Explanation: Rabeinu Tam says that the question was only regarding something (forbidden) that a Tzadik would eat, as it is denigrating that a Tzadik would indeed eat a forbidden thing.

This is why the Gemara does not ask this question on the incident where Rebbi Yishmael accidentally was reading and ended up tipping a candle on Shabbos (causing him to accidentally be Mechalel Shabbos, see Shabbos 12b). It also does not ask this question on Yehuda ben Tabai, who (wrongly) killed a witness who was a Zomem (see Chagigah 16b and Makos 2a).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (28b) that states that a slave ended up being promoted (wrongly) as a Kohen is not in the text of the Gemara of Rabeinu Tam. There is a text that a woman and her sons wrongly ate Terumah (when they were forbidden to do so, based on the mistake of a Torah scholar).

Answer: Even so, being that the Torah scholar himself did not eat this forbidden food, there is no reason to ask the question.

Implied Question: Rav Yirmiya bar Aba mistakenly tasted something before Havdalah (Pesachim 106b). However, the Gemara (Pesachim 105a) says that someone who does so dies by choking (i.e. not having enough air). Similarly, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (21a) says that one year the people of Bavel had tasty cooked dishes on Yom Kippur (because they did not realize that Yom Kippur was actually on that day). (Note: How could Tzadikim have eaten before Havdalah and on Yom Kipur according to this rule?)

Answer: It is not so denigrating for someone to eat permitted foods at a time when it is forbidden to eat them.

Explanation: In the Gemara in Zevachim (115b), the Gemara understands the word "Dom" differently when interpreting the Pasuk "va'Yidom Aharon." The Gemara there understands that even though he killed some of you, you should remain quiet. (Note: Tosfos means that the Gemara there discusses Aharon's sons being killed in the context of this Pasuk. The Gemara there means one should be quiet and not protest that Hash-m has allowed some of his people to be killed, as opposed to the context of our Gemara which is that if one trusts in Hash-m and is quiet, Hash-m will eliminate his enemies.)

Implied Question: How does the Gemara extrapolate this teaching from the Pasuk?

Answer: The Gemara understands that the connotation of the word "Dom" is also the rays of the sun. (Note: This is why it can refer (approximately) to times when the sun rises and sets.)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (93a) says that if someone gives over his judgement on someone else to Hash-m (so that Hash-m should punish the person), he gets punished first. (Note: If so, why is the Gemara seemingly endorsing that one should ask Hash-m to kill out his enemies?)

Answer #1: The Gemara there (ibid.) says that this is only if there is a judge on earth who can take care of the matter instead.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it means that one should wake up early to the Beis Medrash to learn Torah. (Note: While we have this ("l'Beis ha'Medrash") as the text in our Gemara, the Maharsha points out that it is clear from Tosfos' answer that this did not appear in the text of Tosfos.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is referring to singing in places where drinks are served.

This is also implied from the question, "Why not send from the Pasuk, "With song they should not drink wine?" In Sotah (48a) the Mishnah states that when Sanhedrin stopped the song stopped in the houses where drinks were served, as the Pasuk says, "With song they should not drink wine."

It is appropriate to be stringent as well regarding the case of the Yerushalmi of someone who wakes up and goes to sleep to music, as this is a particular pleasure.

A song of Mitzvah is permitted. For example, during a wedding ceremony it is permitted to sing in order to make the groom and bride happy.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is talking about a real crown.

Question: This does not appear correct. The Gemara in Sotah (49b) says about this crown that it is only if it was made from rose and myrtle branches, but if it was made out of different kinds of reeds it is permitted. However, it is not normal to make a crown out of reeds. (Note: Accordingly, Rashi's translation that it is referring to a real crown seems erroneous.)

Opinion: Rather, this is referring to "crowns" that are made like a dome. When it says, "on the head of every man," it does not mean literally on their head, but rather something that was placed above their head (like a canopy).

In Midos (36a), the Mishnah discusses the "crowns of the windows." The Gaonim explained that this is referring to golden canopies that are made by windows. This is not like the plate of gold (a piece of jewelry) mentioned in Shabbos (59b), where it says that many people wearing this type of jewelry went out in Naharda.

They only forbade this for grooms, like the parallel "crown of brides" that was forbidden. The Gemara in Sotah (49b) explains that this referred to a type of jewelry known as "a city of gold."

Implied Question: In Shabbos (57a), the Mishnah said that a woman should not go out on Shabbos with "a city of gold." This implies that during the week she was permitted to do so!

Answer: Only grooms and brides were forbidden to use these things because it promoted more happiness than deemed appropriate (after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash). This is as the Gemara says in Bava Basra (60a), that this (the Pasuk "Al Rosh Simchasi") refers to the ashes that are placed on the head of the groom (so as to remember the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash).

Implied Question: Why is the Gemara singling out the Kohen Gadol? Didn't the other Kohanim also wear a hat?

Answer: The regular Kohen's hat was called a "Migba'as," as the Pasuk states, "and you will make for them belts and "Migba'os" - "hats" (Shemos 28:40).

Implied Question: Why was the hat of the Kohen Gadol called a "Mitznefes" while the hat of the Kohen Hedyot (regular Kohen) was called a "Migba'as?"

Answer #1: The Riva explains that the Kohen Hedyot did not have to wear a Tzitz. He therefore had a larger hat called a Migba'as. However, the Kohen Gadol (who did wear the Tzitz) had a small hat called a Mitznefes.

Answer #2: However, the Ri says that we find that the Gemara will use the term "Mitznefes" to refer to the hat of a Kohen Hedyot as well. This is apparent in Yoma (25a), where the Gemara says that he took the "Mitznefes" of one of them (and it is discussing regular Kohanim).

Even if the terms could be applied equally, it is understandable that the Gemara here emphasizes the head of the Kohen Gadol, as the prohibition only applies to grooms as we explained (see previous Tosfos). A groom is (somewhat) similar to a Kohen Gadol, who is the head (of the Kohanim) and a person of special position amongst Bnei Yisrael.

Observation: We do not have the text "and his right," as being that he is traveling from Acco to Kziv, his right will always be to the east of the road.

However, (it is possible to defend this text by saying) sometimes the road twists and his right is not to the east.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara is asking, is one strip something that the Gemara will make a sign for?

Question #1: This explanation is difficult. Should the Tana refrain from defining the borders of Eretz Yisrael (because in one place it is only a strip)?

Question #2: Additionally, what proof is being brought from Rav Papa who says that the Pasuk was telling us about something that was east of a strip? There, the Pasuk was defining where Shilo was, and it therefore said that it was east of a certain strip. (Note: The point was not to define the location of the strip itself.)

Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that according to Rashi, the Gemara is not asking a question on the answer but rather on the Beraisa itself. The Beraisa said that "to the east of the road...to the west of the road etc." Why did the Beraisa trouble itself to discuss the laws of something small like a road, and what lies to the east and west of it? It should have merely said, "from his right to the east" (without discussing the road).

The Gemara answers by quoting Rav Papa, who showed that the Pasuk itself deals with directions by saying that it (Shilo) was "to the east of the path" (not just to the east).

Implied Question: The floor of the water is like Eretz Yisrael (so why is this considered like Chutz la'Aretz)?

Answer: It is worse than the cities that are swallowed in the boundary of Eretz Yisrael (where one still has to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.).

Question: What does a Get have to do with Ma'aser? Is someone who brings a Get to an attic in Eretz Yisrael considered as if he is bringing it to Chutz la'Aretz because any earth present in the attic that came from Chutz la'Aretz is exempt from Ma'aser?

Answer: The Ri states that this is incomparable. The ground under the attic can be planted and whatever would grow would be obligated in Ma'aser and Shevi'is. This is as opposed to the area underneath the boat.

Explanation: This implies that when Rebbi Yehudah says, "Aimasai" - "when" he is arguing on the Tana Kama.

Question: In Eiruvin (81b) and Sanhedrin (24b), Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that whenever Rebbi Yehudah says, "Aimasai" and "Bameh" he is explaining (the previous opinion). Rebbi Yochanan says that when he says "Aimasai" he is explaining, and when he says "Bameh" he is arguing. This means that according to everyone, when Rebbi Yehudah says "Aimasai" he is merely explaining (not as stated above).

Answer #1: Rebbi Yirmiyah here must hold like Rami bar Chama who holds in Sanhedrin (25a) that even "Aimasai" is coming to argue.

Observation: According to the above answer, we cannot have the text in our Gemara that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who says that a pot with a hole that is placed on pegs brings us to the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan, as some Gemaros have. Being that Rebbi Yochanan holds that when Rebbi Yehudah says "Aimasai" he is explaining, he obviously holds there is no argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan! It must be the text is "Rav Huna says." Some say the text is "Rebbi Zeira says," as is indeed the text in most Gemaros.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it appears that the correct text is like the Gemaros that have the text in Eiruvin (81b) that whenever Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah the terms "Aimasai" or "Bameh," only when he says this in a Mishnah is he explaining. When he says this in a Beraisa, he is arguing. There are two opinions in the Tanaim regarding what Rebbi Yehudah is saying (as explained below).

Our Gemara is indeed quoting a Beraisa. The similar Mishnah is Meseches Chalah (2:2) does not end, "But if the boat is not dragging in shallow water it is exempt," as does the quote in our Gemara. Even if we will say that in the Mishnah in Chalah (ibid.) Rebbi Yehudah is coming to explain the Mishnah, in the Beraisa in our Gemara he is coming to argue on the Tana Kama.

Question: However, this is difficult. In Eiruvin (81b) and Sanhedrin (24b), the Gemara asks from the Beraisa that says, "And the Chachamim say." It is apparent from the Beraisa that in the Mishnah (both are discussing a different subject than that of our Gemara) Rebbi Yehudah must be coming to argue! (Note: Why didn't the Gemara just say that this is not possible, as Rebbi Yehudah never argues when saying "Aimasai" etc.?)

Answer: The Gemara in fact could have answered that the Tana there was a different Tana, as whenever Rebbi Yehudah appears in our Mishnah and says these words he is explaining, not arguing. However, being that it found a different Tana that matched the opinion attributed to Rebbi Yehudah, it merely answered that the Tana was in fact Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Tarfon, as indicated by a Beraisa where Rebbi Tarfon espoused this view.

Proof (to (e): It indeed must be that only when Rebbi Yehudah says "Aimasai" in a Mishnah he is he explaining the previous opinion. In Chulin (88a), the Beraisa states, "And he will cover it" (Vayikra 17:13). This teaches us that one must cover all of the blood. From here they extrapolated that blood that squirts...Rebbi Yehuda said "Aimasai" when there is no other blood." Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is explained there that he holds that "its blood" (ibid.) means even a little blood. This means that he is clearly arguing on the Tana Kama, who says explicitly that all of the blood must be covered!

Rabeinu Tam there rules like Rebbi Yehudah, as in the Mishnah he is coming to explain.

However, perhaps the Rabbanan of the Beraisa are the main opinion, and Rebbi Yehudah from the Mishnah is a minority opinion versus the majority opinion of the Beraisa. A similar thing is noted in the Gemara in Sukah (14a).

Explanation: Rashi explains that the boat referred to earlier is made of earthenware, and does not need to have a hole if it was placed on the ground, as stated in Menachos. However, a wooden pot needs to have a hole.

Proof: His proof appears to be from a Gemara in Menachos (84b). One Tana says that if the Bikurim were grown on a roof, ruin, boat, and pot he should bring it as Bikurim and read Mikra Bikurim. Another Tana in the same cases says that he should bring the Bikurim, but not read Mikra Bikurim. The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction between the Beraisos in the case of the potted plants, as they agree that one may read if the pot had a hole and one may not if it did not. They are also not arguing in the boat cases, as one is where the boat was made out of wood while one was where it was made out earthenware.

Being that the Gemara did not answer regarding the boats that one Beraisa is discussing where the boat had a hole and one is where the boat did not have a hole, the implication is that even if earthenware does not have a hole it is like it has a hole. The Beraisa wants to tell us a different novelty regarding boats that does not apply to pots (which is why it gave the case of the pots).

Question: There is a difficulty according to his explanation. The Gemara later (21b) says that if they wrote a Get on an earthenware pot that had a hole, it is a kosher Get. This implies that earthenware indeed must have a hole to be considered connected to the ground. If not, what is the extra aspect of the case that it "has a hole" more than if it did not have a hole? It also implies that the pot is made out of earthenware.

Rabeinu Shmuel ben Meir quoted from the Tosefta in Shevi'is that said that if someone puts a scallion in the ground on Shevi'is, Rebbi Meir says that he should put it in a pot so that it should not grow. Even though there is no proof to this there is somewhat of a remembrance, "and you will put it in an earthenware vessel." This implies that the term "Atzitz" - "pot" generally means an earthenware pot.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam understands the opposite of Rashi, that an earthenware pot would need to have a hole while a wooden pot would not, as it gets dirtier than an earthenware pot. The Beraisa now is understandable, as the term "Sefinah" - "boat" generally means a wooden boat.

This is also apparent from the Gemara in Menachos (84b), as it says, "one case is regarding wood, the other is regarding earthenware." It first writes regarding the case where a person both brings Bikurim and reads Mikra Bikurim, just as it writes in this order when it answers the questions from the roof, ruin, and pot.

Implied Question: Here the Gemara cannot answer that one is talking about earthenware and one about wood, or one has a hole and one does not as answered there (in Menachos 84b). (Note: Why not?)

Answer: While it is true that according to Rebbi Yehuda, because it is Chutz la'Aretz in regards to Ma'aser it is also Chutz la'Aretz regarding a Get, this is because the place is called Chutz la'Aretz. Accordingly, one must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. just as in all places called Chutz la'Aretz, even if the people there are commonly found or learned (see 6a), in order not to differentiate among different places in Chutz la'Aretz.

However, in the case of a boat that is dragging in shallow water according to Rebbi Yehudah, or even if it is in deep water according to the Rabbanan, being that the place itself is deemed to be part of Eretz Yisrael even though the vessel itself does not contribute to this status, it should not be considered like Chutz la'Aretz regarding the giving of a Get.

Explanation: This is the truth. A potted plant (with a hole) can be considered connected to the ground. Later (37a), the Gemara says that a Pruzbul can only be written on (i.e. when the borrower owns) a potted plant with a hole. The Gemara there establishes that the case is when the potted plant is placed on pegs.

Implied Question: The Gemara here says that the Rabbanan only stated this by a boat, implying that they do not agree that a potted plant would be considered connected to the ground. (Note: Do they indeed argue?)

Answer: This is just a way the Gemara has to push off the question (but the answer is not concrete).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (81b) says that if someone takes a potted plant that is on the ground and moves it atop pegs, he is liable for pulling something out of the ground on Shabbos. (Note: This implies that a plant with a hole on pegs is no longer considered attached to the ground, unlike the implication of the Gemara later (37a).)

Answer: This Gemara in Shabbos (81a) is only speaking out Rabbinic liability for transgressing Shabbos, not a Torah prohibition, as explained there by Rashi.