Previous daf

1)

(a) One was obligated to separate Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini from crops or wine that one purchased from Kutim.

(b) The Tana mentions specifically the Kutim - to teach us that they are even less trustworthy that Amei-ha'Aretz, from whose produce one would not need to separate Terumah (because they are afraid of the Chiyuv Misah that goes with it, and we take it for granted that they separated it).

(c) The Tana permits the wine of Kutim - because this Mishnah was written before Chazal decreed on them.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, someone who purchased a hundred Lugin of wine from the Kutim (shortly before Shabbos, or if he had no Tahor vessels into which to place the tithes) - by stating that the two Lugin that he will declare Terumah; the ten Lugin (meaning 9 4/5), Ma'aser, and the nine Lugin (meaning 8.9), Ma'aser Sheini, from the wine that he intends to leave at the end, are effective as from now. The Ma'aser Sheini he must redeem immediately on a coin.

(b) Rebbi Meir's underlying principle is - 'Yesh Bereirah' (What he later leaves over will retroactively turn out to be the tithes that he initially designated, but without having specified their exact location).

(c) Initially, we think that Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon forbid separating the Ma'asros in advance - because of the fear that the flask might break (in which case, he will have drunk Tevel).

(d) Accordingly, they will certainly contend with the possibility that the animal might die on Yom-Tov - a Kashya on Abaye, who said earlier that Rebbi Yehudah is not worried about the animal dying?

(a) To conform with Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah's opinions (with regard to using an animal for a Sukah), we invert Abaye's answer, to establish the Mishnah in Gitin which *is* concerned that the husband may have died, like Rebbi Meir, and the Mishnah which is *not*, like Rebbi Yehudah. Nevertheless, Rebbi Meir is not worried that the flask may break - because everybody dies eventually, whereas not all flasks break.

(b) Even though Rebbi Yehudah is not concerned that the Kohen may have died, he nevertheless forbids the taking of tithes from the wine that one bought from the Kutim, in advance, not because the flask might break, but - because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah himself is not worried that the flask may break, yet he used that as an argument when querying Rebbi Meir, because Rebbi Meir is concerned that a person may die - so he asked him whether, even if he held 'Yesh Bereirah', would he not at least admit that, just as a person may die within a given period, so too, the flask may break, and the wine should be forbidden?

(d) And even though he is *not* concerned about the Kohen dying, he *does* require the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur to prepare another wife, in case his wife dies - because Chazal were particularly stringent by the Kaparah on Yom Kipur.

(a) We learned above, that Rebbi Meir disqualifies an animal from being used as a Mechitzah, because we are afraid, either that it will die, or that it will run away. If that is so however, it will mean that min ha'Torah, an animal is a good Mechitzah - but then how can Rebbi Meir, by the same token, disqualify an animal from being used as a Golel, which, as we explained above, is a leniency, inasmuch as it is not Metamei? How can a Rabbinical decree remove the animal's power to be Metamei? (A Rabbinical decree can create stringencies, but not leniencies.)

(b) We explain the Gemara's decision to ask this Kashya from the *Mishnah* in Eruvin rather than from the *Beraisa* which sparked off the whole Sugya, because it prefers to ask from a *Mishnah* than from a *Beraisa*. Alternatively - it is because the Mishnah specifically says that the animal is *Tahor*, whereas the Beraisa only says that it is not eligible to be used as a Golel.

(c) Finally, we explain that Rebbi Meir disqualifies an animal from serving as a Mechitzah *mi'd'Oraysa*, due to the fact that anything that only stands on account of air (and not under its own steam) is not called a Mechitzah - alternatively, because a Mechitzah needs to be man-made (whereas the air inside the animal that causes it to stand was not placed there manually).

(d) The difference between the two opinions will be - if one used a flask that was blown up manually, which on the one hand, is abstract, but on the other, it was blown up by man.

5)

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "*ve'Kasav* Lah Sefer Kerisus" - that a Get is Kasher even if it is written on something other than a parchment scroll.
2. ... "Sefer" - that it cannot be written on an animal.

(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because the Torah does not write "ve'Kasav *ba*'Sefer", but "ve'Kasav Sefer" (in which case the Torah is clearly not referring to the surface on which the Get is written).

(c) They therefore Darshen from "Sefer" that the husband must write down the words that separate them ("Sefer Kerisus").

(d) From "ve'Kasav", they learn that a woman can only be divorced with a Get, but not with money - otherwise, we would have applied the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", which compares a divorce to a betrothal (where money is effective).

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "Sefer Kerisus" what the Rabbanan just learned from "ve'Kasav" (that a woman can only be divorced with a Get, but not with money) - because he Darshens 'Sefer Korsah, ve'Ein Davar Acher Korsah'.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus" - 'Davar ha'Kores Beino le'Veinah' (that the Get must sever the connection between them completely - that they must not remain connected permanently).

(c) If a man gives his wife a Get on condition that she does not drink wine or go to her father's house for thirty days, she is divorced - because in thirty days' time, their connection will be completely severed.

(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns that too, from the plural of "Kares/Kerisus". According to the Rabbanan - "Kares/Kerisus" implies only *one* Derashah and not *two*.

(a) The Mishnah validates a Sukah whose walls consist of trees. According to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov (with whom nobody seems to argue), who invalidates any wall that moves in a regular wind - our Mishnah is speaking about a thick tree-trunk, that is not affected by the wind.

(b) It will also be necessary to weave the branches together, to ensure that they do flap about.

(c) The Chidush of the Mishnah is that Chazal do not decree that one may come to place things in the tree.

(a) A tree is eligible to serve as a Deyumad - under the same conditions as it is eligible to serve as a wall of a Sukah.

(b) The same condition applies to carrying under a large tree on Shabbos, whose wide-spread branches sag to within three Tefachim from the ground. In spite of the fact that the Mechitzah is now man-made, it is not considered 'Hukaf le'Dirah' (to permit carrying underneath it, even if it covers an area of more than a Beis Sasayim - because it is not made for living *within* its confines, but in order to guard the fields that are *outside* it (and that is not considered 'Hukaf le'Dirah').

(a) If, when Shabbos enters, a traveler finds himself beside a mound of earth ten Tefachim high (or a pit ten Tefachim deep), that covers an area which is more than four by four Amos but less than a Beis Sasayim - he is permitted to walk the entire area.

(b) The Tana mentions specifically more than four Amos - because less than that, he is permitted to walk whatever the circumstances.

(c) The third case mentioned in the Beraisa, is when a person finds himself in an area where the crops have been cut, and which is surrounded by standing corn - even though the standing corn moves about in the wind (a Kashya on Rav Acha bar Ya'akov).

(d) We resolve the problem here too - by establishing the Beraisa when he weaves the tops of the standing corn together in such a way that it can no longer flap about in the wind.