1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Ba Acher v'Libah, ha'Melabeh Chayav'. The source of the word 've'Libah' (which literally means 'made the fire') lies in the Pasuk in Shemos (in connection with the Burning Bush) "b'Labas Esh" (in a flame of fire).

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Borei Niv Sefasayim" that those who have the text 'Nibsah ha'Ru'ach' (instead of 'Libsah ... ') have not erred.

(c)The connection between "Niv Sefasayim" and 'Nibsah ha'Esh' in our Mishnah is that, just as fire is caused by the movement of the wind, so too, is speech ("Niv") caused by the movement of the lips.

(d)The Mishnah concludes 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach, Kulan Peturin'. The Beraisa qualifies this ruling by establishing that if the person who placed the last item went on to blow the fire forcefully (to the extent that even if the wind had not blown, the fire would have spread) he will be Chayav, even though the fire fanned the flames still further.

2)

(a)If someone winnows on Shabbos with the help of the wind he is Chayav (to bring a Chatas if he did so b'Shogeg).

(b)Abaye and Rava both establish the Mishnah which exempts him with regard to Nezikin, when the Mazik's blowing was ineffective against the wind. According to Abaye, the Tana speaks when he blew the flames in one direction, but the wind blew them in another direction. Rava establishes it when at the time when he began blowing, only a regular wind was blowing (one that was insufficient to cause any damage), but suddenly a strong gust of wind carried the flames further afield.

(c)Rebbi Zeira explains that the Mazik's blowing was simply ineffective because he was blowing warm breath from the back of his throat, insufficient to cause any damage.

(d)According to Rav Ashi, our Mishnah speaks when he blew forcefully, yet he is Patur, and he draws a distinction between Shabbos where he is Chayav, because, since one can only light a fire in conjunction with the wind, it is considered "Meleches Machsheves" (the basis of all Melachos on Shabbos), whereas by Nezikin, where the criterion is that the Mazik performs the damage on his own, he is Patur because of Gerama (seeing as without the wind, his breath would not have caused the fire).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a fire which destroyed wood, stones or earth (the furrows of the field) renders the person who lit it Chayav.

(b)The Tana learns this from the Pasuk which specifies 'thorns', 'a haystack', 'standing corn' and 'a field'. Having written ...

1. ... "Kotzim", the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to write "Gadish" because whereas the former is commonly burned, the latter (which one expects to be protected) is not.

2. ... "Gadish", the Torah finds it necessary to write "Kotzim" to teach us that one is liable to pay even for thorns, despite their minimal value.

(c)And the Torah sees fit to add ...

1. ... "ha'Kama", according to the Rabanan to confine liability to things that are visible (like standing corn), precluding things that are hidden in the haystack (Tamun).

2. ... "ha'Sadeh" to include stones and the scorching of the furrows.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Rabanan with regard to Tamun. In his opinion, one is Chayav for Tamun ba'Esh.

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, "ha'Kama" comes to include 'Kol Ba'alei Komah' incorporating animals and trees, which the Pasuk has not mentioned.

(b)If the Rabanan learn ...

1. ... this from "O ha'Kama", Rebbi Yehudah learns from "O" 'Le'chalek', meaning that one is liable even for one of the items listed in the Pasuk (and not only on condition that he damages them all).

2. ... 'Le'chalek' from "O ha'Sadeh", Rebbi Yehudah maintains -that since the Torah had to write "O ha'Kama", it also writes "O ha'Sadeh" (even though it does not teach us anything).

(c)We just explained that from "ha'Sadeh" we learn 'Lich'chah Niyro v'Sichsechah Avanav'. The Torah could not just have written "ha'Sadeh" because we would then have thought that the damages of Esh are confined to what grows in the field, but for damage to the field itself, he is Patur.

5)

(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani Amar Rebbi Yonasan interprets the Pasuk "Ki Setzei Esh ... " allegorically. According to him ...

1. ... "Kotzim" (in "u'Matz'ah Kotzim") pertains to the Resha'im, and ...

2. ... "Gadish (in "v'Ne'echal Gadish") to the Tzadikim.

(b)The Pasuk is now coming to teach us that whereas it is the Resha'im who are responsible for Divine communal retribution, it is the Tzadikim who are taken first.

(c)We justify this grammatically (in spite of the fact that "Gadish" is written after "Kotzim", (implying that they are the last to go) by translating "v'Ne'echal Gadish" in the pluperfect (as 'and a haystack had been consumed' before the thorns).

6)

(a)Rav Yosef ...

1. ... quoting a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Bo (in connection with the smiting of the firstborn) "v'Atem Lo Seitz'u Ish me'Pesach Beiso ad Boker" that when the destructive angel is let loose, he makes no distinction between Tzadikim and Resha'im (but kills all in his path).

2. ... extrapolates from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "v'Hichrati Mimcha Tzadik v'Rasha" that he even begins with the Tzadikim.

(b)When Rav Yosef wept at the apparent worthlessness of Tzadikim, Abaye consoled him by explaining that Hash-m does this for the Tzadik's benefit (in order to spare him being a witness to the calamity that is about to befall Klal Yisrael).

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk in Bo ("v'Atem Lo Seitz'u ... " [that we just quoted]) that one should arrive at one's destination before it gets dark and that one should not set out on a journey whilst it is still dark.

(d)The reason for this is so as not to fall prey to demons and robbers (see also Tosfos DH 'Le'olam.

7)

(a)The Beraisa learn from...

1. ... the Pasuk that we just quoted "v'Atem Lo Seitz'u ... " that when there is a plague of pestilence, one should stay at home.

2. ... the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lech Ami Ba ba'Chadarecha" that this is not confined to the night-time, but it extends to the daytime as well.

3. ... the Pasuk in Ki Savo "mi'Chutz Teshakel Cherev u'me'Chadarim Eimah" that it even applies when there is fear of death inside as well.

(b)Based on the Pasuk "Ki Alah Ma'ves ba'Chalonenu", whenever there was an epidemic of pestilence Rava would close the windows.

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Lech Lecha "Vayehi Ra'av ba'Aretz, Va'yered Avraham Mitzraymah" that when there is a famine, one should leave the country.

2. ... in Melachim (in connection with the four Metzora'im) "Im Amarnu Navo ha'Ir v'ha'Ra'av ba'Ir Va'masnu Sham" (in conjunction with the first part of the Pasuk "L'chu v'Niplah El Machaneh Aram, Im Yechayunu v'Nichyeh") that this even applies when remaining outside the town constitutes a Safek Nefashos (i.e. one's life is in danger there too).

8)

(a)One is advised to walk ...

1. ... at the sides of the road when there is an epidemic of pestilence in town because the Angel of Death, who has been given a free reign, walks proudly in the middle of the road.

2. ... in the middle of the road when there is not because the Angel of Death, having been denied a free hand, walks dejectedly at the side of the road.

(b)When there is a epidemic of pestilence one should avoid entering a Shul altogether, because that is where he places his tools, unless children are learning there or there is a Minyan in progress.

(c)When the dogs ...

1. ... whine it is an indication that the Angel of Death is in the vicinity.

2. ... bark joyfully it is an indication that Eliyahu ha'Navi is in the area.

(d)This is not necessarily the case however if there is a bitch present.

9)

(a)Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi who were once sitting before Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, placed him in a predicament when one of them demanded a Devar Halachah (and would not allow him to say a Devar Agadah), and the other one demanded a Devar Agadah (and would not allow him to say a Devar Halachah).

(b)To describe his predicament, he told them the Mashal of the aging man with two wives, one young and the other, old. Whenever the young wife discovered white hair on his head, she would pluck it out; whereas the old wife would pluck out the black hairs, until finally, he had no hair left at all.

(c)He got out of the predicament by telling them something that encompassed both Agadah and Halachah.

(d)Based on the Pasuk "Ki Setzei Esh ... "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir Es ha'Be'eirah", Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha learned from the fact that the Pasuk...

1. ... opens with a fire going out by itself and ends with the Mazik causing the damage directly that it must be referring to Hash-m, who is hinting that although He did not cause the fire that burned the Beis ha'Mikdash (we did), He considers it as if He had (as the Pasuk in Eichah writes "Va'yatzes Esh b'Tziyon"), and is therefore prepared to rebuild it when the time comes (as the Pasuk in Zecharyah writes "va'Ani Eh'yeh lah ... Chomas Esh Saviv ... ").

2. ... opens with Nizkei Mamon, and ends with Nizkei Gufo to teach us that 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' (obligating the owner of the fire to pay the four things).

10)

(a)When David asked for water to quench his thirst, the Pasuk describes the three strong men as having gone into the enemy camp and drawn water from the well of Beis-Lechem.

(b)According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, he asked them whether, having burned someone's haystack, they were obligated to pay for things that were hidden inside it (See Agados Maharsha). They replied either 'Patur' (like the Rabanan), or 'Chayav' (like Rebbi Yehudah), we do not know which.

(c)According to Rav Huna, it was a case of Pelishtim hiding inside barley-stacks belonging to Jews and David asked the three strong men (i.e. Talmidei-Chachamim, strong in Torah), whether one was permitted to save oneself with someone else's money by burning the haystacks (see also Tosfos DH 'Mahu').

11)

(a)The third interpretation of David's She'eilah is whether they were permitted to eat barley-stacks belonging to Jews with the intention of paying back lentil-stacks belonging to the Pelishtim.

(b)According to both latter versions they replied that although anybody else was forbidden to burn or to eat the barley-stacks (for either of the two reasons [see Maharatz Chiyos], David, in his capacity as king, was permitted to do so ...

(c)... based on the principle 'A King may break a way for himself through anyone's field).

(d)

1. Rav Huna attributes the fact that the Pasuk in Shmuel refers to a field full of lentils, whereas the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim refers to a field full of barley to the fact that there also happened to be some lentil-stacks in which the Pelishtim had hidden.

2. The third opinion explains the Pasuk "Va'yisyatzev b'Soch ha'Chalakah va'Yatzilah " to mean that they refused to allow them to burn the barley-stacks in order to pay back the lentil-stacks.

3. The reason that there are two Pesukim, according to Rav Nachman ('Tamun ba'Esh') is because, besides asking about Tamun ba'Esh, David also asked one of the other two She'eilos.

12)

(a)We interpret the Pasuk "v'Lo Avah David Li'shtosam", according to ...

1. ... the latter two explanations to mean that even though strictly speaking, in his capacity as king, he was permitted to burn the barley-stacks, he refused to make use of the special concession, and was strict with himself.

2. ... Rav Nachman, despite the fact that they ruled either like the Rabanan or like Rebbi Yehudah, to mean that he refused to repeat the ruling in their name, because they risked their lives in the process of taking the She'eilah to the Beis-Din in Beis-Lechem, and we have learned that when someone risks his life for Torah (by which it is written "va'Chai ba'Hem", one omits his name when quoting the Halachah (see Agados Maharsha).

(b)We interpret the Pasuk "va'Yasech Osam Lifnei Hash-m, according to ...

1. ... the two latter explanations in praise of David, who rejected the special concession L'shem Shamayim.

2. ... Rav Nachman (seeing as he merely did what was right) to mean that he said it over in the name of the Rabanan Stam (see Maharatz Chiyos).