1)

(a)What does the Beraisa learn from the word "Beiso" (in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Savo el Beiso La'avot Avoto")?

(b)What does Shlomoh ha'Melech advise one to do if he ...

1. ... became an Areiv?

2. ... hurt his fellow-Jew with words?

(c)In what connection does the Beraisa quote the Pasuk in Mishlei "B'ni, im Aravta le'Re'acha, Taka'ta le'Zar Kapecha...

1. ... Lech Hisrapeis"?

2. ... u'Rehav Re'echa"?

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)What does the Tana 'le'Tzad Sheini' learn from the words "La'avot Avoto"?

(b)What does 'le'Tzad Sheini' mean?

(c)Besides rental owed to an ass-driver and for renting an inn, what third example does the Tana give regarding this Halachah?

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)Who is the author of our Mishnah, which establishes the Pasuk "Lo Sachbol Beged Almanah" irrespective of whether she is poor or rich?

(b)Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa permits taking the garment of a rich widow. Why is that?

(c)Rebbi Yehudah does not draw this distinction. What is the basis of their Machlokes?

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. What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b)What problem does this create?

(c)The solution to this discrepancy lies in the continuation of the Pasuk. What does the Torah write after "ve'Lo Yarbeh lo Nashim"?

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

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Ta'ama di'K'ra there?

2. ... Rebbi Shimon does not?

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)What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says that someone who takes mill-stones as a Mashkon contravenes the La'av of "Lo Yachbol Rechayim va'Rachev" (in Ki Seitzei) because of two vessels ?

(b)What is ...

1. ... 'Rechev'?

2. ... 'Rechayim'?

(c)And what do we learn from the Pasuk there " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel"?

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. Which two?

(b)How many La'avin will he contravene should he take both?

(c)What does Rav Yehudah say?

(d)How does he then explain " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel"?

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]).

115b----------------------------------------115b

7)

(a)The Torah writes in Bo "Al Tochal Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim, Ki-im Tz'li-Eish". What does "Na" mean?

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

(c)What does Abaye say? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

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. How do we reconcile ...

1. ... Rava with Rav Yehudah? Why might the latter concede that by "Na" and "Mevushal", there is an extra La'av?

2. ... Abaye with Rav Huna? Why might Rav Huna concede that by Na and Mevushal, there is no extra La'av?

(b)Abaye's argument is based on a Beraisa. What does the Tana learn from "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na ... ki-im Tz'li Eish" (that renders it necessary [and therefore not superfluous)?

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.