Explanation: This day will be a day for rejoicing and Yom Tov when the Beis Hamikdash is extant. According to the opinion that Megilas Tanis was not nullified, this is even referring to after the destruction.

Explanation: This refers to fasting, as opposed to eulogies which are permitted.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Tanis (17b) where the Beraisa states that one may not eulogize from the beginning of Rosh Chodesh Nisan until the eighth of Nisan when they established (versus the Tzedukim) that the Tamid sacrifice may only be brought by the public as a whole (as opposed to the Tzedukim who held that every individual can donate a Tamid).

Proof (cont.): The Gemara asks, perhaps we should say that this is from the second of Nisan, and Rosh Chodesh itself is forbidden? The Gemara answers, this is in order to forbid the day before it, as because of Rosh Chodesh itself we would not forbid the day beforehand, since Rosh Chodesh is established by the Torah and Torah laws do not require strengthening.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara also asks, we should derive that this day (twenty ninth of Adar) is forbidden due to it being after the twenty eighth of Adar! Rav Ashi (not Asi) answers that any day after a day in Megilas Tanis is forbidden for fasting and permitted for eulogizing. Since the twenty ninth of Adar is in between two Yamim Tovim, they made it like a Yom Tov in its own right. This implies that were it not for it being between these two days, eulogy would not be forbidden on the twenty ninth even though it is the day before Rosh Chodesh Nisan when the Tamid was established and when eulogy is forbidden.

Observation: Rav Ashi did not literally mean "Any day afterward," as the same applies to the day beforehand that it is permitted for eulogy. He merely said afterward because that was the case being discussed.

Observation: One can deduce from this that when it says in our Gemara that it is forbidden to fast on Shabbos and Yom Tov, but before and afterwards it is permitted, that it is referring to fasting. This Beraisa is according to Rebbi Yosi who says in Eruvin (41a) that one can fast on Erev Shabbos and finish his fast. It could also be according to the Rabbanan, and mean that one may fast on Erev Shabbos even though he should not finish his fast.

Question: One who does not finish his fast may even do so on Yom Tov itself!

Proof: This is apparent from the statement of Rebbi Elazar the son of R' Tzadok who says, "I was from the sons of Sanav ben Binyamin. One year Tishah b'Av fell on Shabbos, and we pushed it off until after Shabbos. We fasted (on Sunday) but we did not finish the fast, because it was our Yom Tov (the day that their family would bring wood for the altar)."

Answer: Tishah b'Av is different, as it is more stringent.

Proof: This is apparent from Ravina's answer there that a Rabbinic Yom Tov is different. Since one is allowed to fast for part of it, he is certainly allowed to finish a fast day on the day before it. In our Gemara, we forbid fasting on the day before and after a Yom Tov! Rather, it must be that the Gemara there is referring to Tishah b'Av which is more stringent.

Implied Question: The Gemara there says that it is evident from the fact that Rebbi Yosi says that one fasts and finishes his fast on Tishah b'Av that falls on Erev Shabbos that the students of Rav who fasted on Erev Shabbos were allowed to finish their fast. This is despite the fact that we have just differentiated between Tishah b'Av and other fasts. (How can the Gemara prove this from Tishah b'Av which is generally more stringent?)

Answer: Even so, the Gemara's proof is valid. This is because entering Shabbos while fasting is not considered fasting, and if it would be considered fasting it would be forbidden to do this. Rather, it must be that it is not considered fasting on Shabbos. If so, even an individual may fast on Erev Shabbos.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Tanis (18a) asks that the twenty ninth (of Adar) is forbidden because it is the day before the Tamid was established. Why don't we derive that it is because it the day after the twenty eighth? What kind of question is this? The Yom Tov of establishing the Korban Tamid was when the Beis Hamikdash was extant, and the incident regarding the twenty eighth was in the times of Rebbi Yehudah ben Shamua who was the student of Rebbi Meir!

Answer: Even so, when Rebbi organized the Mishnah he should not have said it was from Rosh Chodesh Nisan, since in his days already it was not necessary.

Question: This is difficult. Why is this pure? It should at least be considered impure because it is a glass vessel that is decreed to be impure, as stated in Shabbos (15b)!

Answer #1: Rashi explains the argument is regarding a previous status of impurity. Yehudah ben Shamua says it is impure, meaning that it has reverted to its previous state of impurity, even though it did not touch anything impure.

Answer #1 (cont.): Even though glass vessels do not usually revert to their previous status of being impure, as stated in Shabbos (16a) that they only decreed that vessels revert to their previous status of impurity if they are metallic, glass vessels are similar to metal vessels since lead makes it stable and everything is established based on what makes it stand. The Chachamim say it is pure since it is primarily made of glass, and we do not care what makes it stand. This is Rashi's explanation.

Question: This is difficult. Since the impurity occurred before the lead supported the vessel, why does pouring lead help afterwards?

Answer #2: Rashi also records another version of the text stating that Rebbi Yehudah ben Shamua says it is impure like the Torah law regarding metal vessels, that if impurity touches them their status is determined by what stabilizes them. The Chachamim say it is pure from having the status of impure metal vessels according to Torah law, but admit that it is impure according to the Rabbinic law pertaining to glass vessels.

Question: This explanation is difficult because the term "they say it is pure" implies they hold it is entirely pure.

Answer #3: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that their argument is whether pouring lead into the hole is considered a good filling. In the first chapter of Shabbos (ibid.) it says, "and this is Rebbi Meir who says that everything is based on what establishes it." Rabeinu Shmuel's text in that Gemara is merely, "This is Rebbi Meir," not "who says that everything is based etc."

Question: This cannot be, as is apparent from the Tosefta at the end of Keilim. The Tosefta states that if a hole was made in a stone cup and lead was dripped in the hole to fill it up, Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri states that it is impure since it is a glass vessel. Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel states that Yehudah ben Shamua used to say that it is impure in the name of Rebbi Meir.

Question (cont.): The Tosefta implies that the second explanation of Rashi is correct, and that the Rabbanan is Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and they do not say it is in fact pure (according to Rabbinic law). Alternatively, it could be that the Rabbanan here hold like Rebbi Meir regarding stone vessels who says that they are impure like metallic vessels.

Question: The reason that they do not say that glass is impure like metal while they do say that stone is impure like metal is because stone has not laws of impurity on its own, and therefore it gets the law of the lead which is the law of metal. However, glass has its own laws regarding impurity and there was no need to change the vessel to be categorized as a different vessel.

Answer #4: The Riva explains that the Chachamim say it is totally pure because glass is like earthenware, as stated in Shabbos (15b). The Tosefta in the second chapter of Keilim (Bava Kama) says that if earthenware becomes pure (after becoming impure) it can never become impure again.

Question #1: This explanation as well is difficult, as is apparent from the end of the Tosefta that they do not say that it is totally pure, as we explained above (g1).

Question #2: Additionally, how do we know that the reason of Rebbi Meir is that everything is based on what establishes it? Perhaps he does not agree with this reasoning, and he would even say it is impure if it was sealed with tar. This is an explicit argument involving Rebbi Meir in the Tosefta in Keilim in the chapter starting "Machat v'Tabas."

Question #3: Additionally, the Rabbanan only say this logic regarding a piece of earthenware that separated from the barrel, and it has an appropriate amount to be a vessel. It proceeded to get a hole in it, and it was filled with tar. This does not apply to a whole vessel that gets a hole in it and it was subsequently filled with tar, as explained in the second chapter of Keilim.

Question #4: Additionally, the conclusion of the Gemara in Shabbos (16a) is that since they are broken they can be purified as is the law regarding metal vessels.

Observation: This implies that Elul was extended in the days of Ezra.

Proof: There is somewhat of a proof to this, as the Pasuk states in Nechemiah (7:72), "And the seventh month arrived etc." It also says, "And Ezra ha'Kohen brought the Torah...on the first day of the seventh month" (ibid. 8:2). It says, "And he read it" (8:3), and it says, "Today is holy" (8:9), and it says, "On the second day the heads of the families gathered the Kohanim and Leviyim to Ezra the Scribe and to understand the words of the Torah" (8:13). This implies that they made two days of Rosh Hashanah. It is called the second day because it is referring to a second day similar to the first day (i.e. Rosh Hashanah).

Proof (cont.): It also states, "On the twenty fourth day of the month all of Yisrael gathered in fasting and in sackcloth etc." (Nechemiah 9:1). This implies that they gathered because it was the night after Sukkos. If they would not have extended Elul and they would have made Sukos on the fifteenth of Tishrei, if so the first fourteen days of Tishrei plus the eight days of Sukos would make the twenty third (not the twenty fourth) the night after Sukos.

Implied Question: One should not say that they did not fast the next day because it was the day after Yom Tov, and therefore they waited to fast on the twenty fourth. (Why not?)

Answer #1: They never treated it this way.

Answer #2: Additionally, it was a public matter (and therefore they would be allowed to fast the day after Yom Tov). Rather, it must be that they extended Elul.

Question #1: According to the opinion that we extend it because of the vegetables, this is understandable, as this is pertinent to all of the festivals. However, according to the opinion that it is due to a dead person who would have to remain unburied over Shabbos and Yom Kippur, this is difficult, as the only problem is regarding Yom Kippur (not regarding all of the festivals).

Question #2: Additionally, since they knew the set time of Elul, why should there be a problem with Rosh Hashanah? They knew that it should be pushed aside due to it not falling out on Adu (acronym for Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday)!

Answer: He is not saying that if we need to we extend it because of Adu. Rather, this is because sometimes witnesses do not see the moon on the thirtieth day, and they do not sanctify it until the thirty first day because it is a Mitzvah to be Mekadesh the month through witnesses (even though it is already apparent when it is going to be Rosh Chodesh at this point).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks, won't Rosh Hashanah be ruined, as they will have to have two days of Rosh Hashanah due to doubt? (Isn't it better that they threaten the witnesses (see 20a) and force them to testify that they saw the moon - Tosfos ha'Rosh?) The Gemara answers, better to have this happen instead of having a problem with all of the festivals. This refers to ruining Yom Kippur, Sukos, and Shemini Atzeres if they have to threaten the witnesses to testify versus having regular testimony through witnesses who clearly saw it.

Question: According to our Tana, since they do not go out regarding Adar Sheini, how do people know that the year was extended?

Question (cont.): This is understandable if they extend it before Adar, as they can then inform everyone through the messengers that go out regarding Rosh Chodesh Adar. However, if they extend it afterwards, how will people know that the year was extended as this is done every year by Adar or at the latest before Purim?

Answer: Since the messengers go out regarding Nisan people will know that if Rosh Chodesh (ostensibly Nisan) arrives and the messengers do not go out that the year is a leap year (and it is Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini).

Explanation: Their reasoning is explained in Megilah (6b).

Text: In most Sefarim the text is the opposite, as one opinion is that all of the Mitzvos that apply to Adar Sheini apply to Adar Rishon, and the other is that they do not apply.

Text (cont.): In Megilah (ibid.), the Gemara has this text in all of the Sefarim regarding the argument between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. It is possible to answer both texts.

Question: This is difficult. If so, why do they go out regarding Nisan due to Pesach?

Answer: However, at the end of the Gemara there is a Tiyuvta on this.

Observation: Even so, this is our custom. Perhaps in their days when they would be Mekadesh through witnesses sometimes it would be a full month and sometimes a "deficient" month. However, in our calendar it is good to make the first Adar full, as it is the extra month that is added to the year. This is despite the fact that we say that a year is extended at the end of the year (which one would think would mean that the second Adar should be the leap month).

Observation: The Yerushalmi in Megilah contains an argument regarding this matter. The Yerushalmi says that Ukva found two letters. In one of them it said, "It is good in my eyes and in the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days on the year." In the other it said, "It is good in my eyes and in the eyes of my colleagues to add a Yerach (a term known to mean twenty nine days) to the year." The one who says thirty days is referring to Adar Rishon being the additional month. The one who says it is a "Yerach" holds Adar Sheini is the additional month. The Gemara concludes that it is up to the Beis Din to decide whether it should be thirty or twenty nine.