Implied Question: The Gemara says in Eiruvin (56a) that if one sees radishes he sees the medicine of life. The Gemara asks, doesn't another Beraisa say this is the poison of death? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult, as in the summer they are beneficial for one's health, and in the winter they are detrimental to one's health. (Why, then, would the Gemara praise Rebbi and Antoninus's wealth by saying that they always had radishes on their table? They are not always healthy!)

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that the Gemara is referring to a time when it is beneficial.

Answer#2: There are some Sefarim that have the text there that the Gemara's answer is the leaves are detrimental to one's health, but the roots are beneficial to one's health. In other words, the roots are always beneficial. Accordingly, our Gemara would be referring to the roots.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say that Rebbi never benefited from this world, even the amount of his small finger. (How can we reconcile this with the Gemara's statement that Rebbi had good food?)

Answer: Even though this is correct, he had many people who ate at his table (who did enjoy this good food).

Implied Question: This is not a special thing. (Why, then, does the Gemara give an example of their wealth by saying they always had radishes etc.?)

Answer: Rather, it is an indication that they used to have big meals, as they needed to cut and turn over the food in order to widen their stomach. (See the Maharsha for another answer.)

Question: This is difficult. What is the Gemara's question? Perhaps it is a Chukah (to burn things due to a king's death), and being that it is stated in the Torah we do not derive from it that it is forbidden?

Question (cont.): We indeed say in Sanhedrin (52b) regarding the Mitzvah for Beis Din to kill people (found guilty of a serious sin) by the sword, that the Rabbanan say it should be done as the king's normally administer death by sword. Rebbi Yehudah says that it should be done with an ax. Rebbi Yehudah told the Chachamim, "I know this is a disgusting death. However, what can I do? The Torah says, "You should not follow their laws!" They said to him, "Being that it says to kill by the sword in the Torah, we do not care what the Nochrim do. If this were not true, how could the Beraisa say that one is permitted to burn things due to the death of a king, and it is not "Darchei Emori" -- "the ways of the Emori? Rather, it must be that being that it says to do so in the Torah, we are not considered to have learned from them." Why don't we say this here as well, and thereby answer our question on the Chachamim?

Answer: However, this is not difficult, as one can say that the Rabbanan of our Mishnah are in fact Rebbi Yehudah, who does not hold that the fact that this is stated in the Torah means it is not a Nochri law (and therefore it is still Darchei Emori).

Question: However, there is a difficulty. In our Gemara, we conclude that according to everyone (even the Rabbanan) burning is not a "Chukah" -- "Nochri law (that is illogical)." The Gemara there implies that this indeed is a Chukah according to everyone and it would be forbidden, if not for the reason that being that it says etc.

Answer: This is why the Ri explains that there are two types of Chukah. One is a Chukah that is a rule for idolatry. One is a Chukah that is made for their own silly reasons. Our Gemara is referring to a Chukah that is made for idolatry.

Answer (cont.): This is what the Gemara means. Rebbi Meir holds that burning for kings is not a Chukah for idolatry. This is why the Gemara asks that if it is a Chukah for idolatry, how could we do so? Doesn't the Pasuk says, "And do not go after their laws?" In other words, if this was a Chukah of idolatry we should forbid it even if it says it in the Torah, being that it is a practice for idolatry! This is similar to a Matzeivah (altar made of one big stone) that was loved by Hash-m when the Avos used to offer Korbanos on top of it. However, when the Emorites started using it and made it a Chukah for their idolatry, it became loathed by Hash-m. Hash-m then warned not to use it, as the Pasuk says, "Do not establish for yourself a Matzeivah."

Answer (cont.): The Gemara concludes that according to everyone, this is not a Chukah for idolatry. However, it is a Chok of silliness. In Sanhedrin (52b), the Gemara understands that Chok is an importance, based on our Gemara's conclusion. Accordingly, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that we do not derive from here that this is a forbidden practice if the Torah states this practice, as this is not a Chok for idolatry. If it would not have been stated by the Torah, we certainly would not act in this fashion, even if it was only a silly (and not idolatrous) action. Beheading is not explicitly mentioned in the Pasuk, as it just says the term, "killing." Rebbi Yehudah therefore holds that one should uphold this with an ax instead of a sword.

Answer (cont.): Even regarding an Ir Ha'Nidachas where the Pasuk explicitly says to them "by the sword," it is possible to say that this can be carried out with an ax, as an ax is included in the broad definition of a sword. The Rabbanan there (Sanhedrin 52b) have a reason to state that one should not kill with an ax, as it is a disgusting form of death, as is stated there.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara ask that this is the prohibition against causing pain to animals? The Gemara indeed asks this later (13a) when it discusses dealing in a marketplace of idolaters. It is not the prohibition of Ba'al Tashchis. Being that it is for the honor of the king, it is not considered destruction (without purpose). Rather, it is like shrouds that cost one hundred Manah (i.e. very expensive to be buried, but they serve a purpose). However, why is it permitted to hurt these animals?

Answer: The honor of a king of Israel is different, as it is the honor of all of Bnei Yisrael. The honor of the public pushes aside the pain of the animal.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that (the prohibition being discussed in the Beraisa is that) it is forbidden to cause an animal to become a Treifah with one's hands.

Question#1: This is difficult. Are they Kodshim, which makes it forbidden for him to make it a Treifah? If the problem is that he is transgressing Ba'al Tashchis, how do we see from here that this is referring to a kosher animal? Even causing an unkosher animal to become a Treifah should transgress Ba'al Tashchis!

Question#2: There is another difficulty, as the Tosefta implies that this ruling of "forbidden/permitted" is regarding whether or not one can eat the animal.

Opinion#2: It therefore appears that the correct explanation is that it is forbidden to be eaten. This is explicitly stated in a Tosefta in Shabbos (ch.8). The Tosefta states, "One can uproot the sinews due to the death of kings, and this is not a prohibition of Darchei Emori. If one uproots sinews in a way that causes the animal to be a Treifah, the animal cannot be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from the animal. If he does this in a way where the animal is not made into a Treifah, it is permitted to be eaten.

Question: What would the first part of the Beraisa be teaching us? It is obvious that if it is a Treifah it cannot be eaten!

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Beraisa has to teach that it is permitted to have benefit from it, and that it is not forbidden from benefit due to the honor of the king.

Answer (cont.): The second part of the Beraisa also must teach that it is permitted to be eaten, and one should not think it is forbidden due to the honor of the king.

Explanation: The Gemara says that he cut off his beard at the same time it mentions taking away his Bluris (a Nochri hairstyle) and making this Bluris (by shaving the rest of his head and leaving a Bluris), because on both occasions they used to shave off their hair.

Question: Doesn't the Gemara say in Gitin (58a) that two Istira of Paz (a precious stone) were given to the world, one in Rome and one was spread throughout the rest of the world. The Gemara in Bava Basra (105a) says that an Istira is half a Zuz. If so, how can there be one Zuz of Paz in Rome?

Answer: It appears to me that the two Istira does not mean specifically two Istira. Rather, it means a small amount of Paz. This is as stated in Kidushin (49b) that ten Kav etc. (The Gemara there states that ten Kav of different things went down into the world, and it clearly does not literally mean ten Kav.)

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that they called Yakov - "Kiri."

Question: It does not seem correct that they would call Yakov a master.

Explanation#2: Therefore Rabeinu Tam explains that "Kiri" refers to Yitzchak. Being that Yitzchak was their grandfather, they respected him. In other words, they were saying that the blessings he gave to Yakov were lies.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Yitzchak also said, "And it will be when you will cause him to go down." (This Pasuk indicates that Yitzchak himself said that Eisav will get the Berachos when Yakov is not doing well. Therefore, what proof do they have that the Berachos are lies?)

Answer: They are showing that he is not currently taking (i.e. benefiting from) the Berachos. (See Maharam for two possible explanations of this answer.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to the marketplace of Azah that was outside of the city of Azah, where they would sell meat. This comes from the term "slaughtered in the "Itliz" -- "market" (found in the Mishnah in Bechoros 31a, hence the term Atluza).

Opinion#1 (cont.): The Gemara's question is whether or not it is permitted to do business with the people in this marketplace on the holiday of the idolaters of Azah. Would the Mishnah permit this when the idolaters are so close to the marketplace, or not?

Opinion#2: The Rashbam explains that Atluza refers to the name of an idol that was outside of Azah. The people in that area outside of Azah used to worship it one day a year. The question of the Gemara is whether or not it is permitted to do business with the people of Azah on the day of the holiday that is being celebrated just outside Azah.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks a question on these explanations. If the idolater is not considered akin to a priest, why should we suspect that he has monies of idolatry whether or not he is in the marketplace of the idol?

Opinion#3: The Ri therefore explains that the case here is where the market was made in honor of the idol. It is not a holiday for that idol. This is why there is reason to suspect that there are monies of idolatry in the hands of the idolaters in the market.

Opinion#3 (cont.): According to this, there is no reason to differentiate, as Rashi does, between the idolaters who are outside of the city and the people in the city. Even if he is from the people of the city, we do not suspect that there is money of idolatry in the hands of an idolater who is outside this area.