1)

(a)The Beraisa learns the word "Beiso" (in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Savo el Beiso La'avot Avoto") - that although the Shali'ach Beis-Din may not enter the debtor's house to take a Mashkon, he may, if necessary, enter the house of the Areiv (the guarantor) to do so.

(b)Shlomoh ha'Melech advises a person who ...

1. ... became an Areiv - to pay up.

2. ... hurt his fellow-Jew with words - to appease him.

(c)The Beraisa quotes the Pasuk in Mishlei "B'ni, im Aravta le'Re'acha, Taka'ta le'Zar Kapecha ...

1. ... Lech Hisrapeis", to teach us - the first of the two previous rulings, and ...

2. ... u'Rehav Re'echa", to teach us the second.

2)

(a)The Tana learns 'le'Tzad Sheini' the words "La'avot Avoto" - that although the Shali'ach Beis-Din may not enter the house of a debtor to take a Mashkon for a loan, he may enter it to take a Mashkon for rental that is owed.

(b)'le'Tzad Sheini' means - 'alternatively' (like 'Davar Acher').

(c)Besides rental owed to as ass-driver and for renting an inn, the third example given by the Tana regarding this Halachah is - money owed for painting pictures on the walls of a client's house.

3)

(a)The author of our Mishnah which establishes the Pasuk "Lo Sachbol Beged Almanah" irrespective of whether she is poor or rich is - Rebbi Yehudah (as we learn in the Beraisa).

(b)Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa permits taking the garment of a rich widow - since the Torah's reason here is obviously due to the bad name that one gives a poor Almanah by coming to her door every evening and morning, to return the Mashkon and take it back. But this is not applicable to a rich Almanah, who does not need the Mashkon.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah does not draw this distinction. The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Darshinan Ta'ama di'K'ra' (we contend with the Torah's reasons - Rebbi Shimon), or not (Rebbi Yehudah).

4)

(a)Commenting on the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Lo Yarbeh lo Nashim", Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa permits a king to have more than eighteen wives, provided they do not lead him astray.

(b)This creates a problem in that - Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon appear to have switched opinions (Rebbi Yehudah Darshens the reason of the Pasuk, whereas Rebbi Shimon does not)?

(c)The solution to this discrepancy however, lies in the continuation of the Pasuk. After "ve'Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim" the Torah continues - "ve'Lo Yasir Levavo".

(d)Based on their opinions in our Sugya, this explain why ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Ta'ama di'K'ra here - since, seeing as we would normally have forbidden the king to have more than eighteen wives irrespective of whether they lead him astray or not, the Torah obviously adds "ve'Lo Yasur Levavo" to teach us that it is only forbidden if they do?

2. ... Rebbi Shimon does not - because, seeing as we would normally have permitted the king to have as many wives as he wants, provided they do not lead him astray, why does the Torah need to add "ve'Lo Yasur Levavo", if not to teach us that many wives are forbidden anyway, and that even one wife is forbidden if she leads him astray.

5)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah says that someone who takes mill-stones as a Mashkon contravenes the La'av of "Lo Yachbol Rechayim va'Rachev " (in Ki Seitzei), he means - that each of the two millstones constitutes an independent La'av.

(b)

1. 'Rachev' is - the upper millstone (from the word 'Lirekov', to ride) and ...

2. ... 'Rechayim' - the lower one.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk there " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" - that the La'av extends to other vessels that are the source of one's Parnasah (and is not confined to a mill).

6)

(a)According to Rav Huna, a creditor who takes a Rechayim or a Rechev only contravenes two La'avin - "Lo Yachbol ... " and " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".

(b)Should he take both, he contravenes - three La'avin.

(c)According to Rav Yehudah - he only contravenes one La'av for taking either the Rechayim or the Rachav, and two, for taking both (as we explained earlier).

(d)He explains that "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" - comes to include other vessels that are the source of one's income (as we learned in our Mishnah [See Tosfos ha'Rosh]).

7)

(a)The Torah writes in Bo "Al Tochal Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim, Ki-im Tz'li-Eish". "Na" means - half-done.

(b)According to Rava, someone who eats a Korban Pesach either half-done or plain cooked, receives two sets of Malkos. If he eats both at the same time - he will receives three.

(c)Abaye maintains that there is no Malkos for transgressing "Ki-im Tz'li Eish", because he holds 'Ein Lokin al La'av she'bi'Kelalus' (there is no Malkos for a La'av which incorporates a number of prohibitions); whereas Rava holds 'Lokin ... '.

8)

(a)It looks as if Abaye holds like Rav Yehudah and Rava, like Rav Huna. But we reconcile ...

1. ... Rava with Rav Yehudah - by pointing out that whereas " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" does not seem to pertain to "Rechayim va'Rachev" (but rather comes to incorporate other things), " ... ki-im Tz'li Eish certainly pertains to "Na" and "Mevushal" (adding an extra La'av to someone who eats them).

2. ... Abaye with Rav Huna - by pointing out that he interprets " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" as an extra La'av, only because it is superfluous, whereas " ... ki-im Tz'li Eish" is not, as we shall now see.

(b)Abaye's argument is based on a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na ... ki-im Tz'li Eish" - that the La'avin of Na and Mevushal only apply when the Mitzvah of Tz'li-Eish does (i.e. on the night of the fifteenth, but someone who eats it on the fourteenth or fifteenth by day, has not transgressed. Consequently, the Pasuk is not superfluous.