Explanation: It must be that this is not the Yakov Mina'ah (the heretic) mentioned later (28a) who gave a medicine to Rebbi Avahu, as that Yakov certainly did not live a long life.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, it appears that this was the person who came to heal Ben Dama later (27b). The Yakov Mina'ah who dealt with Rebbi Avahu was probably the one mentioned in Chulin (84a) regarding Rava.

Explanation: It appears that the question is not one of Torah law, as according to Torah law this is obviously permitted. Even the gold plates of the Kodshei Kodoshim would have been permitted to be funded from an Esnan Zonah according to Torah law, if not for an inclusion of the Pasuk stated later (47b). However, material from Har Ha'Bayis can obviously be funded from an Esnan Zonah according to Torah law. Even a red heifer (that is a Korban in a certain sense, see Seder Yakov) can be funded, as it was excluded (ibid.) from the Pasuk of "The house of Hash-m," as a red heifer is not brought to the Beis Hamikdash.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Shabbos (116a) that many Amoraim would go to the House of Avidan. (How could they have gone there if this was a place of heretics?)

Answer: This was in order to argue with them. It wasn't a house of heretics, but rather a place where people argued. The smart people amongst the idolaters would gather there and discuss various laws. Some people did not go, out of fear that they would be killed. This is also implied by Rav Nachman's statement that I am from them, and I am scared of them (see Avodah Berurah for Tosfos' intent with this comment, as the Gemara there seems to be saying that he was not scared of them).

Opinion: This is unlike Rashi (17b), who explains later that this was a place of idol worship.

Question: Why do they have to be arguing? Perhaps both Rav Chisda and Rebbi Pedas agree that according to Torah law, only coming close through relations is forbidden. However, Chazal decreed that one should distance himself four Amos.

Question (cont.): A similar question can be asked on the Gemara in Shabbos (13a) regarding the Pasuk, "And he did not make his friend's wife impure, and he did not come close to a woman who was a Nidah." The Gemara says that this implies that just as his friend's wife cannot sleep in the same bed as him, even if they are both wearing clothing, so too (his wife who is) a Nidah. The Gemara says regarding this teaching that Rebbi Pedas must argue that this is incorrect, as he says that according to Torah law, only coming close through relations is forbidden.

Question (cont.): What does the Gemara mean that they must be arguing? Do you think Rebbi Pedas is coming to say that a man can sleep in the same bed as his wife when she is a Nidah, as long as they are wearing clothes? The Mishnah (quoted in Shabbos 11a) explicitly states that a Zav and Zavah cannot eat together, as they will come to sin!

Answer: The Ri therefore says that our Gemara and the Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) mean as follows. The deduction that the term "come close" used by the Torah implies within four Amos, or that they cannot sleep in the same bed with clothes on, is contradictory to the understanding of Rebbi Pedas. Rebbi Pedas holds that "come close," whether used in Divrei Torah or Nevi'im in a context of illicit relations, only implies actual relations. One cannot even use the Pasuk as an Asmachta to distance four Amos.

Implied Question: He was lenient for himself. (How could he be stringent for others and lenient for himself?)

Answer: This is because she was considered by him like a beam (i.e. he did not have any impure thoughts about her at all), as stated in Kesuvos (17a).

Explanation#1: The simple explanation of the Gemara is that this word means Gehinnom.

Proof: The author of a special prayer said before Ezras Avoseinu on Chanukah (see Avodah Berurah that this is called "Zulas" because it is said after the words "Ain Elokim Zulasecha) indeed writes, "Yakdu b'Havhavei Alak" - "they burned in the fires of Gehinnom."

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that in Eiruvin (19a) the Gemara mentions various names for Gehinnom, but does not mention this name.

Explanation#2: He therefore understands that this ("L'alukah") is the name of a scholar, as in "Li'ee'see'el" and "Lemuel."

Implied Question: However, one cannot say that this is one of the names of Shlomo, such as Agur and Koheles. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the Medrash of three things (see Seder Yakov who says this refers to Pirkei Rabeinu Ha'Kadosh, 6:5, printed in the beginning of the Sefer Reishis Chachmah) counts Ee'see'el as one of the names of Shlomo, but does not count this as one of his names.

Implied Question: The mountain and hills did not give him this answer. (What does the Gemara mean when it says that the mountains and hills answered him?)

Answer#1: Rather, he thought to himself in his heart that if they would answer him, they could have given this answer.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the angel of the mountains answered him.

Opinion: We see from here that it is normal to distance oneself from the doorstep of (a house of) idolatry as much as possible (see Avodah Berurah regarding the lesson that Tosfos is trying to teach us that it is not stated in the Gemara). The Pasuk indeed says, "Do not come close to the doorway of her house," and the Gemara earlier says this refers to idolatry. This is evident from the fact that he had more of an urge to go to the house of prostitution. (The Maharam explains that they went that way instead of by the idols because it must have been forbidden to go by the idols. Otherwise, it is inappropriate to travel near prostitutes, even with intent of getting reward for holding back one's evil inclination.)

Explanation: It is apparent from the fact that the Pasuk says, "Without a true G-d" and it then says, "Without Torah" that the first statement meant that even if this person has Torah he is considered like someone who has no G-d.

Question: This is difficult. What is the question from his acts of charity? Charity is not the same as acts of kindness, as stated in Sukah (49b) that charity is done for the poor, and Gemilus Chasadim is both for the rich and the poor? (For example, helping elderly wealthy people cross the street is kindness that they may require, despite the fact that they do not need money. The Gemara here noted his lack of acts of kindness. How, then, can the Gemara ask a question on this based on Rebbi Chanina's acts of charity?)

Answer: Even so, he understood that someone who generally is involved with charity also does acts of kindness.

Explanation: He must have also given much of his own money to charity.

Explanation#1: Rashi gives a second explanation that this refers to the money for the Seudah of Purim.

Question#1: This is difficult. We do not find in the entire Gemara a mention of money for Seudas Purim.

Question#2: Additionally, Rashi explains that the money that he set aside for his own Purim meal he ended up giving to the poor, and he did not take back the money from the charity collection. The Gemara is praising him for doing so. However, this is difficult, as it is not implied by the words mentioned in the Gemara describing this event. If the Mitzvah he did was that he never took the money back from charity, the Gemara should have mentioned this!

Question#3: The first explanation of Rashi is that he collected money for the Purim Seudah of the poor, and he mistakenly gave that money to regular charity for the poor. He therefore paid the amount he had collected for the Purim Seudah out of his own pocket. This explanation is also difficult, as the words of the Gemara do not imply that this is what happened.

Explanation#2: This is why the Ri explains that the wallet contained money for the Purim Seudah, and he thought it was regular charity money. He then remembered that it was for the Purim Seudah (right before he gave it out to the poor as regular charity monies). Even so, he did not refrain from giving the money out to the poor, even though he knew that there was no other charity money available. He did this because he did not want to embarrass the poor people, as he had already gathered them together and invited them to receive charity.

Explanation#2 (cont.): According to this explanation, the main Mitzvah was when he distributed the money, as even though he remembered it was the wrong money, he did not want to embarrass them. Obviously, it is logical that he paid back this money designated for the Purim Seudah of the poor from his own pocket.

Explanation#2 (cont.): The term "Nischalfu" here means the same thing that it does in Bava Basra (16a) when the Gemara says, "Oyev and Iyov were Nischalef by him." This means that he though to take an enemy, and instead he took Iyov. He similarly thought the money was charity, and he then remembered they were for the Purim Seudah. (The Avodah Berurah explains that Tosfos is proving that Nischalef does not necessarily mean a physical switch, such as one charity purse for another, but rather it can also mean a mental switch.)

Explanation: This refers to weavers, as is implied by the entire Gemara here.

Implied Question: However, in Sukah (51b) the Gemara lists Tarsiyim separately from Gardiyim. (How can Tarsiyim mean Gardiyim?)

Answer: It must be that there are three types of Tarsiyim. Weavers are called Tarsiyim, as is apparent from our Gemara. Coppersmiths are also called Tarsiyim, as is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (57b) which states that a person put an apron worn by coppersmiths on (a chicken, see Gemara there at length). This is a piece of leather that coppersmiths wear on top of their clothes, in order that their clothes should not get ruined. It gets very hot. This is the Tarsiyim meant in Sukah (51b), where all the different types of jobs are listed separately.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, in Megilah (24a) there is an incident recorded regarding a shul of Tarsiyim. This refers to coppersmiths who had their own shul, as people could not tolerate being with them. This is implied by the Gemara in Kesuvos (77a), which considers coppersmiths as one of the people who we force to divorce their wives (if their wives demand a divorce).

Answer (cont.): There is another nation that are all called Tarsiyim, as stated in Megilah (13b) that Bigsan and Teresh (the guards of Achashveirosh) were both Tarsiyim, and would converse in Tursi.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that a Zibura is a male bee, while a Ziburta is a female bee.

Question: This does not seem correct, as it is not clearly apparent in such a small species which is the male and which is the female (which would mean that Rebbi Elazar ben Parta would not be able to know which bee is male and which is female).

Opinion#2: Some explain that these are two different species, similar to the different species of chicken named in Chulin (62b), one being a "Tarnegol" and one being a "Tarnegola d'Agma." (According to Tosfos, the hint was that Zibura is a masculine word, while Ziburta is a feminine word.)