoughts (for which one is punishable) - because, if there is reward for Mitzvos in this world, then the Mitzvah that the son was performing ought to have shielded over him, and protected him from having such thoughts (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) The Mitzvah did not shield the son from harm at least as long as he was performing it - because the ladder that he was climbing was rickety, and in such cases (where a person enters a place of danger in order to perform a Mitzvah), Hashem will not perform a miracle to save him.

(c) Neither can we answer this by establishing the case when he fell as he was descending the ladder, having already concluded the Mitzvah, because of Rebbi Elazar, who taught us the principle 'Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin, Lo ba'Halichasan *ve'Lo ba'Chazirasan*'.

(d) We learn the principle 'Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin' - from Shmuel ha'Navi, who queried Hashem's orders to go and crown David ha'Melech, because of the fear that Shaul would find out about it and kill him.

(a) Some say that Acher (Elisha ben Avuyah) left the path of Torah because of a similar incident to the one that Rebbi Ya'akov witnessed (and due to the Kashya that Rebbi Ya'akov comes to answer). Others say - that he saw the tongue of Chutzpis ha'Meturgeman (one of the ten martyrs) being dragged around by a pig. If that could happen to a tongue that spoke such pearls of wisdom, then there is no Divine Justice, he figured.

(b) Rav Yosef commented - that, had Acher expounded the Pasuk ("Lema'an Yitav Lach ve'Ha'arachta Yamim") like his grandson Rebbi Ya'akov, he would never have left the fold.

(a) When Rav Tuni bar Rav Kisna pointed out the discrepancy, between our Mishnah which requires a positive act ('Kol ha'Oseh Mitzvah ... ') and the Mishnah in Makos, which prescribes reward for every sin that a person does not perform, Rava reconciled the two - by establishing the Mishnah in Makos when one was actually confronted by a Yetzer ha'Ra to perform an Aveirah, and overcame it (which is considered an act).

(b) When ...

1. ... an aristocratic Roman woman accosted Rebbi Chanina bar Papi - he recited an incantation and became covered in boils.
2. ... she followed suite by curing him - he ran to hide in a bathhouse which was known to be dangerous, due to the demons that resided there, who would harm even two people who entered their domain, and even in daytime.

(c) He managed to survive the night there - because two of the king's men miraculously arrived to guard him (and the demons did not threaten three people).

(d) When Rebbi Chanina bar Papi told them this - the Rabbanan commented that he must have been confronted with an immoral act, and overcame the temptation (as will now be explained).