Implied Question: Why does the Tana in the first Perek of Avos (Mishnah 3) say 'Don't be like Avadim who serve their master in order to receive a reward!'?

Answer: That speaks with regard to the nations of the world who regret what they did (if their request is not met [See Mesores ha'Shas]).

Implied Question: This Pasuk is written in the first letter of Koresh, as it states in Seifer Ezra when Daryavesh commanded an inquiry into their needs ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes there (in chapter 6) "Then Daryavesh the king issued a decree and they searched in the library where the archives were stored ... ".

Answer: Nevertheless since it was in accordance with this letter that he commanded them to build, the Gemara is justified in extrapolating that he went off.

Question: The Kashya remains however, from the earlier Pesukim (in chapter 4) where, after stating that "At the beginning of the reign of Achashverosh, they wrote a calumny against inhabitants of ...Yerushalayim", the Pasuk writes that " ... the work on the House of Hash-m in Yerushalayim was stopped, until the second year of Daryavesh, King of Persia".

Question (cont.): And the Pesukim of the prophesy of Chagai where they count for him from Nisan are written in the second year of Daryavesh's reign ..

Question (cont.): As well as many other cases that are not mentioned here

Question (concl.): So we see that they counted for him from Nisan even though he had already gone off?

Answer: Perhaps they were unaware of the fact that he had gone off until later.

Clarification: The Gemara does not learn this from a Pasuk, only from tradition.

Clarification: This Pasuk was said in the seventh year of the king, after Ezra went up from Bavel.

Clarification: Our Mishnah which gives Nisan as the Rosh ha'Shanah for Regalim, is Rebbi Shimon, and so the Gemara will say later (on Daf 7:).

Clarification: Both Chermi Gavohah and Chermei Kohanim.

Halachah: Rabeinu Tam Paskens that Tzedakah that one promises to give to the Gabai are subject to Bal Te'acher in the event that one does not hand them over to him.

Halachah (cont.): But what a person promises to give privately when it suits him is not subject to Bal Te'acher.

Implied Question: When Rava says later (on Daf 6.) that one is Chayav on Tzedakah immediately ...

Answer: That speaks where there are poor people available, but where there are not, one is not obligated go looking for them as long as three Yamim-Tovim have not passed.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'P'shita?' and answers that we would otherwise have thought that, seeing as it is written in the Parshah of Korbanos, one is not Chayav until three Yamim-Tovim have passed - like by Korbanos,

Answer: That speaks (even) where there are poor people available.

Refuted Suggestion: We cannot explain that when the Gemara says that one transgresses immediately it means that one transgresses an Asei ...

Refutation: Because the Gemara ought then to have said that one transgresses after one Yom-Tov has passed, as is the Din regarding a Korban.

Clarification: This incorporates Ma'aser Sheini and Ma'aser Ani.

Implied Question: And when the Torah fixes for them a time of Biy'ur, as the Pasuk in Devarim (chapter 14) writes "At the end of three years you shall take out ...", and as we learned in Ma'aser Sheini (Perek 5, Mishnah 6) ///

Answer #1: That speaks where the owner did not yet separate Ma'asros, which he now becomes Chayav to do, provided that is, that the crops have reached the stage of Ma'aser, as the Mishnah there explains.

Answer (cont.): And as long as he has not separated the Ma'asros, he is not Chayav on Bal Te'acher; but once he has separated them, he is Chavav even if they have not yet reached the time of Biy'ur.

Proof: Later we Darshen two Pesukim for all the cases in the Beraisa, one where he has designated them but has not yet separated them, the other, where he has separated, but not yet brought them ...

Proof (cont.): Whereas for Ma'asros, the Gemara finds only one Pasuk.

Answer #2: The case (of Biy'ur) speaks where the Miru'ach (the flattening) of the pile was performed between the Yom-Tov and the time of Biy'ur.

Proof: Since it is obvious that as long as the Miru'ach has not taken place, one is not Chayav anything.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, even if one is, the Pasuk of Biy'ur comes to render one Chayav on two La'avin.

Precedent: As we find in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 3:).

Question: Why does the Tana not insert T'rumah and Bikurim in the list, since just as later (Daf 5:) he includes Ma'aser, let him also include T'rumah and Bikurim?

Answer: Perhaps Ma'aser incorporates them ...

Precedent: Just as in all other places wherever the Tana says 'Chayav be'Ma'aser' it includes T'rumah and Bikurim.

Conclusion: The truth is however, that there is no problem with Bikurim, which are not connected to the three Regalim - only from Shavu'os until Succos with reading the Parshah, and from Succos until Chanukah, without reading it.

Explanation #1: One is initially Chayav to leave them in the field, andif he takes them he transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh, as the Pasuk writes (in Vayikra 19) "Do not collect", "Do not finish" (Ibid.) and "Leave it for the poor and for the destitute" (Ibid.).

Explanation #1 (cont.): And if he transgressed and took them, then he is obligated to return them, due to the principle 'I Avid Lo Mehani (If one acts against the law, it doesn't help)'.

Explanation #1 (concl.): And if one has not separated Pe'ah from the standing corn, then one must separate it from the pile - and that is when 'Bal Te'acher' applies.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it applies where one tales it be'Heter, where there are no poor people available, in which case 'Bal Te'acher' applies.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara relates at the end of 'ha'Zero'a' (Chulin, Daf 134:) how 'Levi once planted in Kishor and when no poor arrived to take Leket, he came before Rav Sheishes, who ruled that the Torah obligates one to leave the crops for the poor, and not for the ravens and the bats ...

Answer: He did not mean that he (Levi) was permitted to take it for himself, but that he would transgress by taking it into his house.

Refutation: But since the Gemara asks there from T'rumah, where, if there is no Kohen, he may hire a cow and transport it ... ' and also from the Mishnah which rules that, if there is no Kohen, one must assess it ... ' ...

Refutation (cont.): And answers that it is difference there, since the Torah writes 'Nesinah', it implies that by Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah one may take it for oneself.

Question: And the first explanation too, is difficult, in that if there are poor people available and he takes transgressed and took them for himself, he transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' immediately, since it is only where there are no poor that one does not transgress until three Regalim, but where there are, one transgresses immediately, like by Tzedakah?

Explanation #3: It is possible to explain however, where he took it on behalf of the poor, like the case in the Mishnah in the fourth Perek of Pe'ah (Mishnah 9) If someone specifically collects on behalf of P'loni Ani, Rebbi Eliezer rules that he acquires it on his behalf, and the Chachamim, that he must give it to the first poor man that comes along.

Question: And the reason that the Tana does not mention Peret and Olelos ...

Answer: Is because since he mentions these (Peret, Leket and Shikchah), he does not bother to mention them.

Text #1: This is Rashi's text ...

Text #1 (cont.): According to which case Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon both Darshen similar D'rashos, only, according to one Succos causes it ('Bsl Te'acher'), and according to the other, it is the last one.

Text #2: But Rabeinu Chananel text reads 'It does not need to mention "Chag ha'Matzos", seeing as the Pasuk begins with it. So why does it?To teach us that it comes first.

Clarification: And the minimum of 'Mo'adim' is two.

Implied Question: And even though the Pasuk is basically speaking about Korb'nos Chovah?

Answer: It also mentions there " ... besides your Nedarim and Nedavos".

Independent Regel #1: Rashi explains 'Regel bi'Fenei Atzmo' to mean - that it is not called Succos ...

Independent Regel #1 (cont.): Inasmuch as in Birchas ha'Mazon and in Tefilah we mention 'Shemini Atzeres' and not 'Succos'.

Independent B'rachah #1: Whereas 'B'rachah le'Atzmo' he interprets as 'Blessing the king, in commemoration of the inauguration of the Beis ha'Mikdash, where the Torah writes (in Seifer Melachim 1, Chap. 5) "On the eighth day he sent the people home and they blessed the king".

Source: And we learned in the Tosefta of Succah (Perek 4) 'The last day of Succos has its own Payas, its own Z'man ('Shehechiyanu'), its own Regel, its own Shir and its own B'rachah, as the Pasuk writes "On the eighth day he sent the people home and they blessed the king".

Refutation: In Perek Lulav va'Aravah however, it does not imply this, when the Beraisa says 'Just as the seven days of Succah have require their own Korban, Shir, B'rachah and Linah, so too, does the eighth day ... '.

Independent B'rachah #2: In which case, 'B'rachah' must mean 'Z'man'. And in answer to the Kashya 'Since when does one recite Z'man during all seven days? The Gemara establishes 'B'rachah' to mean Birchas ha'Mazon and Tefilah, which is how Rabeinu Tam explains it in our Sugya.

Independent Regel #2: Whilst 'Regel le'Atzmo' he interprets as 'Linah;.

Independent Regel #3: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains (Regel) with regard to Aveilus, in accordance with the Gemara in the last Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 19.) 'Someone who buries his dead seven days prior to Yom-Tov, the Dinim of Sheloshim fall away'.

Independent Regel #3 (cont.): And sometimes the Din of Sheloshim is Bateil even though less than seven days elapsed before om-Tov, on account of Shmini Atzeres.

Support: Indeed, Rabeinu Tam himself established in his Ma'aravos (of Shemini Atzeres) 'It is holy regarding Linah and it pushes away the Din of thirty, like one comforts mourners'.

Qualification: One cannot however say that the Din of Sheloshim is totally negated, seeing as the Gemara says in the last Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 24: & 25.) 'One day before Succos, Succos itself and Shemini Atzeres makes twenty-one days (leaving nine days of the Sheloshim intact).

Independent B'rachah in Our Sugya: And from the Sugya in Succah there is no proof (against Rashi) if 'B'rachah' here is not the same as 'B'rachah' there, since there it is not possible to establish it with regard to Birchas ha'Melech, seeing as that does not take place on the seven days of Succos.

Independent Shir #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that they would say in Shul a complete Kapitel, which they did not do on the other days of Succos, when they would divide each Kapitel into two, to recite one half on one day, and the other half, on the next ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Chalil (Succah, Daf 55. & 55:), and the Si'man lies in 'Humb'hi' (as the Gemara explains there).

Independent Shir #2: Whereas in Maseches Sofrim it implies that in Shul they would say "Lamenatze'ach al ha'Sheminis".

Conclusion: And perhaps that is what the Levi'im recited in the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Observation: This is not comparable to the D'rashah in the Gemara in Gitin (47:) "Yamim" - 'Shenayim'; "Rabim" - 'Sheloshah' ...

Reason: Since that is more obvious, seeing as if one comes to add more than two, there is no limit, whereas here there is an outside limit, since it cannot be more than eight.

Toras Kohanim: And the Toras Kohanim learns "Yamim" - 'Shenayim". It cannot be more than two, says Rebbi Akiva, because 'Wherever a word has two connotations, of more or less, "Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta" '.

Toras Kohanim (cont.): According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira 'Where there are two measures, one finite and one, infinite, one always measures by the one which is finite, and not by the one which is infinite.

Toras Kohanim (concl.): Whereas Rebbi Nechemyah says 'What is the Pasuk coming to teach us, to open or to close ... ?'. This is written at the beginning of Succah (Daf 5: & 6.).