1)

(a)The Beraisa cites Yehudah ben Shamua and his colleagues, who went to ask advice from an aristocratic Roman woman who was familiar with all the great men of Rome - concerning the decrees to negate Torah-study, Bris Milah and Shabbos (see Agados Maharsha).

(b)She advised them - to stage a demonstration at night in all the public places (to evoke the mercy of the Roman dignitaries).

(c)They cried out 'For the sake of Hash-m, are we not your brothers, children of the same father and mother? In what way are we different than all the other nations, that you issue harsh decrees against us?'

2)

(a)On the twenty-eighth of Adar they received the good news - that their efforts had paid off, and that the decrees had been abolished.

(b)The Chachamim subsequently - inserted that date in Megilas Ta'anis.

(c)Rav Tuvi bar Masna asks the same Kashya on Rav as we asked above (if the old dates in Megilas Ta'anis became obsolete, how could they now add new ones to the list?). We cannot however, answer that this Beraisa speaks in the time of the Beis Hamikdash (like we answered there) - because Yehudah ben Shamua was a disciple of Rebbi Meir, who lived after the time of the Churban.

(d)To prove the point, Raban Gamliel quotes Yehudah ben Shamua in the name of Rebbi Meir, who renders glass vessels which became holed, and which were stopped-up with lead, Tamei. His reason for this is - because he goes after the 'Ma'amid' (that what holds the vessel together (in this case, the lead).

3)

(a)In the event that Yehudah ben Shamua is speaking about ...

1. ... Tum'ah Yeshanah - he means that the moment they are stopped up with lead, they regain the original Tum'ah that they lost when they became holed (even though, glass vessels that are repaired with glass are not subject to Tum'ah Yeshanah).

2. ... the original Din of Tum'ah - then he is saying that, even though glass vessels are only subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, the vessels under discussion are Tamei mid'Oraisa, like all metal vessels.

(b)Either way, the Chachamim go after the chief material of which the vessel is made (glass, in this case) and not after the Ma'amid.

(c)Consequently, in a case of ...

1. ... Tum'ah Yeshanah, the vessels will not regain their Tum'ah at all.

2. ... the original Tum'ah - they are only subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.

4)

(a)We resolve the Kashya on Rav from the Tana of the Beraisa that we just learned, who added a new Yom-Tov to the list (even though we learned earlier that Megilas Ta'anis became obsolete) - by pointing to a Machlokes Tana'im, and that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Meir, who holds that Megilas Ta'anis did not become Batel (and one is forbidden to fast on all the days mentioned there even today ...

(b)... whereas the author of the earlier Beraisa, who holds that Megilas Ta'anis became obsolete - is Rebbi Yosi. (and Rav holds like Rebbi Meir).

(c)Rebbi Yosi's reason is - because with the destruction of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, the inherent joy in those days turned into mourning.

(d)When we conclude 've'Hilchesa Batlu, v'Hilchesa Lo Batlu' - we mean that, all the Yamim-Tovim mentioned in Megilas Ta'anis became obsolete, with the exceptions of Chanukah and Purim are exceptions, and still apply today.

5)

(a)We ask why it was necessary for the Sheluchim to go out in Tishrei - seeing as a. they had already gone out in Av, so that everybody knew when Rosh Chodesh Elul had been, and b. based on a statement in the name of Rav (who said that, since the time of Ezra, it had never happened that Elul had been full, they could safely assume that Elul would be a short month)?

(b)They nevertheless went out in Tishrei - because the only reason that Elul had not been declared a full month since the days of Ezra was because it was not necessary to do so; but should it ever be necessary, the Chachamim had the authority to do it (indeed, we see that it happened twice after the time of Rav - [see 21a.]).

(c)They would declare Elul a full month to protect the proper observance of the other Yamim-Tovim, even if it meant throwing the Rosh Hashanah of the Bnei Golah out of gear - because the proper observance of three Yamim-Tovim (Yom-Kippur, Sukos and Shemini Atzeres) take precedence over that of one.

(d)We prove this answer from our Mishnah - which writes 'Al Tishrei Mipnei Takanas ha'Mo'ados', from which we see that Chazal were more concerned about the collection of Mo'ados than about Rosh Hashanah alone.

6)

(a)The author of our Mishnah (which does not mention anything about going out in Adar Sheni) cannot be Rebbi - who says that if they declared a leap-year, the Sheluchim would go out in Adar Sheni, too.

(b)Initially - we explain that according to the Chachamim, if the Chachamim fix a leap-year after Purim has already been celebrated, one has fulfilled all the Mitzvos of Purim (and it is therefore not necessary to celebrate Purim again); whereas Rebbi holds that one is obligated to celebrate Purim in Adar Sheni, and not in Adar Rishon, in which case, the Sheluchim need to go out for Adar Sheni.

7)

(a)We conclude that, in fact, even the Chachamim agree that in a leap-year, someone who observes Purim in Adar Rishon is not Yotzei, and we connect their Machlokes to that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tana Kama. The Tana Kama says there that, in a leap-year, the extra Adar (i.e. Rishon) is thirty days - whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is 'a Chodesh' (consisting of twenty-nine days).

(b)If we take the Tana Kama's opinion at surface value, it will be impossible to connect that Machlokes with that of Rebbi and the Chachamim - because just as, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know to add two days (because of the leap year), so too, according to the Tana Kama, we know that we have to add one. Consequently, according to which Tana will Rebbi require the Sheluchim to go out for Adar Sheni?

(c)Consequently, when the Tana Kama says 'Chodesh' - he must mean that Adar Sheni may consist of twenty-nine days, should the Beis-Din wish (but not to preclude the thirty days of the Tana Kama).

(d)So Rav Papa finally establishes Rebbi's statement - to conform with the opinion of the Tana Kama; since it is impossible for the people in the Golah to know whether Adar Sheni would be full or short, the Sheluchim had to go out in Adar Sheni too; whereas the Chachamim hold like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, in whose opinion Adar Sheni was always short. Consequently, it was not necessary to go out in Adar Sheni.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the Holy Kehilah of Yerushalayim that one sanctifies both Adarim on the day of their 'Ibur' - i.e. on the thirtieth of Adar (which means that both Adarim are short months).

(b)This comes to preclude from the opinion of Rav Nachman bar Chisda, quoting Rebbi Sima'i in the name of Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi, who said that any computation of the two Adarim is possible, except for - the first one full and the second, lacking.

(c)And that they said, was the Minhag in Bavel. However Rabeinu (Rav) is quoted as saying that - in Bavel, unless one knew that the Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael also fixed the first Adar as a short month, they should treat it as a full month and the second Adar, as a short one (like Rav Nachman bar Chisda).

9)

(a)The same ruling was sent to Mar Ukva.

(b)Rav Nachman however, queried this from the Mishnah later (which rules that the witnesses were even permitted to desecrate the Shabbos, if necessary, in the months of Nisan and Tishrei). Now if Adar Sheni was always twenty-nine days, on what grounds was the desecration of Shabbos permitted?

(c)We answer - that the desecration of Shabbos was not just so as to ascertain which day will be Rosh Chodesh - but also because of the Mitzvah to declare Rosh Chodesh through the sighting of the new moon (even if they knew anyway when Rosh Chodesh was due to fall (as we shall see later).

10)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman proves the ruling sent to Mar Ukva from the same Mishnah that he queries it in the first Lashon. If Adar Sheni could be full, asks the Gemara - why should the witnesses be permitted to desecrate Shabbos for Rosh Chodesh Nisan? Seeing as the Beis-Din have the option of fixing whichever day they see fit - let the witnesses rather come on the following day, and let them fix Rosh Chodesh then?

(b)To refute this proof - we establish the Mishnah when the new moon was not seen until the thirty-first day, when Beis-Din cannot postpone Rosh Chodesh, and when the witnesses have to come to Beis-Din, because of the Mitzvah to sanctify Rosh Chodesh according to the sighting of the witnesses.