Question: In the fourth Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 33a) the Gemara asks that the initial wording of the Beraisa 'Ein Me'akvin' implies that Lechatchilah we do not instruct the children to 'Go and blow', and then the Tana says 'But one blows with them even on Shabbos'? ...

Answer: And it answers 'One speaks by a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch, the other, by one who hasn't - in other words, one blows with a child who has reached the age of Chinuch (See Shitah Mekubetzes 12).

Question: Is it not obvious, according to the opinion in Perek Cheresh (Yevamos, Daf 114a) 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho', that we do not stop a child from blowing?

Answer: It speaks where he has reached the age of Chinuch regarding Shabbos but not regarding Teki'as Shofar - so there is a bit of a Chidush.

Explanation #1: Who are Chayav to read the Megilah and who are Kasher to read for men and to render them Yotzei (Rashi's wording).

Explanation #2: The B'hag however, does not rule like that ...

Tosefta: And he supports this from the Tosefta which states 'Everyone is Chayav to read the Megilah ... A Tumtum and an Androginus are Chayav, but they cannot render the community Yotzei ...

Tosefta (cont.): 'An Androginus can render his own species Yotzei; A Tumtum can render neither his own species not those not of his species Yotzei.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Someone who is half Eved and half ben-Chorin can render neither his own species not those not of his species Yotzei.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Women, Avadim and Ketanim are Patur from reading the Megilah' (Up to here is the wording of the Tosefta) ...

Proof: And the Halachos Gedolos adds - 'They are however, Chayav to hear it, since everyone was included in the Safek of being wiped out, killed and destroyed ...

Proof (cont.): 'Rebbi Yehoshua would gather all the members of his household and Lein the Megilah for them; Rebbi Yonah the father of Rebbi Menachem would have in mind to Lein (the Megilah) for all the women in his house ...

Reason: Because everyone was included in the Safek - and everyone is therefore Chayav to hear it (up to here is the wording of the Halachos Gedolos).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, we must explain here that women can be Motzi women, but not men ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): And 'Everyone is Chayav to read the Megulah ... to include women' - means that they can be Motzi other women.

Alternative Inference: Alternatively, the Gemara could have said that it comes to include a Katan - according to Rebbi Yehudah who considers him eligible in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 19b).

Clarification: Three women and similarly three Avadim, but two women cannot combine with men ...

Reason: Seeing as there are things that men say but not women and Avadim - in that women do not say 'B'ris', and Avadim 'al Eretz she'Hinchalto la'Avoseinu' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 16).

Clarification (cont.): We are forced to say that women are permitted to be Mezamen, but are under no obligation to do so.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that the Gemara proves from it the opinion in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu' (B'rachos, Daf 45b) that if two people want to be Mezamen, they may, since a hundred women are equivalent to two men ...

Proof (cont.): And if they would be Chayav, there would be a Kashya on him, since it says 'Im Ratzu'.

Conclusion: And it is on this that our women rely nowadays, when they are not Mezamen.

Ruling #1: The Gemara also says in B'rachos (Daf 48a) that 'The Halachah is not like all of these statements, but like Rav Nachman ... ' ...

Ruling #2: Nevertheless, we do not Pasken like him, only like Rebbi Yossi in the Yerushalmi (and in the Bereishis Rabah, Parshas Mikeitz - Rosh), who attests to the many times that he ate with his father (Aba Chalafta) and his uncle, and that they never included him in the Mezuman until he grew two hairs.

Implies Question: The Gemara declines to cite the Mishnah in Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 43b), which states 'Tinok ben Yom Echad Metamei be'Zivah' ...

Answer): Because the Beraisa is more explicit.

Clarification: Because this Pasuk is written in connection with someone who enters the Beis-ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah, and declares him Chayav Kareis, and it writes "Ish" to preclude a Katan who is not subject to punishment ...

Clarification (cont.): Although he is Tamei to render Tamei food and drink like a Gadol.

Question #1: Why do we need a Pasuk to exempt him (from Kareis), seeing as we never find a Katan who is subject to punishment?

Question #2: And the same Kashya can be asked in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 52b) - "Ish ki Yin'af", 'to preclude a Katan'?

Answer #1: There however, one can answer that he ought to be Chayav due to the woman's disgrace, similar to an animal that is raped.

Answer #2: Perhaps the Pasuk is needed - because we would otherwise have thought that since he is included in the Tum'ah, he is also included in the Kareis ...

Answer #2 (cont.): It therefore teaches us that this is not the case (See footnote).

Clarification: Implying another "Tzaru'a" to include a woman ...

Clarification (cont.): 'Then why does the Torah write Ish"? regarding the issue mentioned later' - Ish doews not refer tom "Tamei Yetam'enu", which refers even to women, but to the Pasuk further on which talks about P'ri'ah u'P'rimah (letting one's hair grow and renting one's clothes [Rashi's wording]).

Implied Question: And even though in connection with the head and the beard (Vayikra 11) the Torah writes "Ishah" ...

Answer: We cannot learn from there, because it is needed there to teach us that a woman is subject to Tum'ah there even though it is unusual for her to grow a beard.

Question: Why do we not learn Ishah from the word "Adam", which implies both a woman and a Katan - when it writes (in Bamidbar 31) "ve'Nefesh Adam"; so since they are equal, why not learn them both?

Answer: We would have thought that, since we need a Pasuk to include a woman regarding the Nega'im of a beard, we would have thought that she is not subject to any other Nega'im unless the Pasuk specifically says so.

Question: We should then have included Ishah from "Adam", whereas "Ish" comes to preclude a Katan from P'ri'ah and P'rimah, and "ha'Tzaru'a" will include him in the realm of Tum'ah?

Answer: It is logical to preclude a woman from P'ri'ah and P'rimah, since it is demeaning for her.

Clarification: They are one and the same, but they are not learned together

Source: In the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 6a).

Clarification: The Dinim of Nega'im, with which he is not conversant; so he takes a Talmid-Chacham to inspect (the Nega) together with him ...

Clarification (cont.): Who announces 'Tamei', and he (the Kohen) says 'Tamei' after him

Reason: Because Tum'ah and Taharah depend on the declaration of the Kohen - as we learned in the Toras Kohanim (Rashi's wording).

Clarification (concl.): There in the Toras Kohanim it learns a Yisrael from the Pasuk "O el Achad mi'Banav ha'Kohanim".

Question: And it concludes there 'Since in the end we are going to include a Yisrael, why does it mention "Kohen"?

Answer #1: Because Tum'ah and Taharah must come from the mouth of the Kohen, and even if he is a fool who is inspecting Nega'im.

Implied Question: And even though he must understand when it is explained to him ...

Answer: It refers to him as a 'Kohen Shoteh', since he is not an expert under his own steam.

Answer #2: Alternatively, 'de'Masmb'ri leih ve'Savar' refers, not to the Kohen, but to the Yisrael Talmid-Chacham who is standing beside him, who understands when it is explained to him.

Question: Why is it not obvious? What difference does it make whether he knew it yesterday or it was taught to him today?

Answer: Even though he is only conversant with this one Nega that is being explained to him, he is Kasher to inspect it.

Clarification: To mix the spring-water with the ashes of the 'Chatas'.

Clarification (cont.): The reasons of Rebbi Yehudqah and the Rabbanan are explained in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma, 43a).

Clarification: Whose brothers died as a result of the Milah, who sprinkled some of the Mei Chatas on a person who is Tamei, his Haza'ah is Kasher ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 72b) - 'Similar to the Din of a T'vul-Yom, who is Pasul to eat T'rumah, but Kasher regarding the Din of Parah.

implied Question: The Gemara could in fact, have cited the Beraisa cited there explicitly ...

Answer: Only they were more familiar with the statement of Rebbi Elazar.

Source: There are two 'ha'Kol Shochtin' - in the first Perek of VChukin - one on Daf 2a, the other, on Daf 15b.

Source: In the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110b)

Explanation #1: Inasmuch as that if one has an Eved Cana'ani who is Mahul to sell, and the Eved only wants to be sold in Eretz Yisrael (one forces the master to comply with his wishes - Rashi).

Explanation #2: In Kesuvos (Daf 110b) however , Rashi explains that the master can take his Eved Ivri to Eretz Yisrael against his will.

Explanation #3: Whereas according to the Ri, the Eved can force his master to take him up to Eretz Yisrael or to set him free.

Implied Question: We cannot learn this from the Reisha, according to the text 'Avadim' - even according to Rashi (here) who establishes it by Avadim Cana'anim ...

Answer #1: Because he wants to sell him, whereas in the Seifa, he does not want to take him out of his domain (See Rashash).

Answer #2: Alternatively, since the Eved ran away, we ought to penalize him and not set him free.

Answer #3: Or we may have thought that the Reisha speaks where the master anyway travels regularly to Eretz Yisrael.

Clarification: ... of Chutz la'Aretz to an ugly area in Eretz Yisrael, and his wife cannot stop him - and the same applies from the rest of Eretz Yisrael to Yerushlayim (Rashi's wording).

Clarification (cont.): The Reisha states 'ha'Kol Ma'alin', the Seifa adds 'Ein ha'Kol Motzi'in' - so the Gemara explains there in Kesuvos (Ibid.).

Implied Question: The Gemara cannot explain that it comes to include Avadim ...

Answer: Because there is no reason to differentiate between the rest of Eretz Yisrael and Yerushalayim with regard to Avadim.

Clarification: Until here, the Tana discussed what 'ha'Kol' comes to include ...

Clarification (cont.): From now on he discusses the cases which mention 'Kohanim, Levi'im ve'Yisre'elim' - in that it is obvious; because if they are not Chayav, who is?

Clarification: And they are not able to live in the Sukkah as man and wife, because, seeing as they are obligated to perform the Avodah, they are not permitted to be intimate - we would have thought that they are not Chayav (Sukkah [Rashi's wording]).

Implied Question: Because from the fact that they are travelers ...

Answer: They would only be exempt when they are in the fields, but not when they are in the chamber of the Beis ha'Mokad or in any other section of the Beis-h'Mikdadsh.

Observation #1: In fact, the Gemara could have mentioned the Levi'im, who guard the Mikdash in twenty-one locations, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Tamid (Daf 26a).

Observation #2: Similarly we find later, by 'Everyone is Chayav to blow the Shofar' ...

Observation #2 (cont.): That it cold have explained that it needs to mention 'Kohanim and Levi'im', bearing in mind that the Beraisa quoted there states that 'The Levi'im (as well as the Kohanim) can always redeem their fields' ...

Observation #2 (concl.): Yet it only mentions Kohanim.

Clarification: Even though they cannot fulfil 'ke'Ein Dirah, there where they can, they are Chayav ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, during the Avodah, they are Patur, but otherwise, they are Chayav.

Clarification: Since the belt consisted ot Kil'ayim - seeing as the Torah writes "And the belt of Sheish"

Clarification (cont.): And seeing as "Sheish" is linen, "Techeiles" is wool ... '.

Question: The Ri from Orleans asks why women are subject to Kil'ayim - seeing as they are not subject to "Gedilim T'aseh lach" (Tzitzis)?

Answer: Because the Torah compares women to men ...

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara in 'Eilu Ovrin' (Pesachim, Daf 43b) states that 'Those women who are not subject to the positive Mitzvah of eating Matzah, ought not to be subject to the La'av of Chametz either ...

Answer: It relies on the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Chamishah-Asar" "Chmishah-Asar" from the Yom-Tov of Sukkos

Question: Why do we not say that, since they are subject to the La'av of Sha'atnez, they should also be subject to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis?

Answer: Because, on the contrary, the whole Torah is compared to Tefilin (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15).

Question: But does the Gemara not also require an extra Hekesh by Matzah?

Answer: He (the Ri from Orleans) answers that, since they are included in the Mitzvah of eating Matzah, they are also included in the La'av of eating Chametz (See footnote).

Clarification: And Tefilin need to be on the skin, as the Torah writes "And it shall be for you a sign", 'but not a sign for others'.

Implied Question: One cannot ask why the Gemara does not answer like it answers above - 'It teaches us that even though thy are Patur during the time of the Avodah ... ' ...

Answer: Because the Gemara considers it obvious that the Kohen is always Chayav to wear Tefilin shel Rosh.

Implied Question: Nor does it want to say that we thought to exempt the Kohen from Tefilin shel Yad when he is not doing the Avodah ...

Answer: Since the Gemara considers it obvious that he is Chayav.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara elsewhere (in Menachos, Daf 36a) learns from the Pasuk "u'Letotafos bein Einecha" that as long as the Tefilin are 'between your eyes, they should be two' ...

Answer: That means that whenever one wears both Tefilin one should first put on the shel Yad.

Clarification: Implying one day only.

Clarification: Because also on Yom Kipur of the Yovel-year they would recite Malchiyos, Zichronos and Shofros.

Explanation #1: And even in the Yovel year itself, if they sell their land, the sale is valid and it goes out (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18), and the money is theirs.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We cannot explain that the land does not go back to them in the Yovel ...

Reason): Since the Torah writes "va'asher Yig'al min ha'Levi'im", from which the Gemara in the last Perek (later, on Daf 29b) extrapolates that 'Any land that he sells is returned to him free of charge. (Rashi's wording).

Question #1: This is not correct however, since Shmuel will explain there that seeing as whatever is already sold goes back (in the Yovel), it goes without saying that it cannot be sold ...

Question #1 (cont.): And this reason applies as much to a Kohen as it does to a Yisrael.

Question #2: And one can ask according to Rav as well, who says that the sale is valid but it goes out - what is the difference between Yisrael and Kohanim regarding the Yovel?

Question #2 (concl.): And similarly what does 'Go'alin Le'olam' mean?

Answer: One can partially resolve the text with regard to Batei Arei Chomah - which a Yisrael can only redeem within the complete year, but Levi'im and Kohanim can redeem forever ...

Answer (cont.): Because we might have thought that the Din concerning their Batei Arei Chomah is the same as that of the houses in their open cities, which go out in the Yovel ...

Answer (concl.): And it mentions 'Mochrin' on account of 'Go'alin'.

Explanation #2: Rashi here however, explains - and these are his words: 've'Go'alin Le'olam' - In the event tht he sells a field, he can redeem it at once, whilst a Yisrael cannot redeem it before two years, as the Torah states "According to the number of two produces".

Explanation #3: Whereas in Perek Ra'uhu Beis Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 29a), he explains as follows: 'This is the correct text - "Kohanim and Levi'im may be Makdish forever - This is the text of Rebbi Yitzchak ha'Levi; But my other Rebbes have the text 'May sell forever, and redeem forever' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Both of which are Mishnah's in Maseches Erchin, and both of which are superfluous ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Only since the Tana says with regard to a Yisrael 'Ein Makdishin lifnei ha'Yovel Pachos mi'Sh'tei Shanim, ve'Lo Go'alin achar ha'Yovel Pachos mi'Shanah' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): He says also with regard to Kohanim and Levi'im 'Makdishin ve'Go'alin Le'olam' ...

Explanation #3 (concl.): And now that he learns 'Makdishin and Go'alin' together, he also mentions 'Mochrin le'Olam' by Go'alin of Mechirah.

Source: And this is how the Gemara establishes it in Maseches Erchin.