1)

(a)We discuss the case of a man who sold himself to Luda'i' (cannibals).

(b)Rebbi Ami wanted to redeem even him, and certainly his children because, seeing as they were cannibals, their lives were in danger.

(c)The Rabanan did not allow him to do so however because he was seen eating Neveilos and Tereifos (making him a Min, whom 'one leads down into a deep pit, and does not allow to come up').

(d)They knew that he was not merely a Mumar l'Tei'avon one who eats Neveilos ... purely for personal benefit (in which case the above Din does not apply) because there were occasions when Kosher meat was available to him, yet he still chose to eat Neveilos and Tereifos.

2)

(a)When Reish Lakish sold himself to the Luda'i (see Tosfos DH 'Reish Lakish) he took with him a sack that contained a heavy stone or piece of metal.

(b)He got them to agree that he tie them up and strike them with his sack by issuing as his last request before being placed in the pot, that he be allowed to tie them up and give each one of them one a half strokes.

(c)He asked each of the leering dead men (the result of the blow, whose impact caused them to gnash their teeth hard as they died, conveying the impression that they were leering) whether he was perhaps leering at him because he had cheated him out of the remaining half stroke that he still owed him.

(d)He declared when ...

1. ... his daughter asked him whether he did not need something to lie on whilst he slept that this was not necessary, since his stomach (on which he used to lie) was his sheet.

2. ... on his death-bed, he found that he was left with one Kav of saffron "v'Azvu la'Acheirim Cheilam" (Tehilim [because in his opinion, everyone should use up all the resources that are given to him by Hash-m, before his death]).

3)

(a)Chazal obligated someone who sells a field to a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael to purchase the Bikurim from him each year at any cost, and to take it to Yerushalayim.

(b)The reason for this decree is to discourage people from selling their fields to Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael, and in the event that they did, to encourage them to buy it back.

(c)Rabah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Behar "Ki Li ha'Aretz" that a Nochri cannot acquire any part of Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from the obligation of Ma'asros.

2. ... "Tehilim "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem, v'ha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam" that he can however, acquire it to dig in it pits, trenches and caves.

(d)Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "Ma'asar Degancha" "Degancha" 've'Lo D'gan Oved Kochavim' (that the Nochri does exempt the field from Ma'asros), and from the Pasuk "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah" that he cannot acquire it to dig in it pits ... .

4)

(a)Rabah, who obligates the grain of a Nochri to be Ma'asered, learns from "Degancha" as if the Torah had written (not "Degancha", but) "Diguncha" 've'Lo Digun Nochri'. 'Digun' means 'Miru'ach' (flattening the pile after the corn has been winnowed, and, according to him, whether the corn is subject to Ma'asros or not depends on who performed it).

(b)The Mishnah in Pe'ah states 'ha'Leket, v'ha'Shichechah v'ha'Pe'ah shel Oved-Kochavim Chayavin b'Ma'aser Ela-im-Kein Hifkir'. Rabah does not want to establish the Mishnah by the Leket ... of a Yisrael that a Nochri collected because then, why would it require the Nochri to declare it Hefker, since all Leket ... is Hefker anyway.

(c)The Mishnah, according to him, therefore refers to the Leket of a Nochri which a Yisrael collected. And Rabah extrapolates from there that had the Nochri not declared it Hefker, it would be subject to Ma'asros (proving his opinion).

(d)We refute Rabah's proof however (by accepting the explanation in the Mishnah that Rabah rejected) because even though all Leket ... is Hefker, that is only for the poor to collect, whereas the Hefker of the Nochri renders it Hefker for the rich too.

5)

(a)The Beraisa says that someone who purchases a field from a Nochri before the crops have grown to one third of their growth, and sold it back to him afterwards is subject to Ma'aser (should a Jew subsequently purchase it from the Nochri).

(b)We can infer from there that had it not become Chayav at the hand of the Yisrael, it would be Patur, posing a Kashya on Rabah.

(c)We reconcile Rabah with this Beraisa by establishing that it speaks in Syria whose Ma'asros are only mid'Rabanan, and the Rabanan did not subject land belonging to a Nochri there to Ma'asros.

(d)The principle on which this distinction between land of a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael and land of a Nochri in Syria is based on the principle 'Kibush Yachid (land captured by a Yachid, such as Syria that was captured by David for personal reasons, not in conjunction with the whole of Yisrael) Lo Shemei Kibush' (is not incorporated in the rest of Eretz Yisrael) ...

(e)... but according to those who hold 'Kibush Yachid Shemei Kibush' there is no difference between land belonging to a Nochri in Syria and land belonging to a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael.

6)

(a)Rebbi rules in a Beraisa that if a Yisrael and a Nochri purchased a field together, Tevel and Chulin are mixed together meaning that each grain is half Chayav to be Ma'asered and half Patur (in which case even after they have divided the field, whoever purchases the section belonging to the Nochri will remain Chayav to Ma'aser half of what he bought.

(b)The only way of Ma'asering these crops is 'Minei u'Bei' meaning from it on itself, not from it to exempt other crops, and not from other crops to exempt it.

(c)The reason for this is because seeing as each grain is half-Chayav and half-Patur, when one takes from it on itself, the part of each grain that he separates that is Chayav exempts the equivalent part of what remains that is Chayav. But to separate from it on what is definitely Chayav constitutes 'min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv', and what is definitely Chayav on it, 'min ha'Chiyuv Al ha'P'tur'.

7)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that the section of the Nochri is Patur, and that of the Yisrael, Chayav.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether we hold 'Yesh Bereirah' (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or 'Ein Bereirah' (Rebbi).

(c)According to Rabah, this Beraisa too (which clearly holds that land belonging to a Nochri is not subject to Ma'asros) speaks in Syria.

8)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who sells a field to a Nochri is obligated to purchase each year the Bikurim and to bring them to Yerushalayim because of Tikun ha'Olam. Rav Chiya bar Avin extrapolates from there that if not for Tikun ha'Olam, he would not be Chayav to do so, posing a Kashya on Rabah, according to whom the Nochri does not acquire the field to exempt it from Bikurim mi'd'Oraisa.

(b)Even though Rabah himself agrees that the seller is not obligated to purchase the Ma'asros from him, he is nevertheless obligated to purchase the Bikurim because whereas the basic obligation to separate Ma'asros is not an intrinsic one, but a Hechsher for eating it (since it removes the Din Tevel), in which case it does not extend to someone who does not intend to eat it]), Bikurim (which is not subject to Tevel) is an obligation on the owner (whether he intends to eat it or not).

(c)Rav Ashi replies that there were two Takanos. This answers the Kashya on Rabah because initially, they would bring the Bikurim of the field that they had sold to Nochrim mi'd'Oraisa, and it was only following the first decree which exempted them from doing so, that it became necessary to reinstate the obligation (mid'Rabanan).

(d)The second Takanah is the one in our Mishnah. The first Takanah was when Chazal saw that people were having no qualms about selling their fields to Nochrim, seeing as the Kedushah remained (leading them to believe that they had done nothing wrong). So they waived the Din Torah in the hope that people would think that, due to the fact that they were not obligated to buy back the Bikurim, they must have caused the Kedushah to dissipate (by having sold the field to a Nochri), and that this would prompt them to stop selling their fields to Nochrim.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who sells his field only for the Peiros brings Bikurim and reads the Parshah. This speaks about someone who buys a field for ten years, say, after which time the field will automatically return to the owner.

(b)This can only refer to the time when the Yovel no longer applies because as long as it does, every sale of land is only for the Peiros.

(c)The criterion for the Yovel to apply is when all the tribes are living in their respective locations in Eretz Yisrael, a situation which came into effect when Reuven and Gad were exiled from Eiver ha'Yarden by Sancheriv.

(d)According to Reish Lakish, the buyer brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami'. Consequently, the purchaser cannot say "me'Reishis Kol Pri ha'Adamah Asher Nasata Li Hash-m". Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand holds 'Kinyan Peiros k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', in which case he can.

10)

(a)Reish Lakish explains the Beraisa "u'le'Veisecha", 'Melamed she'Adam Meivi Bikurei Ishto v'Korei", despite the fact that a husband has only a Kinyan Peiros in his wife's property (see Tosfos DH 'u'le'Veisecha') inasmuch as a husband is different, because the Torah writes "u'le'Veisecha" (making it a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'.

(b)In the second Lashon, it is Reish Lakish who queries Rebbi Yochanan from this Beraisa, which implies that specifically a husband reads when he brings the fruit from his wife's property, but not anybody else who only has a Kinyan ha'Guf to which Rebbi Yochanan replied that the Torah indicates the Din by a husband, and we learn all other cases of Kinyan Peiros from there (because it is a Binyan Av).

11)

(a)The Beraisa say that if a man is bringing his wife's Bikurim to the Beis ha'Mikdash when he hears that she died, brings them and reads the Parshah from which we extrapolate (it is only because the husband inherited the fruit that he becomes obligated, but that) if his wife had not died, he would not read the Parshah, posing a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina rules that if someone appointed a Shali'ach to take his Bikurim to the Beis ha'Mikdash, and the Shali'ach died on the way, the owner brings the Bikurim but does not read the Parshah because the Torah compares the Hava'ah to the Lekichah, to teach us that both must occur with the same person (i.e. the same person who sets out with the Bikurim must bring them to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Otherwise he cannot read the Parshah.

(c)We know that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina is speaking about the owner himself and not another Shali'ach finishing the job because a Shali'ach would not read the Parshah even if he performed both the Lekichah and the Hava'ah (since he cannot say "Asher Nasata Li").

(d)This answers the Kashya we asked on Rebbi Yochanan because the Beraisa needs to teach us that the husband brings the Bikurim that he now inherited (not because his wife died, but) despite the fact that she did, since we would otherwise have extended the Din of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina (which pertains to the person actually bringing the Bikurim) to the owner (i.e. that it must be same owner who performs the Hava'ah as the one who performed the Lekichah).