1)

(a)On what condition does Rebbi Shimon permit taking corn for one's animals from a pile of produce (an Otzar)?

(b)Rebbi Acha - permits it unconditionally.

(c)The Beraisa considers - a Lesech (half a Kur [or fifteen Sa'ah]) to be an Otzar in this regard.

(d)We switch the two opinions - because Rebbi Shimon is the one who is consistently lenient with regard to Muktzeh.

2)

(a)Rav Nechumi bar Zecharyah asked Abaye whether 'Lim'utei ...

1. ... be'Hilucha Adif' - meaning that one should carry the four or five boxes in as many times (one box per time), but not more, because the less he needs to walk the better; or ...

2. ... 'Lim'utei be'Masuy Adif' - it is better still to divide the boxes into smaller ones, so as to carry less, even though it means gong more times.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah by citing two Beraisos, one which permits saving four or five boxes containing jars of wine. The other one permits - ten or fifteen.

(c)We try to resolve the discrepancy and the She'eilah at one and the same time - by explaining the second Beraisa to mean that one may divide the four or five boxes into ten or fifteen smaller ones ('Lim'utei be'Masuy Adif'), whereas the first Beraisa requires them to be carried in the original four or five boxes ('Lim'utei be'Hilucha Adif').

(d)We reject this suggestion, in that both Beraisos hold 'Lim'uti ba'Halichah Adif', and what the ...

1. ... first Beraisa means when it permits 'four or five boxes' is - that if the jars of wine are so large that only one will fit into a box, then he may carry out five boxes (containing the five jars).

2. ... second Beraisa really means when it says 'ten' is - that if the jars are a medium size, so that each box can hold two jars, then he should take out the two boxes containing the ten jars.

3. ... second Beraisa means when it says 'fifteen' is - that if the jars are very small, allowing each box to carry three jars, then that is how he should carry them out (to minimise the number of times that he has to walk).

(e)We conclude 'ke'Dikuli de'Horpanya', which means - like the jars (or the baskets) of Horpanya.

3)

(a)We ask whether the four or five of our Mishnah is fixed (irrespective of how many guests one has) or whether it all depends on the guests (the more guests, the more boxes one may move). This She'eilah goes - according to Rav Chisda, who interprets four or five literally.

(b)And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa cited Rabah Amar Rebbi Chiya, which relates an episode that once occurred with Rebbi, who, looking for space to seat all the Talmidim, came across a field that was full of sheaves.

(c)Alternatively, it was Rav Yosef citing Rebbi Oshaya, who related the episode with regard to - Rebbi Chiya (and not Rebbi).

(d)They moved the sheaves - less than four Amos at a time, since the field was a Karmelis.

4)

(a)We have proved from these Beraisos - that moving the boxes of straw depends on the number of guests, and is not fixed at four or five.

(b)Together with the first She'eilah, we asked - whether one person is permitted to move all the baskets, or whether each person must move whatever he needs to make space.

(c)There is no proof from the Beraisa, which specifically states that Rebbi cleared away all the sheaves - because it is obvious that as Nasi, he would not do such a thing ...

(d)... what the Tana must therefore mean is - that Rebbi issued the instructions and they carried them out.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah, which permits clearing the boxes of straw for 'the guests and because of Bitul Beis ha'Medrash' is a proof for Rebbi Yochanan's statement - that Hachnasas Orchim is as great as Hashkamas Beis Hamedrash (getting up early to go to Shul).

(b)Rav Dimi from Neherda'a proves from the fact that the Tana places the reason of the guests before that of Bitul Beis ha'Medrash - that it even greater.

(c)From the fact that Avraham Avinu asked the Shechinah to wait for him whilst he went to attend to his guests - Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns - that the Mitzvah of receiving guests is even greater than receiving the Shechinah.

(d)When Rebbi Elazar commented that our relationship with Hash-m is unlike that of any other Katan/Gadol relationship - he was referring to Avraham asking Hash-m to wait, something which someone would not dare to say to his superior.

6)

(a)Rav Yehudah bar Shiloh ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan states that ...

1. ... Hachnasas Orchim, Bikur Cholim and Iyun Tefilah (Davening with Kavanah) - earns a person 'the fruits of his labor' in this world, but the principle is reserved for the World to Come, and the same applies to ...

2. ... Hashkamas Beis-Hamedrash (someone who goes to the Beis-Hamedrash early each day to learn). ha'Megadel Banav le'Salmud-Torah ve'ha'Dan es Chaveiro le'Kaf Zechus'?

(b)The problem with this from the Mishnah in Pe'ah is - that the Tana lists there four things with which the six of Rebbi Yochanan do not seem to conform.

(c)We answer - that basically, Rebbi Yochanan's six Mitzvos are based on those of the Mishnah.

7)

(a)If we place them in categories, we would connect ...

1. ... Hachnasas Orchim, Bikur Cholim and Iyun Tefilah with - Gemilus Chasadim.

2. ... Hashkamas Beis-Hamedrash, Megadeil Banav le'Talmud-Torah with - Talmud-Torah.

3. ... Dan es Chaveiro le'Kaf Z'chus with - Hava'as Shalom.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan will agree - that Kibud Av va'Eim belongs to the list (and the reason that he omitted it is because like Talmud-Torah (which he also omits), he does not list the actual Mitzvos mentioned by the Tana (only Mitzvos that are derivatives).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk "Gomel Nafsho Ish Chesed" - that a person can perform Chesed with his own Soul (with reference to Tefilah, as we just saw).

8)

(a)When his employee (the man from the upper Galilee [whose name is purported to have been Akiva ben Yosef]) came to him on Erev Yom Kippur, and asked him for remuneration for the last three years' work - his employer replied that he had no money.

(b)After Yom-Tov, the erstwhile employer - took the money that he owed, plus three laden donkeys and made his way south to the home of the employee, and paid him in full.

(c)One of three laden donkeys that he took with him, besides the money that he owed him - was carrying food, the second drink and the third, all kinds of luxuries.

9)

(a)After they had eaten and drunk, the employee, in reply to his erstwhile employer's questions, told him that he had assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that ...

1. ... the employer had had no cash with which to pay him - because he had spent all his loose cash on a good deal that came his way.

2. ... the employer had no animals with which to pay him - because he had rented them all out.

(b)The employee understood (correctly) that when his employer claimed that he had ....

1. ... no land - it was probably because it was in the possession of tenant farmers.

2. ... no fruit - it was because he had not yet Ma'asered it.

3. ... no movables, such as pillows and blankets, it was probably due to the fact that he had sanctified all of his possessions ...

(c)... which he had - as a means of disowning his son Hurkenus, who refused to learn Torah.

(d)When he heard his employee's answer, the employer responded with - 'Keshem she'Dantani le'Zechus, ha'Makom Yadin Oscha le'Zechus (Hash-m should judge you to the scale of merit, just as you judged me to the scale of merit)!'

10)

(a)A certain Chasid (Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ilai or Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava) once went with his Talmidim to redeem a captive girl. His Talmidim assumed (correctly, as it transpired) ...

1. ... that, after they arrived at the inn, he arranged the girl's bed at the foot of his own - he did this because there was one Talmid among his Talmidim whom he did not know intimately enough to trust, so he personally undertook to safeguard her.

2. ... that, when on the following morning, he went to Tovel in the Mikveh - it must have been that due to the travails of the long journey, he had had an emission.

(b)R. Yehoshua undertook - to visit a well-known aristocratic lady, who was well-known to all the Roman leaders, in connection with issues concerning K'lal Yisrael.

(c)R. Yehoshua's Talmidim thought (correctly, as it transpired), when he ...

1. ... first removed his Tefilin, and then entered the room to speak with her privately, closing the door behind him - that a. he probably did not want to enter a Tamei location wearing his Tefilin b. he closed the door behind him because he had secret matters (of national significance) to discuss with her.

2. ... subsequently went to Tovel in the Mikveh ... that some of her spittle must have fallen on him (and Chazal decreed that gentiles are Metamei like Zavin).

(d)Both the Chasid and R. Yehoshua exclaimed - the same as the employer did in the preceding episode.

11)

(a)When the Mishnah permits moving Terumah Tehorah, it is coming to teach us - that even though the Terumah is in the hands of a Yisrael, who is forbidden to eat it, it is nevertheless not Muktzeh ...

(b)... because Kohanim are permitted to eat it, and whatever is fit for one segment of the community, is not Muktzeh (unless that segment happens to be either men (in which case it will be Muktzeh for women [and vice-versa]).

(c)The Tana also permits moving Demai (in spite of the fact that one is forbidden to eat it) - because all one needs to do is to declare one's property Hefker, rendering one poor, and a poor person (as well as a guest) is permitted to eat Demai (as we learned in the Mishnah in Demai).

(d)Rav Huna however, citing a Beraisa, restricts the Mishnah to Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai in a Beraisa - forbid feeding a poor man or a guest Demai.

12)

(a)The Mishnah also permits moving Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has been taken. This is not obvious - because the Tana is speaking when Terumas Ma'aser has been taken, but not Terumah Gedolah, and we might have thought that it is therefore Asur to eat and Muktzeh ...

(b)... and the reason that it is not, is based on the Derashah of Rebbi Avahu Amar Resh Lakish, who learns from the Pasuk in Korach (in connection with Ma'aser Rishon) "va'Haremosem Mimenu Terumas Hash-m, Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser" - that if a Levi arrives at the Shibalim (immediately after the corn has been cut), he is obligated to separate Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser, but not Terumah Gedolah as well.

(c)In answer to Rav Papa's query 'I Hachi, Afilu Hikdimo bi'K'ri Nami', Abaye learns from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Ma'asroseichem Tarimu" - that a Levi is Chayav to separate all Terumos (even Terumah Gedolah) from his Ma'aser Rishon.

(d)To resolve this apparent discrepancy - Abaye draws a distinction between 'Shibalim' (the first De'rashah, as we just explained [which is prior to the stage which renders the corn subject to Ma'asros]), and 'Digun' (flattening the pile, which renders it subject to Ma'asros).

13)

(a)In answer to the Kashya 'Peshita', we establish our Mishnah, which permits moving Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that he himself redeemed, in a case - where he did indeed redeem it, but without adding the extra fifth, in spite of which (the Tana teaches us here) the redemption is valid.

(b)This does not mean - that he is now exempt from paying the extra fifth. It remains a debt that has to be paid in due course.

(c)Our Mishnah mentions 'dry' in connection with the Heter to move Turmus-beans - because wet Turmus-beans, due to their extreme bitterness, are not normally eaten (even by goats). Therefore they are Muktzeh.