1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rav establishes both the Reisha of our Mishnah ('ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol' ... 'ha'Beheimah Einah Mu'edes Le'shalem Kuleih', Aval Chatzi Nezek Meshalemes) and the Seifa 'Shor ha'Mu'ad v'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak', like Rebbi Tarfon. In order not to clash with the Seifa he needs to establish the Reisha by a Chatzer that belongs to one of them as regards fruits (making it a Chatzer ha'Nizak), but to both of them as regards oxen (making it a Reshus ha'Rabim).

(b)We reject this interpretation however, on the basis of the Reisha's concluding words 'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol Es ha'Ra'uy Lah' implying that for eating something that is not fit for it to eat (which is a Toldah of Keren) he pays only half damage, whereas according to Rebbi Tarfon, he always pays full damage in the Chatzer ha'Nizak.

(c)We therefore amend the Mishnah and establish it entirely like the Rabanan of Rebbi Tarfon, and the five Mu'adin refer to the five cases of Tam after they have damaged three times (even though we initially rejected this explanation).

(d)And we now try to amalgamate the second and third sections of the Mishnah to read 've'Shen va'Regel Mu'adin mi'Techilasan. v'Heichan Ha'adasan b'Chatzar ha'Nizak' dispensing with 've'Shor ha'Mu'ad bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' altogether. Ravina refutes this explanation however, based on a Mishnah in Keitzad ha'Regel, which (discussing all the cases of Mu'ad listed in our Mishnah), includes that of 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' (in which case it cannot be dispensed with).

2)

(a)Ravina agrees with the amendment to the first clause. He amends the second 'problematic' clause by adding to it without actually changing it by adding before it 've'Zehu Shor ha'Mu'ad', and then continuing 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak, Machlokes Rebbi Tarfon v'Rabanan'.

(b)And he explains the final clause 'ha'Adam, ha'Ze'ev v'ha'Ari ... ' into the context of the Mishnah by first adding 've'Yesh Mu'adim Acherim k'Yotzei b'Eilu: 'ha'Adam, ha'Ze'ev ... '.

(c)We know that Ravina's interpretation of our Mishnah is the correct one because it is supported by a Beraisa.

3)

(a)Rebbi Elazar initially qualifies 've'Lo Lir'votz' in our Mishnah by confining it to large vessels, but should the animal crouch on small vessels, it will be a Toldah of Regel.

(b)We try to prove Rebbi Elazar right from the Beraisa 'ha'Beheimah Mu'edes Le'halech k'Darkah u'Le'shaber u'Le'ma'ech Es ha'Adam, v'Es ha'Beheimah v'Es ha'Kelim', which will otherwise clash with our Mishnah. We refute this proof however by establishing the Beraisa (not when the animal crouches on them, but) when it is walking past and crushes them as it passes.

(c)In a second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar actually compares large vessels to small ones as regards 'Revitzah' and here again, we try and prove his opinion from the Beraisa and refute the proof (in the reverse order that we did in the first Lashon).

(d)In a third Lashon, we point out the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Beraisa to which Rebbi Elazar replies by differentiating between large vessels and small ones, as he did in the first instance.

4)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah, a 'Bardeles' is a 'Nifraza', which Rav Yosef says, is synonymous with 'Afa'. Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, adds a Tzavu'a to the list of Mu'adin, which Rav Yosef also translates as 'Afa'.

(b)The problem is, "How Rav Yosef can translate both 'Bardeles' and Tzavu'a as 'Afa'?"

(c)We answer by establishing our Mishnah by a male Tzavu'a, and Rebbi Meir by a female one and it is the male one that is called 'Afa'.

(d)And although 've'Amar Rav Yosef' is cited immediately after Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa he is not referring to this Beraisa at all, but to another Beraisa (that we will discuss shortly).

5)

(a)Alternatively, the Bardeles in our Mishnah is a female Tzavu'a, that of Rebbi Meir, a male one and both are in fact called 'Afa'.

(b)Rav Yosef now refers to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa (even though his explanation is not confined to his opinion).

(c)Rav Yosef found it necessary however, to explain specifically Rebbi Meir because it is the male Tzavu'a of Rebbi Meir that changes into so many different forms (as we are about to explain).

6)

(a)If, as the Beraisa says ...

1. ... a male Tzavu'a changes its form every seven years, to become first a bat, then a vampire-bat and then a thistle-bush it is eventually destined to become a thorn-bush and finally a demon.

2. ... after seven years, the spinal cord is supposed to become a snake. To prevent this from happening one needs to bow down properly at 'Modim' (the antidote to the rebellion against Hash-m's Monarchy that the snake [the first to rebel against it] signifies).

(b)In the above-mentioned Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar adds (to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who adds Tzavu'a to the list of Mu'adin), 'Af ha'Nachash'. The problem with this is that it clashes with Rebbi Elazar's own opinion in our Mishnah where he says that the snake is the only animal that can never be a Tam.

(c)To answer this Kashya, we amend Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa omitting the word 'Af' to read 'Nachash' (meaning that only a snake is always Mu'ad from birth and cannot be tamed).

7)

(a)Shmuel rules that 'Ari bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Daras v'Achal, Patur, Taraf v'Achal, Chayav'. The definition of ...

1. ... 'Daras' is that the lion proceeds to eat its prey whilst it is still alive.

2. ... 'Taraf' that it kills it first before eating it.

(b)It is obvious that Shmuel says 'Daras v'Achal Patur', because it is Shen bi'Reshus ha'Rabim. He then says 'Taraf v'Achal Chayav' because it is unusual for a lion to kill its prey before eating it, rendering it Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Chayav.

(c)Shmuel concedes however, that a lion will kill its prey for its family, and that is how he explains the Pasuk in Nachum "Aryeh Taraf Badei Gurosav, u'Mechanek l'Liv'osav, Va'yemalei Teref Chorav u'Me'onosav Tereifah". The definition of ...

1. ... "Gurasov" is its cubs.

2. ... "Liv'osav" is the lioness.

3. ... "Chorav" is its lair.

4. ... "Me'onosav" is its abode.

8)

(a)We try to resolve Shmuel with the Beraisa 've'Chen Chayah she'Nichnesah l'Chatzar ha'Nizak Tarfah Beheimah v'Achlah Basar, Meshalem Nezek Shalem' by establishing it when the lion initially killed the animal to take home to its lair. One of the two reasons that we reject this suggestion is on the grounds that there is no way of reading the lion's mind in that way. The second reason is because if that were so, perhaps in Shmuel's case too, the lion changed its mind, so why does he say 'Taraf v'Achal, Chayav'?

(b)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says 'li'Tzedadin ka'Tani', he means that the Beraisa is discussing, not one case, but two 'she'Tarfah Lehani'ach O Darsah v'Achlah' (when he tore it up either for later or to eat it).

(c)We refute Ravina's suggestion establishing Shmuel's second statement ('Taraf v'Achal Chayav') in the case of a tame lion according to Rebbi Elazar (otherwise it would be Shen bi'Reshus ha'Rabim and he would be Patur), on the grounds that in that case, Darsah ought to be Chayav, too (yet Shmuel says Patur).

(d)So we establish Ravina on the Beraisa ('ve'Chen Chayah she'Nichnesah ... Meshalem Nezek Shalem'). We refute ...

1. ... this too however on the grounds that in that case, he ought to pay Chatzi Nezek, and not Nezek Shalem, as the Tana of the Beraisa rules.

2. ... the suggestion that the Tana is talking about when the tame lion had become a Mu'ad because in that case, the Tana should have inserted it together with the Toldos of Keren, and not with those of Shen.

9)

(a)We already discussed our Mishnah which draws two distinctions between a Tam and a Mu'ad, inasmuch as a Tam pays half damages from the body of the damaging ox, whereas a Mu'ad pays full damages 'min ha'Aliyah' which Rebbi Elazar translates as 'from the best quality fields'.

(b)And he learns this from the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (in connection with the burial of Chizkiyah ha'Melech) "b'Ma'aleh Kivrei Beis David" meaning in the company of the best (i.e. that of David and Shlomo).

(c)The Pasuk also writes there that they buried 'him' in a grave that was full of Besamim v'Zanim, which Rebbi Elazar explains to mean all different kinds of Besamim. Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmen interprets it as spices that were so fragrant that they caused whoever smelled them to commit adultery (from the word 'Znus').

(d)'Him' in this case refers to Asa, King of Yehudah.

10)

(a)When Yirmeyahu spoke of the pit that the people dug to trap him, he was referring to the sin of adultery with a prostitute of which they accused him, according to Rebbi Elazar (which meant transgressing the Lav of "Ishah Zonah ... Lo Yikachu", since, as Tosfos explains, Yirmiyahu was a Kohen). Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani interprets it to mean that they accused him of committing the sin of adultery with an Eshes Ish.

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar, the 'pit' referred to by Yirmiyahu fits with the Pasuk in Mishlei "Ki Shuchah Amukah Zonah" bearing in mind that when an Eshes Ish commits adultery, she becomes a Zonah.

(c)According to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, the Pasuk in Yirmiyahu "v'Atah Hash-m Yada'ta Es Kol Machshvosam la'Mus" is self-understood; whereas according to Rebbi Elazar it refers to the incident when they tried to kill him by casting him into a mud-pit.

(d)When Yirmiyahu prayed "Yiheyu Muchshalim Lefanecha ... ", he was asking Hash-m to ensure that, even when they gave Tzedakah, they should stumble, by giving it to someone who is unworthy, in order to deprive them of the Mitzvah.

11)

(a)The Pasuk writes in Divrei ha'Yamim (in connection with the death of Chizkiyahu ha'Melech) "v'Kavod Asu Lo b'Moso" with reference to opening a Yeshivah at his graveside.

(b)Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan argue over whether this lasted for three or seven days; Others say thirty days.

(c)The significance of these three opinions is clearly rooted in the three time-periods of mourning: three days for crying, seven days for heavy mourning and thirty days for light mourning.