1)

(a)We cite a Beraisa to prove that Rebbi Yossi does indeed hold that T'rumah nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan. The Tana there discusses 'Isah she'Nidme'ah O she'Nischamtzah'. 'Isah she'Nidme'ah' is - a dough into which there fell a piece of T'rumah-dough (more than a hundredth, which is not therefore Bateil, even mi'd'Oraysa) and they combined.

(b)According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, it is Chayav Chalah (and does not become Pasul through contact with a T'vul-Yom). Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon rule that it is exempt from Chalah.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether Chalah nowadays is min ha'Torah (Rebbi Meir ... ) or mi'de'Rabbanan (Rebbi Yossi ... who therefore hold that the Dimu'a [the mixture of the T'rumah] exempts the entire dough from T'rumah).

(d)Rebbi Yossi must hold that it is mi'de'Rabbanan - because otherwise, how could the Dimu'a (which is only mi'de'Rabbanan, since min ha'Torah, one in two is Bateil), exempt the dough from Chalah.

(e)And we initially assume that Chalah and T'rumah share the same status; consequently, seeing as Rebbi Yossi holds that Chalah nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan, T'rumah must be mi'de'Rabbanan too.

2)

(a)We refute this proof however - inasmuch as Rebbi Yossi may well hold that even though Chalah is mi'de'Rabbanan, T'rumah is min ha'Torah.

(b)And we base this on a statement by Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, whom the Rabbanan tried to convince, that even those who maintain that T'rumah nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan, will agree that Chalah is min ha'Torah - from the accepted fact that they kept the Dinim of Chalah during the seven years of conquest and the seven years of distribution of Eretz Yisrael (even though T'rumos and Ma'asros only came into effect afterwards).

(c)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however, replied that to the contrary - even those who hold that T'rumah nowadays is min ha'Torah, will agree that Chalah is mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)And he extrapolated that Chalah nowadays must be mi'de'Rabbanan from the Pasuk (in connection with Chalah) "be'Vo'achem el ha'Aretz" - implying that all of K'lal Yisrael must enter Eretz Yisrael for the Chiyuv Chalah min ha'Torah to come into effect ...

(e)... in which case Chalah nowadays must be mi'de'Rabbanan - since, when Ezra returned from Bavel, many Jews remained in Bavel.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah, describing the three stages of development in a young girl's body, refer to them as 'Pagah, Bochel and Tzemel' - a fig in its stages of budding, turning into a fruit and ripening respectively.

(b)Correspondingly ...

1. ... 'Pagah' refers to - when the girl is still a Ketanah (where no sign of maturity is yet visible, neither in her breasts nor in her pubic hair);

2. ... 'Bochel refers to - Na'arus, where her breasts have begun to mature and her pubic hair is already growing. Whereas ...

3. ... Tzemel refers to - Bagrus, when the third stage of maturity is complete, as we will explain shortly.

(c)The first two stages share the same Din - inasmuch as in both cases, the girl's father acquires whatever she finds and the work of her hands.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - that as long a girl is a Na'arah, she is in her father's domain regarding the above (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, the Si'man (of Tzemel [Bagrus] see Also Tosfos DH 'Eizehu Si'manehah') is when a fold appears in the skin underneath her breasts. Rebbi Akiva says - it is a short time after that (when the breasts sag a little).

(b)ben Azai maintains that it is when the crest of her breasts become dark. According to Rebbi Yossi, it is - when one is able to press the nipple in and it stays there for a moment before returning to its place.

(c)The stage of 'Pagah' in figs is based on the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim - "ha'Te'einah Chantah Pagehah".

5)

(a)The term 'Bochel' is based on a Mishnah in Ma'asros 'ha'Te'einim mi'she'Yibacheilu' - which comes to teach us the stage at when figs become subject to Ma'asros.

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rav defines that as - when the tops turn white (pale green, as opposed to dark green).

(c)Alternatively, it is based on the Pasuk in Zecharyah "vaTiktzar Nafshi bahem, ve'Gam Nafsham Bachalah bahem" - in which Hash-m is expressing his loathing of Achav and his family, who loomed large in His eyes (and this is indeed how someone appears in the eyes of a person who finds him repulsive).

(d)'Tzemel' is the acronym of - 'Yatz'sah Melei'ah'.

6)

(a)Shmuel qualifies the fold in the skin required by Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili as a Si'man of Bagrus - by restricting it to where she places her hands behind her back, when it conveys the impression that there is a fold.

(b)Shmuel first put the matter to the test. He ...

1. ... did so - by examining his maidservant.

2. ... compensated the maidservant for the embarrassment - by paying her four Zuzim.

(c)In fact, we explain, Shmuel follows his own reasoning elsewhere. From the Pasuk in B'har "Le'olam bahem Ta'avodu" he learns - that slaves are for working with, but may not be embarrassed.

(d)Based on the same ruling, he used to mate each of his maidservants with one of his slaves, so as not to embarrass her (see Ya'avatz); whereas Rav ...

1. ... Rav Nachman used to - allow his slaves and maidservants to live together freely.

2. ... Rav Sheishes, who went still further, used to hand them to Arabs (who are known to be highly promiscuous). He would warn them however, to keep away from Yisre'elim.

7)

(a)In addition to the opinions cited in our Mishnah, Tana'im argue in a Beraisa over the Si'man of Bagrus (or Na'arus). Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok gives it as when her breasts have become large. We object to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's initial definition that the 'Rosh ha'Chotem' (the area surrounding the Pitomes) becomes dark, on the grounds that - this is a sign of old age, not of Na'arus or Bagrus.

(b)So we amend it to - when the Rosh ha'Chotem begins to crease (giving the appearance of splitting).

(c)When Rebbi Yossi says 'mi'she'Takif ha'Atarah', he means that the nipple becomes hard (just as he explained in our Mishnah).

(d)Finally, Rebbi Shimon gives the Si'man as when the Kaf (which we will define shortly) becomes soft.

8)

(a)In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon links the three Simanim of a girl below to the three Simanim above (see Aruch la'Ner). According to him ...

1. ... Pagah mi'Lema'alah indicates - that two pubic hairs have not yet grown.

2. ... Bochel mi'Lema'alah demonstrates - that they have.

3. ... Tzemel mi'Lema'alah proves - that her 'Kaf' has become soft.

(b)Rav Huna defines the 'Kaf' as - an apple-like piece of flesh just above the uterus.

(c)When Rebbi was asked like whom is the Halachah, he replied - like all the opinions le'Hachmir.

(d)The ramifications of this ruling are that the moment any one of the Simanim appear, her father may no longer nullify her vows. Alternatively, it refers to - where her father and herself both accepted Kidushin from a different man. According to Rebbi's ruling, she will now require a Get from each one (before being permitted to marry someone else).

(e)It cannot be referring to no longer being able to perform Miy'un or Chalitzah - because that depends on Simnei Na'arus, whereas we are talking about Simnei Bagrus, as we explained above (though according to Tosfos, this will not be the case).

9)

(a)We also cite a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the definition of a Chatzer Tzuris cited by Rebbi Shimon, inside which vessels are guarded. It is important to know that - because bringing the crops into a Chatzer obligates the owner to separate Ma'asros.

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan describes it as a Chatzer with a guard at the gate (since that is what they used to do in Tzur). Rebbi Akiva rules that - as long as there is no fixed guard to open and to close the gates (i.e. Reuven opens them and Shimon closes them) the crops remain Patur from Ma'asros.

(c)Rebbi Nechemyah defines a Chatzer that is Chayav, as one in which a person is not embarrassed to eat (due the privacy that prevails there). Rebbi Yossi defines a Chatzer that is Patur from Ma'asros as - a Chatzer where one is able to gain entry unchallenged.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah defines one that is Chayav as one Chatzer inside another - the inside one is Chayav, the other one - Patur.

(e)We cite this Beraisa here - because Rav Papa and Rav Chin'na b'rei de'Rav Ika each stated that Rebbi ruled like all the stated opinions Lechachmir, one of them with reference to our case of Simnei Bagrus, the other, with reference to 'Chatzar Tzuris'.

10)

(a)When a twenty-year old ...

1. ... woman who does not have Simanei Gadlus brings witnesses that she is indeed twenty - she is declared an Aylonis (who cannot have children), and is therefore Patur from Yibum and Chalitzah (since she is precluded via the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "Vehayah ha'Bechor asher Teiled").

2. ... man who does not have Simanei Gadlus brings witnesses that he is twenty - he too, is Patur from having to perform Yibum or Chalitzah (on account of the Pasuk there "Lehakim le'Achiv Shem", which he is incapable of doing).

(b)This is the opinion of Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai - considers them an Aylonis and a Saris respecctively already at eighteen.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer makes a compromise - agreeing with Beis Hillel regarding a man, and with Beis Shamai, regarding a woman ...

(d)... because he extends the year that a regular girl precedes a boy in attaining maturity to a Saris.

11)

(a)When the Beraisa compares a nine year-old boy and a man of twenty who does not have Simanim, it means - that, in the case of a Yavam and Yevamah, their Bi'ah has the same Din as the Ma'amar of a Gadol (because the latter too, is considered a Katan).

(b)Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak Amar Rav reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah, which considers a twenty year-old who has not brought Simanim a Gadol and a Saris - by establishing the latter when he has also developed the Simanim of a Saris ...

(c)... in that his flesh does not emit steam when he bathes, his hair is matted and his skin is smooth (without any hair).

(d)Rava cites the Mishnah's conclusion 've'hu Saris' - as proof for Rav's statement.

12)

(a)The Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya considers a man without Simanei Gadlus, a Saris - once he passes the of thirty-five (the majority of a man's regular life-span at that time).

(b)When faced with a case of a twenty-year old who possessed neither Simanei Gadlus nor Simanei Saris, Rebbi Chiya (or Rava) used to ask for a strong boy to be weakened, and a weak boy to be strengthened (and then to see whether the Simanei Gadlus would not grow) ...

(c)... because sometimes the failure of Simanei Gadlus to appear is caused by strength and sometimes, by weakness.

13)

(a)When Rav says that all the ages mentioned by the Tana in this Perek are 'Me'es Le'es', he means - that they must be complete years (from second to second [unlike the years that pertain to dates, which end with the advent of Rosh Hashanah, see Rashash).

(b)Ula agrees with that - wherever the Tana specifically states 've'Yom Echad', but not where he omits it i.e. our current Mishnah, which says 'bas Esrim Shanah she'Lo Hevi'ah Sh'tei Sa'aros ... ' ...

(c)... creating a problem for Rav (as to why the Tana draws this distinction).

14)

(a)We also query him from Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar in the name of Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, who specifically states - that the twenty years of a Saris and an Aylonis mentioned by the Tana refer to thirty days after they turn nineteen.

(b)We reconcile this with Rebbi, who issued the same ruling in Lod regarding the eighteen year of a Saris and of an Aylonis - by establishing it according to Beis Shamai (in our Mishnah), and Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, like Beis Hillel.

(c)Rav will reconcile his opinion with this Beraisa - by establishing a Machlokes Tana'im.

(d)And he cites a Beraisa to support that, where the Tana states - that the year the Torah mentions in connection with Kodshim and Batei Arei Chomah, the two years of Sadeh Achuzah, the six years of Eved Ivri and the year of 'Ben' and 'Bas' (which will be explained shortly) - are all Me'es Le'es.

15)

(a)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the 'Vav' of ...

1. ... "Shenaso", in the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban of a Yoledes) "Keves ben Shenaso le'Olah" - that with regard to Kodshim, we go after the year of the animal (Me'es Le'es) and not after the calendar year, and he learns the same thing from the extra 'Vav' in the word ...

2. ... "Mimkaro", in the Pasuk in B'har "ad Tom Sh'nas Mimkaro" with regard to Batei Arei Chomah.

(b)And he arrives at the same conclusion regarding ...

1. ... the two years of Sadeh Achuzah, based on the Pasuk in B'har "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor lach"- since on the one hand, "Sh'nei" (plural) implies two produces, whereas Tevu'os" implies any mount of produces, even three (which is possible in a case where the purchaser received a field in Elul with the produce fully grown, and which the seller redeems two Elluls and two additional produces later.

2. ... the six years of Eved Ivri from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod, u'va'Shevi'is ... ", which (based on the juxtaposition of "u'va'Shevi'is" to the previous phrase) implies - that the Eved Ivri works in the seventh year as well (if for example, he was sold in Nisan, and worked six full years, but part of the seventh calendar years, which began with the advent of the last Rosh Hashanah.