1)

(a)With reference to what we learned earlier (regarding accepting all but one thing of Divrei Chaverus, Kehunah or Leviyah [see also Tosfos DH 've'Chulan' and Rabeinu Gershom]), Rebbi Meir now rules that in a case where they retract, and are now willing to accept everything - we do not accept them.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah qualifies Rebbi Meir's ruling - by restricting it to where the Teshuvah was performed privately, but if they did it in public, we will accept it.

(c)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Yehudah restricts Rebbi Meir's ruling - to where they had practiced what they believed in public, thereby creating a Chilul Hash-m. Otherwise, their Teshuvah is accepted.

(d)Based on the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Shuvu Banim Shovavim", Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah maintain that - one accepts their Teshuvah irrespective.

(e)Rebbi Yitzchak ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules in this matter - like them.

2)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if a Chaver becomes a Gabai - a tax-collector, they strip him of his Chavrus.

(b)Initially, they would not accept him back, even if he retracted from his Gaba'us. Subsequently however, they ruled that - once he retracts, he is like everybody else.

(c)Rabah, Rav Yosef and four hundred pairs of Rabbanan paid Rav Huna bar Chiya a visit - because they needed his expertise in certain areas of Halachah.

(d)When they arrived, he fashioned for them - four hundred chairs.

3)

(a)They denounced him however, when they discovered - that he had become a tax-collector.

(b)When he announced that he had retracted, Rabah left - like the conclusion of the Beraisa that we just cited, Rav Yosef did not - like its initial assumption.

4)

(a)The Beraisa prohibits a Kohen from examining the Mumin of his own B'chor Beheimah. The Tana permits a Chacham however,

1. ... to examine the Mumin of his own Shelamim or Ma'aser Beheimah animal.

2. ... to rule with regard to his own Taharos that became Safek Tamei.

(b)Initially, we establish the Reisha of the Beraisa by a Beis-Din of three - because one person is not considered a Beis-Din

(c)The problem with that however is that - a Beis-Din of three is believed (even there where one of them would be suspect on his own), as we learned in the Mishnah in Yevamos, which permits one of the Dayanim to marry the girl who performed Miy'un or Chalitzah in front of the Beis-Din on which he sat.

(d)So we finally establish the Beraisa like Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yochanan in Nedarim - who permits a single Dayan to rule provided he is an expert (a Yachid Mumcheh).

5)

(a)We might have suspected a Chacham who examines his own Shelamim or Ma'aser Beheimah, and one who rules on his own Taharos - of declaring a temporary Mum a permanent one.

(b)The reason that he is nevertheless believed is because each one had a specific leniency that was available to him. He is believed to ...

1. ... examine his own Shelamim - because he had the option of annulling the Hekdesh.

2. ... Ma'aser Beheimah - because he could (also) have blemished all the animals before Ma'asering them.

(c)And he is believed to rule on his own Taharos - because he always has the option of eating it when he is Tamei.

6)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah says that Hana'ah of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin goes to Hekdesh, he means that - however much one receives for it, the proceeds go to Hekdesh (as we shall see later).

(b)Consequently, in order to fetch the best possible price, they may be sold - in the butchery and ...

(c)... weighed - on a regular scale.

(d)All proceeds of B'chor and Ma'aser on the other hand, belong to the owner. Consequently ...

1. ... they may only be sold - from the house, since selling them in the butchery like Chulin meat would be degrading (merely to enable the owner to make more money).

2. ... the B'chor must be weighed - by assessment and not using scales (for the same reason). See Tosfos DH 'Chutz'.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah ('Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin ... Hana'asan le'Hekdesh ... ve'Nishchatin be'Itliz') cannot be referring to ...

1. ... after the Pidyon - because then, P'sulei ha'Mukdashin are the property of the owner, and it is he who receives the proceeds from the sale (not Hekdesh).

2. ... before the Pidyon - because if the Kodshim animal is Shechted then, how can one subsequently redeem it (seeing as Hekdesh requires 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah' [standing and being assessed] before it can be redeemed).

(b)It is possible to establish it before the Pidyon - according to those who hold that Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah is confined to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)We finally establish our Mishnah after the Pidyon, and we resolve the problem ('Hana'asan le'Ba'alim') - by referring to the initial Pidyon, which the owner pays to Hekdesh.

(d)And we assume - that if the owner is permitted to sell it conventionally later, he will be willing to pay the full price for it initially. Otherwise, he will be reluctant to do so, causing Hekdesh a loss.

8)

(a)The problem with the inference from our Mishnah (that Ma'aser may be sold from one's house) stems from the Pasuk itself, because the Pasuk writes ...

1. ... in Korach "Lo Sifdeh" (in connection with B'chor) - which does not imply a prohibition to sell, but ...

2. ... in Bechukosai "Lo Yiga'el" (in connection with Ma'aser) - which does.

(b)A B'chor Beheimah can be sold - once it reaches the hands of the Kohen.

(c)Rav Sheishes had this problem in the evening - but he resolved it the following morning from a Beraisa ...

(d)... by establishing the Mishnah with regard to the Ma'aser Beheimah of Yesomim (orphans) who are unable to eat the entire animal on their own, and selling it is a matter of 'Hashavas Aveidah' (saving them from a loss) see Tosfos DH 'be'Ma'aser'. We will elaborate on this later

9)

(a)Rav Sheishes was subsequently angry with Rav Idi - his Shames for saying over his Chidush in the Beis-Hamedrash, without mentioning his name.

(b)In his anger he pronounced that - the one who had stung him should be stung by a scorpion.

10)

(a)The significance of saying over Divrei Torah in the name of the author stems from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Agurah be'Aholcha Olamim", which Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets as - a request on David's part that when he died, people should repeat the Divrei Torah that he had said in his lifetime, after his death (hence the word "Olamim", in the plural, with reference to two worlds).

(b)This is based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan, who said in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai that - whenever one repeats something in the name of someone who is no longer alive, that person's lips move in his grave.

(c)Rav Yitzchak bar Ze'iri in turn, cites the root for this concept as the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Tov ... Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim". Shlomoh ha'Melech used the Mashal of good wine in this regard" - because it can be compared to a vat (into which one places the fomenting grapes for a week or so for the process to reach completion), where one has merely to touch it at one spot for the entire vat to start bubbling). Bear in mind also, that Divrei Torah are compared to wine.

11)

(a)The Beraisa to which Rav Sheishes referred permits selling the Ma'aser Beheimah belonging to Yesomim. The Tana goes on to say that Ma'aser Beheimah that one Shechts (and is not able to eat) - may be absorbed in the price of its skin, its Cheilev, its Gidin and its horns (which one is permitted to sell [be'Havla'ah], as we will see shortly).

(b)According to Abaye, who interprets the Beraisa all as one statement, the Tana means that - one is permitted to sell the Basar of Ma'aser Beheimah of Yesomim together with the parts that one is permitted to sell ...

(c)... from which we can extrapolate that Ma'aser Beheimah belonging to a Gadol - may not be sold even be'Havla'ah.

12)

(a)We query Abaye however, from Rav Huna (in connection with a Mishnah in Succah), who rules that someone who sells the Arba Miynim on Succos, and who does not want to give away the Esrog free of charge - may sell it, provided he absorbs its cost in that of the Lulav (which one is permitted to sell in the Sh'mitah).

(b)Abaye reconciles his interpretation here with Rav Huna - in that the difference between the rest of the Arba Miynim and the Esrog is not that marked, and the sale of the Esrog is therefore not evident to the onlooker, whereas the difference in price between the other parts of the animal and the Basar, is too marked to go unnoticed.

(c)Rava objects to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa - based on the Tana's insertion of Ma'aser Beheimah twice (implying that he is referring to two independent rulings [and not just one, as Abaye explained]).

(d)According to Rava, the Tana therefore means that - one may either sell the Ma'aser Beheimah of Yesomim directly, or that of Gedolim be'Havla'ah (as we explained).

13)

(a)Rava's source lies in the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Ma'aser Beheimah) "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh, Lo Yiga'el", without which it would be extremely difficult to understand - how the Chachamim can waive an Isur d'Oraysa in order to spare Yesomim a loss.

(b)He extrapolates from there that the Pasuk must be speaking about a live animal - because there is no such thing as the Temurah of a dead one.

(c)He therefore concludes that - min ha'Torah one is permitted to sell a live Ma'aser Beheimah animal, and it is the Rabbanan who forbade it.

(d)That explains the distinction drawn by the Tana between the Basar and the other parts of the animal - because the Rabbanan have the authority to restrict their decree to the Basar (which is Chashuv, and which is normally assessed whilst the animal is still alive) after the Shechitah, on account of the animal before the Shechitah, but to preclude the parts of the animal that are not Chashuv from the prohibition.

(e)And the basis of the Tana's concession regarding the Ma'aser Beheimah of Yesomim is - because, due to the circumstances of the Yesomim, the Chachamim retained the Torah's Heter to sell even the Basar of their Ma'aser Beheimah.