Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa requires three judges for Diynei Mamonos. A single judge is permitted however - provided he is an expert.

(b) The Tana ignored the triple "Elohim" written in the Parshah - because he does not hold of 'Eiruv Parshiyos' (like Rava in the Sugya above [see also Tosfos DH ve'Im').

(a) Rav Nachman and Rebbi Chiya declared Rosh - that they were good examples of experts who had the authority to issue rulings on their own.

(b) We think that, besides expertise, Rav Nachman and Rebbi Chiya might also have required - permission from the Resh Galusa or from the Nasi (known as Semichah) to act as individual judges.

(c) If they did not receive permission to rule (assuming that the litigants did not accept them), they would be obligated to pay?

(d) We resolve the She'eilah from Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman - whom Rav Yosef instructed to pay, when he erred in one of his rulings (assuming that the litigants did not accept him), a proof that his ruling was at least, valid (so we see that an expert's rulings are valid, even without express permission from the ruling power (otherwise, Rav Yosef would have instructed him to simply negate his initial ruling, rather than pay from his own pocket).

(a) Both Rav and Shmuel advise someone who wants to issue rulings and be Patur from paying (should he err in one of his rulings) - to obtain permission from the Resh Galusa.

(b) In the Pasuk "Lo Yasur Sheivet mi'Yehudah ... ", the difference between Sheivet and Mechokek - is that the former refers to the Resh Galusa (the head of the community in Bavel), the latter, to the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael.

(c) What gave the Resh Galusa in Bavel more authority than the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael - was the fact that he had the backing of the King of Persia.

(d) The ramifications of this distinction are - that whereas Reshus helps from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, it does not help the other way round.

(a) We learn the seniority of the Resh Galusa over the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael from an episode with Rabah bar Chanah, to whom Rebbi Chiya once told when he erred in a case concerning with money-matters that, unless the litigants initially accepted him, he would have to pay.

(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna claim that he received permission from his father ... who received permission from Rebbi - when he was once arguing with the Resh Galusa.

(c) The names of the two men missing from the list (between Rav Huna and Rebbi) are - Rav and Rebbi Chiya.

(d) There is no proof from Rabah bar Rav Huna's statement that it does help to receive permission from Eretz Yisrael to rule in Bavel - because Rabah bar Rav Huna's statement was meant to show how great his Rebbes were, even though it had no legal ramifications.

(a) Despite the fact that permission does not help from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, they gave Rabah bar Chana Semichah when he left Eretz Yisrael to go to Bavel - to issue rulings in the areas surrounding Bavel that belonged to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) When Rebbi Chiya informed Rebbi that his brother's son was going to Bavel, adding 'Yoreh?', 'Yadin'? and 'Yatir Bechoros', he responded - 'Yoreh', Yadin' and 'Yatir Bechoros', respectively.

(c) When he gave him the same information concerning his sister's son, he replied - 'Yoreh', 'Yadin' but 'Al Yatir Bechoros'.

(d) The significance of 'Yatir Bechoros' is - to permit a Bechor to be Shechted by the Kohen without having to bring it as a Korban by means of a permanent blemish that the Kohen had not performed deliberately.

(a) Rebbi Chiya's ...

1. ... brother's son was - Rabah bar Chanah.
2. ... sister's son was - Rav.

(b) Ayvu, Chanah Shiylo, Marsa and Rebbi Chiya - were all brothers.

(c) Rav's father was - Ayvu.

(d) Aba bar Acha Karsela from Kafri - was their father.

(a) The biological reason that Rebbi Chiya had for referring to Rabah as his brother's son, and Rav as his sister's was - because Rav's father happened to have married the half-sister of his half-brother (Rebbi Chiya), in which case Rav was the son of both his half-brother and his half sister.

(b) Another reason for referring to Rav as his sister's son is based on the Pasuk in Mishlei - "Emor la'Chochmah Achosi At" ([see Agados Maharsha] with reference to Rav's vast knowledge).

(c) The reason that Rebbi did not agree to grant him permission to rule in matters to do with Bechor could not have been because he was ...

1. ... not very smart - because he was exceedingly smart, as we just explained.
2. ... not conversant with the Halachos of a Bechor - because, after Rav had spent one and a half years studying the laws of Bechor, Rebbi could hardly have meant that.

(d) The reason that we initially give for this is - in deference to his half brother Rabah bar Chanah, who was perhaps not as brilliant as him, but deserving of the limelight nonetheless.

8)

(a) It may well be that Rebbi did not agree to give Rav Semichah to permit Bechoros, precisely because of his phenomenal expertise. He was afraid that he would permit Bechoros on the basis of blemishes that were unknown to the people, and they, in their ignorance, would extend his rulings to permit animals with temporary blemishes.

(b) We query the concept of receiving permission to issue rulings - on the grounds that if the applicant is an expert, no permission is necessary.

(c) We attribute it to a decree of Rebbi, who once discovered the people in a certain town preparing their dough be'Tum'ah.

(d) The people of the town explained to him that a certain Talmid-Chacham had taught them that 'Mei Betza'im' - water from marshland, is not Machshir le'Kabeil Tum'ah'.

(a) What the Talmid-Chacham had really said - was that 'Mei Beitzim', the white of eggs, that was used to knead eggs, is not Machshir.

(b) This caused Rebbi to react the way he did - to encourage Rabbanan to be more meticulous when teaching Halachos.

(c) They also erred with regard to a Mishnah in Parah, where the Tana says - that the water of the Rivers Karmiyon and Pigah are Pasul (to be used for the ashes of the Parah Adumah).

(d) The basis of their mistake was - that the reason of the Tana there is because the water of those two rivers is not considered Mayim Chayim (spring water), which does not mean that it is not water as far as Machshir le'Kabeil Tum'ah is concerned.

(a) 'Lesisah' is - soaking wheat for a short while in water, before grinding it. It is permitted on Pesach, since one grinds it immediately, and it doesn't have a chance to rise.

(b) Rebbi Tanchum B'rei de'Rebbi Ami should not have Darshened this Heter in Chatar - since his Rebbe, Rebbi Mani from Tzur lived there, and a Talmid is not permitted to issue rulings within three Parsah (twelve Mil) of his Rebbe.

(c) When the people queried him about this, his response was - that he had not realized that Rebbi Mani lived there.

(a) When Rebbi asked the son of a Kohen what he was doing in a Beis-Hakevaros, he replied - that his father had brazenly taken a fancy to a divorcee, whom he had subsequently married, and that he was the product of that marriage, and was therefore a Challal, who is allowed to become Tamei Meis.

(b) The reason that this story is inserted here is - to teach us, that when it comes to preventing someone from sinning, the previous Halachah of not ruling in the vicinity of one's Rebbe, falls away (because Kavod Shamayim takes priority over Kavod ha'Rav, and), Rebbi Chiya had rebuked the man in he vicinity of Rebbi.

(c) We could also explain the connection between this story and that of Rebbi regarding the people who kneaded their dough be'Tum'ah, according to the Yerushalmi, who reads - a. Rebbi instead of Rebbi Chiya, and b. that Rebbi discovered the Kohen in Acco (which is considered Chutz la'Aretz, and therefore has a Din of Tum'as Meis).

(d) That will help us to understand why the story is brought here - because the first story of Rebbi and this story both took place in Acco, and the Tana is telling us about two things that occurred to Rebbi when he went to visit Acco.

13)

(a) Earlier, we cited the opinion of Shmuel, who learned earlier that if two judges judged, even though they have earned the title 'Beis-Din Chatzuf, their rulings are valid. Rava asked Rav Nachman on Shmuel from a Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer'. The Tana there says in a case where two Dayanim rule Patur or Chayav, but the third one does not know - that they are required to add judges.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Shmuel - according to whom the initial judges should be able to conclude the case on their own.

(c) We conclude however, that this case is different than Shmuel's - since they began with three judges, they must conclude with at least three, unlike Shmuel's case, where two judges opened the proceedings.

(a) The Halachic distinction that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel makes between Din and Pesharah is - that whereas the former requires three judges, the latter requires only two.

(b) And he then presents the advantage that Pesharah has over Din - as whereas the litigants are permitted to retract from a Din that is ruled by two judges, they cannot retract from a Pesharah that is issued by them.

(c) We try to refute the suggestion that the Rabbanan dispute Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling with a statement by Rebbi Avahu who says - that if two judges issue a ruling, everyone agrees that their ruling is void.

(d) We counter that argument however, with the principle 'Gavra a'Gavra ka'Ramis?' How can you ask from Rebbi Avahu on to Shmuel? The former holds there is no Machlokes Tana'im, the latter holds there is (and he holds like the Chachamim).