1)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Bisna lost the keys of the Beis-ha'Medrash in the street. When he came before Rebbi Pedas on Shabbos to ask for advice - the latter instructed him to bring children there to play, in the hope that they would find them and bring them home.

(b)We can extrapolate from Rebbi Pedas' ruling - that (he holds) 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' (one is not obligated to stop a child from eating non-Kasher food).

(c)The Beraisa states 'Lo Yomar Adam l'Tinok Havei Li Mafte'ach, Havei Li Chosem, Ela Manicho Tolesh Manicho Zorek'. The basic difference between the first part of the statement and the second part is - that in the first part of the statement, the child will be doing it for the sake of the grown-up, which the Pasuk in Yisro ("Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah Atah, u'Vincha u'Vitecha') specifically forbids; whereas in the second part, he is doing it purely for his own benefit.

(d)There is no proof from the Seifa of the Beraisa for Rebbi Pedas - because it could be speaking about detaching from a pot without a hole, and throwing in a Karmelis (which are both only Asur mid'Rabanan - whereas the Chidush of Rebbi Pedas is that we say 'Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' even by an Isur d'Oraisa.

2)

(a)Rebbi Pedas establishes the Beraisa which requires one to stop a child from extinguishing a fire on Shabbos - when the child wants to extinguish it on behalf of his father.

(b)Under the same circumstances, we permit a Nochri to extinguish the fire - because he does so for personal gain (since he expects some sort of reward for his services).

(c)One may not use the services of a Nochri to light a fire or to extinguish one - by specifically asking him to do so (without any mention of remuneration).

3)

(a)A Chaver is - a Talmid Chacham who is particular about separating all Ma'asros and about Tum'ah and Taharah.

(b)The Beraisa not only permits a Chaver to send his son to his maternal grandfather (who is an Am ha'Aretz) to eat ...

(c)... but which does not even require his father to confiscate fruit that he returns with from there (even though he knows that it may not be Ma'asered).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan refutes the proof from this Beraisa for Rebbi Pedas - because, he explains, Chazal are often very lenient by Demai (due to the fact that the entire Isur is based on a minority of Amei ha'Aretz, who tend not to Ma'aser).

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan is the one to establish this Beraisa by Demai, whereas earlier, he permitted the child even to light a fire or to extinguish one, as long as he was doing it of his own accord - because he is himself uncertain whether 'Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' or 'Ein Metzuvin ... '. Consequently, whatever proof we try to bring, he will try to refute it.

(b)We try to support Rebbi Pedas from the Beraisa, which not only permits a Kohen Chaver to send his son to his maternal grandfather (who is an Am ha'Aretz) to eat Terumah, but who does not even require his father to confiscate fruit that they gave him there - despite the fact that the Terumah may well be Tamei (which, we learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "bi'She'arecha Tochle*nu*, ha'Tahor ve'ha'Tamei Yachdav ... ", even a Kohen is forbidden to eat).

(c)We refute this proof however - by establishing the Beraisa by Terumah d'Rabanan (and as we have already explained, Rebbi Pedas is speaking about Isurim d'Oraisa).

5)

(a)We refute the proof from the Beraisa, which does not even require one to stop a young child from drinking from a Nochris or from a non-Kasher animal - by establishing it by a case of life-danger.

(b)The Tana nevertheless forbids a Gadol to do likewise - because the necessity to drink milk generally constitutes life-danger for a small child but not for a grown-up.

(c)Even a Gadol will be permitted to eat from a non-Kasher animal - if a doctor assesses that it is crucial for him to do so ...

(d)... and the difference between a Katan and a Gadol in this regard is - that a Katan does not require assessment, whereas a Gadol does.

6)

(a)Aba Shaul testified that they used to drink from a Kasher animal on Yom Tov - involving the Melachah of Mefarek (extracting), which, in turn, is a Toldah of Dash (threshing).

(b)Chazal ...

1. ... permitted it on Yom Tov - because drinking directly from the animal is kil'Achar Yad (an unusual way of performing the Melachah), for which one is not Chayav. Consequently, on Yom Tov, which is only a Lav, Chazal permitted it l'Chatchilah in order to alleviate suffering.

2. ... did not however, permit it on Shabbos - because Shabbos involves a Chiyuv Kares.

(c)What the following three Pesukim have in common - is that they all come to forbid a Gadol to encourage a Katan to transgress: "Lo Sochlum" (in Parshas Shemini, in connection with the prohibition of eating insects); "Kol Nefesh Mikem Lo Sochal Dam" (Acharei-Mos); "Emor v'Amarta" (Emor, in connection with the prohibition of Tum'as Kohanim).

(d)There is no Kashya from all these Pesukim on Rebbi Pedas (who holds 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Beis-Din Ein Metzuvin Lehafrisho') - because the Tana speaks (not about telling the child to desist, but) about the prohibition of feeding him the Isur directly.

7)

(a)In spite of having taught us the prohibition of feeding a child ...

1. ... insects, the Torah nevertheless needs to repeat it regarding blood - which is more lenient in respect of Shi'ur (because the Shi'ur of the former is a Mashehu (a minimal amount [i.e. the size of a lentil]), whereas the Shi'ur of the latter is a Revi'is (a quarter of a Lug).

2. ... blood, the Torah nevertheless needs to repeat it regarding insects - which is more lenient with regard to punishment (i.e. Malkus, as opposed to Kares for drinking blood).

(b)In spite of having taught us the prohibition of ...

1. ... feeding a child insects and blood, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat the prohibition with regard to Tum'as Kohanim - which (unlike the former two) is not applicable to all sections of the community, whereas they are.

2. ... being Metamei a young Kohen, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it with regard to feeding a child insects and blood - because we would otherwise have thought that this is just another of the special Chumros pertaining to Kohanim.

8)

(a)The principle 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' applies to a Cheresh, too - seeing as, he, like a Katan, does not have Da'as.

(b)The Tana in the previous Mishnah nevertheless instructs the Cheresh Ba'al Pikachas to divorce his wife (because of the Zikah of her sister the Pikachas whose husband the Pike'ach, died) - (not because of the sin of the Cheresh, but) because of that of the Pikachas.

(c)If a Pike'ach Ba'al Pikachas dies, and his wife falls to the Yavam, a Cheresh who is married to her sister, a Chereshes - the latter must divorce his wife, and his Yevamah remains Asur to remarry forever (as we learned in the Mishnah).

(d)There is no proof from here that 'Katan Ochel Neveilos ... Beis Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho' (a Kashya on Rebbi Pedas) - because the reason that the Cheresh is obligated to divorce his wife is due to a decree; we are afraid that (unless we instruct the Cheresh to divorce the Chereshes) people will assume their marriage to be valid in which case, it will push away the Zikah of her sister, and they will then go on to permit the Yevamah to get married, thinking that she is Achos Ishto.

9)

(a)A woman who returns from overseas and announces that her husband died, is permitted to marry (if she has children) or to perform Yibum (if she does not). She is believed - provided she is on good terms with her husband and that it is not a time of war.

(b)She is not believed if ...

1. ... it is a time of war - because then, due to the prevailing conditions, she is suspected of testifying inaccurately; she will assume, for example, that, since he did not return home for a long time, he must have been killed.

2. ... if they quarreled - because then, she hates him, and will lie deliberately in order to become forbidden to him.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama. According to him, she is believed only - if she comes into Beis-Din sobbing and with rent clothing.

10)

(a)The Tana finds it necessary to tell us in the Reisha that there is peace between the husband and wife and that there is peace in the world - in order to balance with the Seifa, where he wants to tell us what the Din is when there is not.

(b)Rava explains that in time of war, the woman easily presumes her husband dead (as we explained in the Mishnah). In spite of the fact that she loves him - sometimes he may be pierced with an arrow or with a sword, and she is convinced that he cannot possible survive.

(c)Initially, Rava thought that famine is not like war (and that the woman is believed) - until one day, when a woman came before him and testified that her husband had died of starvation. To test her, he told her that she was very smart to have run away and saved her own skin, because, in those few extra minutes he was unlikely to have survived. To which she expressed surprise that he knew so accurately what had happened (proving that, in time of famine, a woman does speak inaccurately - testifying without actually knowing that her husband has died).

(d)As a matter of fact, he went the whole circle, and declared famine to be even worse than war - because, in war, she is believed if she testifies that he died in his bed; whereas in time of famine, she is only believed if she testifies that he died and she buried him.

11)

(a)A plague of snakes or scorpions has the same Din as war, because in her state of terror, she will be too frightened to wait for her husband to actually die. Some consider pestilence (a death epidemic) like war. Others disagree - on the grounds that she relies on the old adage that, even if a plague of pestilence lasts for seven years, nobody will die before his time.