1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testify in our Mishnah testified that ...

1. ... even a Chereshes whose father married her off when she was a Ketanah can be divorced, all the more so a Chereshes who accepted her own Kidushin as a Gedolah.

2. ... a Ketanah bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen may eat Terumah, even though in the absence of her father, she was married off by her mother or brother and her Kidushin is only mid'Rabanan.

(b)In the event of the latter's death her husband inherits her.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda also testified that ...

1. ... a stolen beam which the thief built into his mansion may remain intact, and the thief need only pay its value. This is because of 'Takanas ha'Shavin' (to encourage the thief to own up and do Teshuvah [which he will not be inclined to do if he knows that he will be obligated to demolish his mansion in the way that the people of Ninveh did in the days of Yonah]).

2. ... a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen will atone for its new owner (due to the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' [absolving him from bringing another animal in its place]) because of Takanas ha'Mizbe'ach (which will be explained shortly).

(d)The reason that Rebbi placed this Mishnah here is because of the last two cases, which are based on a Takanas Chachamim (following the style of all the current Mishnayos).

2)

(a)Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda that, if after having shown the witnesses the Get (not in his wife's presence) that he is about to give his wife he hands her the Get and tells her to take 'this Shtar Chov (document of debt)', the divorce is nevertheless valid.

(b)It is not so obvious following the Tana's words that such a Get will be valid because we might have thought that when he refers to the Get as a Shtar Chov, he is in fact, canceling the Get.

(c)We know that he did not in fact, do so because had he meant to, he would have informed the witnesses that he was.

(d)The reason that a person might do such a strange thing is because he is embarrassed to tell his wife that he is divorcing her.

3)

(a)We know that a Chereshes who is married to a Kohen is not permitted to eat Terumah because instead of incorporating this concession in the Reisha (in the Din of Chereshes), the Tana switched to a Ketanah who is not a Chereshes.

(b)The reason for this Halachah cannot be because we are afraid that if she marries a Cheresh Kohen (who cannot acquire [a wife] min ha'Torah) he may feed her (see Maharsha) because even if he did, we have a principle 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' (we are not obligated to stop a child (or a Cheresh) from eating forbidden food).

(c)We conclude that what we are afraid of is that perhaps a Cheresh Kohen will then feed his wife who is a Pikachas. Despite the fact that this Kidushin too, is only mid'Rabanan, and he ought to be permitted to feed her Terumah d'Rabanan (such as vegetables and fruit [other than grain, wine and oil]) we are afraid that he will feed her Terumah d'Oraisa too.

(d)We learned in our Mishnah that if a thief built a stolen beam into his mansion, he may pay the value of the beam ... . That is the opinion of Beis Hillel. According to Beis Shamai he is obligated to demolish his mansion and return the beam.

4)

(a)And we learned in our Mishnah that a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen will atone for its new owner. Ula explains that min ha'Torah, whether the Chatas is known to have been stolen or not, it will not atone for the thief because 'Yi'ush' (giving up hope of retrieving an article that is stolen or lost) on its own does not acquire (added to the fact that it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' see Tosfos DH "Mai Ta'ama').

(b)Ula adds that the reason the Chachamim decreed that it atones, is in order that the Kohanim should not be depressed for having eaten Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah.

(c)And the reason that the Mishnah gives the reason as 'Tikun Mizbe'ach' is because the Kohen's state of depression will cause them to stop doing the Avodah.

(d)The Chachamim have the authority to exempt the thief from bringing the Chatas that he was obligated to bring based on the principle that Shev v'Al Ta'aseh' (a decree not to perform an obligation) is not considered uprooting the Torah.

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah disagrees with Ula. According to him,, min ha'Torah, the Chatas atones for the thief whether the theft is publicly known or not because he holds that Yi'ush on its own acquires.

(b)The Chachamim decreed that if it is, it will not atone so that the Mizbe'ach should not be 'accused' of eating stolen goods.

(c)According to Ula, it is easy to understand why the Tana talks specifically about a Chatas, rather than the more common Olah because the Kohanim's mood is the result of having eaten the Korban b'Isur, which does not apply to an Olah.

(d)According to Rav Yehudah, the Tana talks about a Chatas (despite the fact that we are only concerned with the Mizbe'ach 'eating stolen goods'), because it is a bigger Chidush to teach us that they even decreed by a Chatas, despite the fact that some of the Korban was eaten by the Kohanim and not the Mizbe'ach.

6)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah, when the Tana says 'Al Chatas ha'Gezulah she'Lo Nod'ah la'Rabim she'Hi Machaperes ... ' he really means to add 'Nod'ah, Eino Mechaperes'.

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Kama rules that someone who steals an animal and then declare it Hekdesh before slaughtering or selling it is Chayav to pay Kefel (double), but Patur from paying Arba'ah va'Chamishah.

(b)The reason for the latter ruling is because the animal no longer belongs to the original the owner but to Hekdesh (and the Din of Kefel and Arba'ah va'Chamishah do not apply to property belonging to Hekdesh).

(c)The Beraisa adds to the Mishnah that if the thief were to slaughter the same animal outside the Azarah, he would be Chayav Kares for Shechutei Chutz.

(d)In answer to Rava's Kashya, as to how, according to Ula, who maintains that Yi'ush does not acquire, how can one can possibly become Chayav Kares. Rav Shizbi answers that he is Chayav Kares mid'Rabanan.

8)

(a)They all laughed at Rav Shizbi because they did not consider the concept of Kares d'Rabanan feasible; Rava however commented that when a great man says something, one should not laugh (but try to understand what he means).

(b)Rava therefore explained that what Rav Shizbi's meant was that the Kares came through a d'Rabanan (because the Rabanan placed the animal in the domain of the thief in order that he should be Chayav in the event that he slaughters it outside the Azarah [just like they did with regard to the atonement and the Kenas]).

(c)Rava was initially in a dilemma as to whether the Rabanan placed the animal in the domain of the thief from the time of the theft in which case he would acquire its shearings and its babies from the time of the theft until the time of the Hekdesh; or from the time that he declared it Hekdesh in which case he would not.

(d)He concluded like the second Tzad of the She'eilah, because he considered it illogical for Chazal to present a thief with a prize for stealing.

9)

(a)A Sikrikun is a gentile murderer, whom people tended to bribe with land.

(b)When our Mishnah says 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah' he is referring to the final battle against Titus leading up to the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.

(c)According to the Mishnah Rishonah, the sale is void, if someone purchases a field ...

1. ... from the Sikrikun and then from the owner because the owner can argue either that he only agreed to sell the field to him because he was afraid of the Sikrikun, or that he preferred the field to be in the hands of a Jewish purchaser, because he was an easier person to deal with in Beis-Din.

2. ... that is designated for the wife's Kesuvah from the husband and then from the wife because the wife can argue that she only agreed to the sale in order to satisfy her husband.

(d)If someone first purchased the field from the owner or the wife, and then from the Sikrikun or the husband the sale is valid.

10)

(a)The Mishnah Acharonah requires someone who purchases a field from a Sikrikun to pay the owner a quarter of the price ([which in real terms means a third] rather than go with him to Beis-Din) because the Chachamim assessed this to be the amount the Sikrikun deducted from its real price, when he sold it to him.

(b)Should the owner wish to redeem his field from the Sikrikun after the Sikrikun has offered it to the would-be purchaser (see Tosfos-Yom Tov) he has first rights to do so.

(c)Rebbi and his specially-appointed Beis-Din decided that if the Sikrikun held on to the property for twelve months, anyone may purchase it (and the owner cannot claim first rights to it), though the purchaser must still pay the quarter to the original owner.

11)

(a)The problem we have with the Tana's statement that there was no Sikrikun during the time of the final battle with Titus, but there was afterwards is that if anything, the opposite is true; if there was no Sikrikun during the time of the final battle with Titus, then there would certainly not have been any afterwards.

(b)Rav Yehudah therefore explains that what the Tana means is (not that there was no Sikrikun, but) that they did not judge the Din Sikrikun (i.e. that someone who purchased a field from a Sikrikun, had to verify the sale with the owner before it could be finalized).

(c)We therefore interpret 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah' to mean that during the time of the battle with Titus, the Din Sikrikun did not apply ...

(d)... and the reason for this ruling is due to the principle 'Talyuhah v'Zavin, Zevinei Zevina' (that if someone who has been forced to sell a field by being suspended on a tree, sells it, his sale is valid, because he really means to sell); likewise in our case, in the time of Titus, anyone who gave his field to a Sikrikun, really gave it to him with a full heart (as we will now explain).

12)

(a)Rav Asi bases the opening statement in our Mishnah on the three orders issued by Titus. The first of these was that anyone who did not kill a Jew would himself be killed. Anybody who killed a Jew, following ...

1. ... the second command would be fined four Zuzim.

2. ... the third command would be killed.

(b)The first half of the opening statement ('Lo Hayah Sikrikun ... ') pertains to the first two commands, where the threat of death was very real.

(c)Following the third command the owner's reasoning in selling to the Sikrikun would be 'Let him take the field today. Tomorrow, I will take him to court'!

13)

(a)We can learn from the Pasuk "Ashrei Adam Mefached Tamid ... " to try and foretell the potential harm and damage that might result from our negative actions (before we perform them).

(b)In the same vein, a certain man instructed his servant to invite Kamtza to his Se'udah, but not bar Kamtza because he was friendly with the former, but hated the latter.

(c)Upon discovering that the servant had inadvertently mixed up the two names and invited bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza he asked bar Kamtza to leave immediately.

(d)After he refused his offer of ...

1. ... payment for his portion bar Kamtza offered to pay for half the Se'udah.

2. ... payment for half the Se'udah he offered to pay for the entire Se'udah.

(e)The owner of the Se'udah then took hold of bar Kamtza and led him out of the hall.