1)

(a)Rav Zevid quotes Rami bar Chama differently than we just quoted him. According to him, Rami bar Chama does not absolve Mechamer from Sekilah be'Meizid, but he does absolve him from a Chatas be'Shogeg - gaining Rava's first question (for which we no answer).

(b)Once again, Rava queries Rami bar Chama from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 'ha'Mechalel es ha'Shabbos be'Davar she'Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, ve'al Zedono Sekilah'. We reject Rava's inference 'Ha Ein Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, Ein Chayavin al Zedono Sekilah' in that we could just as well infer - that there are cases where one receives Sekilah be'Meizid even though one would not be Chayav a Chatas, be'Shogeg (concurring with Rav Zevid's version of Rami bar Chama).

(c)Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Rachel cites Rebbi Yochanan (instead of Rami bar Chama) as saying that Mechamer is not Chayav for Mechamer. There is no Chiyuv Chatas if he did it be'Shogeg due to the Pasuk "la'Oseh bi'Shegagah" (as we explained at the end of the previous Amud). Rebbi Yochanan learns from the same Mishnah in Sanhedrin that Mechamer is not Chayav Sekilah if he does it be'Meizid - like Rava suggested in the first Lashon 'mi'Chelal de'Ika Midi de'Ein Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas ve'Lo al Zedono Sekilah'.

2)

(a)Rav Mari bar Rachel - was the son of Isur Giyora (the captor of Rachel [Shmuel's daughter]) who later converted, but who was still a Nochri when he performed the rape, which explains why Rav Mari is called after his mother and not his father.

(b)Rav appointed Rav Mari as an officer, in spite of the fact that he was the son of a Nochri - because his mother was a Yisre'eilis (and it is only the son of a Ger whose mother is a Nochris that cannot be appointed to a position of importance.

(c)The problem this creates for those who have the text 've'Amri Lah Avuhah de'Rav Mari bar Rachel' is - that if Rav Mari's father was a Yisrael and not Isur Giyora, why do we need to explain why Rav appointed him to an important position?

(d)Those who do insert it reply however - that there were two people by the name of Rav Mari bar Rachel.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Mechamer is not even Chayav Malkos (on account of the Pasuk "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah ... u'Vehemtecha") - because it is an 'Azharah she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' (the Torah writes it for Misah and not for Malkos).

(b)What's more, he will not be Chayav Malkos, even according to those who hold that one does normally receive Malkos for a La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din - because the Torah adds the word "Atah" between the La'av and "Behemtecha", to teach us that the La'av pertains to the owner who performs a Melachah on Shabbos, but not to the Melachah performed by his animal.

4)

(a)If the animal is carrying glass vessels, Rav Huna suggests that, upon arrival at the first courtyard in town - one brings cushions and sheets, and places them underneath the sacks, before letting them fall ...

(b)... in spite of our Mishnah, which allows removing vessels that are not Muktzeh with one's hands - because he is talking (not about ordinary glass vessels, which are generally not Muktzeh, but) blood-letting implements, which are.

(c)We prove this to be the case - from the fact that Tana places it together with Tevel, which is Muktzeh.

5)

(a)Rav Huna's advice does not constitute 'Mevatel Kli Mehechano'- since he is speaking about small vessels, and it is possible to pull the cushions and cloths out from underneath them ...

(b)... and the reason that the Beraisa rules that (by Tevel and) by Ashashiyos (masses of glass), one must open the straps and allow them to break is - because the Ashashiyos referred to in the Beraisa, are large panes of glass which would anyway be broken later into smaller pieces to use as panes made of fragmented glass. Consequently, allowing them to fall and break, does not really constitute a loss, in which case there is no Heter to place cushions and the likes underneath them, even on very short-term.

(c)The Tana nevertheless writes 'Af-al-Pi she'Mishtabrin' -because although breaking them does not involve a major loss, it does involve a minor one (since by allowing the Ashashiyos to fall and break into pieces, some of the fragments will be so small, that they are useless). So the Beraisa writes 'Af-al-Pi she'Mishtabrin', to teach us that Chazal only permitted placing cushions underneath the load on the animal to spare the owner from a major loss, but not from a minor one.

6)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ruled in a Beraisa - that someone whose donkey is carrying a sack of Tevel - should place his head underneath it and tip it off with his head.

(b)Raban Gamliel's donkey which was carrying honey and which he refused to unload on Shabbos - died on Motzei Shabbos.

(c)To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which permits unloading vessels that are not Muktzeh on Shabbos - we establish the case in hand by honey that had gone bad ...

(d)... and which can be used - to rub on a camel's sore back.

7)

(a)Raban Gamliel did not ...

1. ... simply untie the ropes and let the vessels containing the honey fall to the ground - because they would then have split open.

2. ... bring cushions and place them underneath the vessels containing the honey - because the cushions would have got dirty and would then have become dirty (turning it into a case of Mevatel K'li me'Heichano, which is forbidden on Shabbos).

(b)We ask why leaving the containers on the animals' backs did not entail Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim - which is d'Oraysa and which will therefore override the Isur of Mevatel Kli me'Heichano (which is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c)And we answer - that Raban Gamliel considers Tzar Ba'alei Chayim to be only mi'de'Rabbanan.

8)

(a)When Abaye saw Rabah playing with his son one Shabbos, by sliding him along a donkey's back - he asked him on what grounds he was permitted to lean against the animal use an animal in this way when Chazal forbade riding or using an animal?

(b)Rabah replied that Chazal only forbade using the back of the animal, since that is the way the animal is normally used (but not the sides, which was unusual, and which Chazal did not therefore include in the decree).

(c)Rabah tried to prove his point from our Mishnah, which permits untying the sacks from the donkey's back - and which he assumed is speaking about two sacks, one on either side of the donkey's back, tied together by ropes in such a way that they can only be separated and opened by leaning against the donkey (which entails leaning against the side of the animal).

(d)We reject this proof however - by establishing the Mishnah where the straps of the sacks are joined by means of a ring and a pin, which one removes by pulling out the pin; or when the two rings (one on either sack) are joined by means of a bent pin, which one simply pulls out to separate the sacks - either way, the pin can be removed without having to lean against the animal at all, in which case Rabah's proof falls away.

9)

(a)Based on the fact that Chazal's decree of using an animal is similar in details to that of using a tree, we query Rabah from the Mishnah in Succah, which forbids one to use a Succah which consists of two walls of a tree and one of a wall that is man-made (not to sit in the Succah, whose walls may consist of trees,anything wrong with using tree s as walls of a Succah, but) - to place things on top of the Succah roof (which was common practice in those days) ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rabah - if the Tana is speaking about walls that have been carved into the side of the tree, as we initially assume.

(c)We refute this Kashya however - by establishing the case by a Succah that was made on top of two branches that were bent over, which would entail using the tree itself, and not just the sides. Consequently, there is no Kashya on Rabah from here.

(d)This answer however, is not acceptable, because of the Seifa of the Mishnah - which permits entering the Succah on Yom-Tov if three of the walls are man-made, and only consists of a tree (but which would be forbidden if the fourth wall was the actual top of the tree).

(e)We refute the Kashya on Rabah from there too however - on the grounds that the same problem will exist if Tzedadim are Asur.

10)

(a)We finally establish the Seifa of the Mishnah by Gav'aza Parsachna - when the tree has many branches which are simply used to fill the space left on the fourth side of a regular Succah whose three walls are standing on the ground, but the S'chach is not resting on them ...

(b)... and the reason that the Seifa is speaking in a completely different case than the Reisha is - due to the fact that a Succah is Kasher with three walls, and that consequently, one would not normally take the trouble to arrange the fourth wall as in the Reisha.

(c)We prove this from the conclusion of the Mishnah 'Zeh ha'Klal Kol she'Ilu Yinatel ha'Ilan ve'Yachol La'amod Olin Lah be'Yom-Tov' ...

(d)... a proof that the Tana is talking about a plain fourth wall, and nothing more.

11)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns 'Ein Olin lah be'Yom-Tov'. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Omer in the name of Rebbi Meir says - Olin lah be'Yom-Tov.

(b)According to Rabah - the Tana Kama holds 'Tzedadin Asurin', Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, ' ... Mutarin'.

(c)Abaye disagrees however. In his opinion both Tana'im hold 'Tdedadin Asurin', and the Machlokes Tana'im is not whether Tzedadin are forbidden or permitted - but whether Tzedidei Tzedadin (where the S'chach is placed on the canes, which are placed in niches in the tree) is Asur (the Tana Kama) or Mutar (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar). Everyone would agree, according to him, that

(d)Rava holds - that the Tana who forbids Tzedadin also forbids Tzedidei Tzedadin, and the Tana who permits Tzedidei Tzedadin also permits Tzedadin. In other words, there is no difference between Tzedadin and Tzedidei Tzedadin.

12)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya queries Rava from a Beraisa - where the Tana invalidates an Eruv that is placed in a basket which is hanging from a nail in a tree above ten Tefachim, but validates it if the basket is hanging from a nail that is below ten Tefachim ...

(b)... because, unlike in the latter case, (bearing in mind that baskets were generally four Tefachim by four Tefachim), in the former case - the Eruv is actually in a Reshus ha'Yachid, whereas the location is a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the Eruv has to be in the same domain as the person in order to be valid.

(c)Rav Mesharshaya extrapolates from the fact that the Tana refers to a basket that is hanging from a nail - that if the basket was hanging from the tree itself, the Eruv would be invalid, even if it was below ten Tefachim (implying that there is a difference between Tzedadin and Tzedidei Tzedadin [a Kashya on Rava]).

(d)Rava refutes Rav Mesharshaya's proof - by establishing the case where the basket has a narrow opening and taking from it will cause the tree to move. Otherwise, it would be permitted to take from it.

13)

(a)The Halachah regarding Tzedadin and Tzedidei Tzedadin is - Tdedadim Asurin, Tzedidei Tzedadin Mutarim (like Rava).

(b)Now that we have learned that Tzedidei Tzedadin is permitted, but not Tzedadin - someone who wishes to climb up to the loft via a ladder which is leaning against a tree, should take care to lean the ladder against a nail that is jutting out from the tree, but not against the tree itself.

(c)And when he is climbing, he should also be careful - not to place his foot on the peg, but only on the rungs of the ladder, or on canes that jut out from the poles of the ladder.