1)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chana Amar Rebbi Yochanan informs us that they found forty Sa'ah of Tefilin in Beitar on the heads of the slain.

(b)According to Rebbi Yanai b'Rebbi Yishmael they found three boxes of forty Sa'ah each, and according to the Tana of a Beraisa, forty boxes of three Sa'ah each. Rabah bar bar Chana does not argue with the Tana'im since he is referring to the shel Yad (which only comprises one Bayis), whereas they are referring to the shel Rosh, (which comprise four).

(c)Despite the fact that the shel Rosh contains four Parshiyos, and the shel Yad only one, the former was only three times as many, and not four because, although the Bayis of the shel Rosh itself is larger than that of the shel Yad, one has to allow for the fact that the Parshah of the shel contains Al the four Parshiyos of the shel Rosh.

(d)The Pasuk cited by Rav Kahana (Or Shilo bar Mari) "bas Bavel ha'Shedudah ... Ashrei she'Yochez, v'Nipetz Olalayich El ha'Sela" refers to the large volume of brains that they found on the rocks. We know that the Pasuk is referring to the first Churban because it begins with the words "bas Bavel ha'Shedudah".

(e)According to Rebbi Asi, they found four Kabin of brains according to Ula, it was nine.

2)

(a)"The Pasuk writes "Bnei Tziyon ha'Yekarim ha'Mesula'im b'Paz". This cannot mean that they were covered with ornaments of Paz (a superior quality gold) because d'Bei Rebbi Yanai has already taught us that half of the measure of Paz that came to the world was given to the Romans.

(b)What it means is that the the inhabitants of Yerushalayim were so beautiful that they put Paz in the shade.

(c)Due to this beauty, when the Romans were intimate with their wives they would tie a Jew to the foot of their bed (so that they could look at him and give birth to beautiful children replacing the gold signet-rings containing a beautiful picture that they had previously used for this purpose).

(d)One unknown person quoted to the other that this disgusting plague is hinted in the Pasuk "Gam Kol Choli v'Chol Makah Asher Lo Kasuv ... " (see Agados Maharsha).

(e)When his friend discovered that the Pasuk was in Ki Savo, he responded that had he reached up to there, he would have realized himself that this Pasuk hints at that incident.

3)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel connects with the Pasuk "Eini Olelah l'Nafshi mi'Kol Benos Iyri" the incident where the Romans murdered countless thousands of Cheder children (which we are abut to describe).

(b)He speaks about the four hundred Batei Keneisi'os in Beitar, and in each one four hundred children's Rebbes taught four hundred children each.

(c)When the Romans first entered Beitar the children prodded the enemy soldiers with their sticks.

(d)When the enemy captured the town, they wrapped the children in their Torah-scrolls and set them on fire.

4)

(a)When Rebbi Yehoshua, who was in Rome, heard about a beautiful child who had been taken captive, he stood outside the prison and called out the Pasuk "Mi Nasan li'Meshisah Yakov v'Yisrael l'Boz'zim", at which the child called back "Zeh Hash-m Chatanu Lo, v'Lo Avu bi'Derachav Haloch v'Lo Sham'u b'Toraso".

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua reacted to that by acclaiming the child as a future Torah leader, and promising to redeem him at any cost, which he did.

(c)His efforts did indeed bear fruit because that child become one of the leading Torah luminaries of his generation.

(d)His name was (Rebbi) Yishmael ben Elisha (not the Kohen Gadol Ya'avatz).

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav relates the story of Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha's son and daughter who were captured by two different masters, connecting it to the Pasuk in Eichah "Al Eleh Ani Bochiyah, Eini Eini Yordah Mayim" the two captors came to an agreement that they would pair of their two beautiful slaves and share the babies. However, each of the two siblings, unaware who the other captive was, spent the night in his respective corner, weeping at the mere prospect of a child of the Kohen Gadol defiling the Kehunah by having relations with a slave. In the morning, when they recognized each other, they fell round each another's neck and wept bitterly until they expired.

(b)Reish Lakish tells the story of Tzofnas bas Peniel who was taken captive. She was called ...

1. ... 'Tzofnas' because, due to her beauty, everyone would gaze at her (from 'Tzofeh' to look at or to gaze).

2. ... 'bas Pa'ane'ach' because she was the daughter of the Kohen Gadol, who would go 'Lifnai v'Lifnim' (from 'Mefa'ane'ach', meaning 'hidden').

(c)When, after abusing her all night, her captor offered to sell her to a particularly ugly man, her captor offered her to a particularly ugly man, at whose behest he began to remove her clothes, she asked Hash-m to have pity if, not on Yisrael, at least on His Holy and Mighty Name.

(d)In an obvious reference to this incident, Yirmeyahu declared "bas Ami Chigri Sak, Hispalshi b'Eifer ... Ki Pis'om Yavo ha'Shoded Aleinu" (and not 'Aleichem') because He was echoing the thoughts of Tzofnas, to say that Hash-m's Holy name was being desecrated alongside her honor and that of Klal Yisrael.

6)

(a)He also tells the story of a carpenter's apprentice who took a fancy to his master's wife. When his master once needed to borrow money from him he asked him to send his wife to collect it and he would gladly lend it to him.

(b)When his master came to him three days later looking for his wife (who had spent those three days with the apprentice) he ...

1. ... told him that he had sent her back immediately, but that he believed, some children had abused her after she left.

2. ... advised him to divorce her, and even volunteered to lend him the money to pay her Kesuvah.

(c)What happened next was the final straw that caused the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash the moment his master divorced his wife, the apprentice married her, and then, when the former was unable to repay his loan, the latter forced him to work for him as a servant. The new couple blissfully ate and drank, whilst the former husband, tears streaming down his face, served them.

(d)According to others, what cause the destruction was one woman living with two men to one of whom she was married.

7)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that, if someone purchased a field from a Sikrikun and then from the owner, the purchase is invalid. According to Rav, the sale will be valid, if the owner writes the buyer a Shtar because he would not have gone so far as to write a Shtar, had he not really meant to authenticate the sale.

(b)For the sale to be valid according to Shmuel he would also need to write Acharayus (that he accepts liability should his creditors take it away from him) in the Shtar.

(c)Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa, which states "Lakach ... min ha'Ish, v'Chazar v'Lakach min ha'Ishah, Mekcho Batel ad she'Tichtov Lo Acharayus' by interpreting 'Acharayus' to mean a Shtar (meaning that the fact that he wrote him a Shtar is in itself, an expression of responsibility [that he will not claim the field from him any more]).

8)

(a)The Beraisa states that if someone purchases a field from a Sikrikun and retains it for three years before selling it to someone else, the owner has no claim on the second purchaser. The Tana cannot be speaking when the second purchaser counters the owner by claiming that the first purchaser bought the field from him (as well as from the Sikrikun) because in that case, even the first purchaser would be believed (and it would be obvious that the second one is believed too).

(b)Despite the fact that he does not make such a claim, we nevertheless believe him on the grounds that, in cases such as these, Beis-Din make the claim on his behalf.

(c)We reconcile this Beraisa with those in Bava Basra who hold that Beis-Din do not claim on behalf of the heirs or the purchaser that the man from whom he inherited or purchased the field purchased it in turn, from the owner by stressing that here, it is most unusual for the purchaser not to clinch his sale by buying the field from the owner too (so it is fair to assume that he did).

9)

(a)The Beraisa speaks about a case where the Nochri claimed his field from the owner in lieu of a debt (and not because he was a Sikrikun) or because of Anperus (a Nochri who steals land, but without threatening the owner's life).

(b)The Tana says there that the Din of Sikrikun does not apply, and the purchaser must return the field to the owner free of charge.

(c)In the case of Sikrikun, the additional condition that is required before the purchaser may retain the field is that the field remained with the Sikrikun for at least twelve months before he sold it to the purchaser.

(d)This condition will not extend to the case of the creditor or to Anperus which must be returned to the owner irrespective.

10)

(a)When Rav Yosef says that there is no Anperus in Bavel he means that the Din Anperus does not apply. The purchaser may in fact, retain the land that he bought from the Anperus because there were special (small-claims) courts there that dealt with such claims, and if the owner did not take the Anperus to such a court, we assume that he must have foregone his claim.

(b)The Minhag was for the joint residents of each 'Bik'ah' (area of land containing a number of fields) to pay their property taxes to one of themselves, who would pay to the king's tax-collector on behalf of all of them. If one of the residents was away and had not paid his taxes to the representative the other residents would pay the taxes on his behalf, and they would then divide his field among themselves.

11)

(a)When all the joint owners of his area paid Gidal bar Re'ila'i their taxes he went and paid the tax-collector three years taxes (the difference, out of his own pocket).

(b)The other owners placed the onus of paying on behalf of an owner who had been away for one year, upon Gidal's shoulders, and gave him the right to benefit from his field. When the missing owner returned, he demanded the return of his field (see Tosfos DH 'Anan'), and that he would pay the tax (which would no longer be covered by the tax that the representative paid).

(c)When the representative wished to recoup his losses, Rav Papa ruled that all the owners should be jointly responsible to repay him what he had laid out.

(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua objected on the grounds that it is only by Sikrikun, that the purchaser may reclaim all his losses, but not in our case, where nobody asked him to pay three years taxes in advance. Consequently, Gidal would have to bear the loss himself.

12)

(a)According to the Mishnah Acharonah, assuming that the owner is unable to buy the field back, the purchaser must pay the owner a quarter of the price of the field that he paid to the Sikrikun because the Sikrikunim who obtained the land free of charge in the first place, tended to re-sell it for a quarter less than the market price. Consequently, Chazal required the purchaser to pay the difference to the original owner, so that he should not have gained (a bargain) at the owner's expense.

(b)Rav and Shmuel argue over the meaning of 'a quarter'. Both agree that if he so wishes, he may return a quarter of the field, but they argue over how much he must pay should he decide to pay cash. When ...

1. ... Rav says 'Revi'a b'Karka she'Hu Revi'a b'Ma'os' (according to the text of the Aruch, who also replaces Rav with Rav Huna) he means that if he returns the quarter in the form of land, that will be the equivalent of a quarter of the price that he paid.

2. ... Shmuel says 'Revi'a b'Karka she'Hein Sh'lish b'Ma'os' if he returns the quarter in the form of land, that will be the equivalent of a third of the price that he paid.

(c)The difference between them will manifest itself if the purchaser decides to pay money and not land. The reasoning behind the opinion of ...

1. ... Rav is that the Sikrikun deducted a quarter from the market price of the land (a field worth five quarters of a Manah for one Manah).

2. ... Shmuel is that he deducted a third (a field worth one Manah for three quarters of a Manah).

(d)Rav Ashi reconciles Shmuel with the Beraisa which explicitly states 'Revi'a b'Karka she'Hein Sh'lish b'Ma'os' by explaining 'Sh'lish b'Ma'os to mean a fourth third (i.e. after the three thirds that he paid the Sikrikun).