Implied Question: However, earlier regarding the Pasuk, "Praised is the man etc." the Gemara did not ask that this seems to exclude a woman. (Why not?)

Answer: While the word "Ish" - "man" implies that this excludes a woman, "ha'Ish" - "the man" implies that this excludes another type of man (someone who sits in a Moshav Leitzim).

Explanation: The case of serving in order to get reward is someone who is bewildered when he does not get what he wants, as is the nature of idolaters (who are stunned when they pray and do not receive what they want). However, if one is not stunned, he is likened by the Gemara in Bava Basra (10b), Pesachim (8a), and Rosh Hashanah (4a) to a righteous person. This is as the Beraisa states (in these Gemaros) that if a person gives a Sela to charity on condition that his son should live, he is considered a completely righteous person.

Observation: The Gemara implies that Rav Sechorah was Rava's main Rebbi. In many places, we find that Rava quotes many things in his name.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (33a) says that even if a Rav only enlightened someone regarding one Mishnah, he is considered his Rav. Rava there states that this is like Rav Sechorah, who explained to me the meaning of a Zuhama Listaran (a large ladle used to separate parts of the soup) cited in a Mishnah in Taharos. (This implies Rava only learned from Rav Sechorah this one definition, and nothing else.)

Answer#1: Some have the text in Bava Metzia that Rabah said this statement.

Answer#2: Some indeed have the text that this was Rava. His statement means that even if I would have only learned the definition of Zuhama Listaran from him, which is not such a novel teaching, I would have to tear Kriyah if he died.

Text: The word "Aviditah" is spelled with a Daled, meaning "I did this."

Implied Question: He didn't say, "Kiyamti'hah" - "I upheld this?" (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the word "uphold" can only be used regarding a Mitzvah. An example of its usage is in Shabbos (34a), where the Mishnah says, "Did you tithe? Did you make an Eiruv? Light the candle!" The Gemara says that one should say these things in a pleasant voice, in order that his household should accept his instructions. Rav Nachman says there that he did not hear this saying, but upheld it anyways being that it was the logical thing to do.

Text: Some have the text, "Avrisah" - "I transgressed this" with a Reish.

Question: This is not correct. If it was, he would be coming to contradict and glorify the fact that he went against the words of the Chachamim.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this refers to two days studying Tanach, two days studying Mishnah, and two days of studying Gemara. The term "into days" pressed him to give this explanation.

Implied Question: However, it is still possible to ask that a person does not know how long he will live. (Therefore, how can he accurately divide his days into three?)

Explanation#2: It therefore appears that "into days" means everyday. This is why they instituted the Pesukim of Parshas ha'Tamid, the Mishnayos of Eizehu Mekoman, and the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael. (It was instituted that this should be said everyday, in order to fulfill learning Tanach, Mishnah, and Gemara everyday, even for those who are busy and have no time aside from Davening to fulfill this requirement.)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam understands that being that we deal primarily with Talmud Bavli, this is enough (to fulfill this requirement). This is because it is mixed together with many quotes from the Tanach, Mishnah, and Talmud. This is as we say in Sanhedrin (24a) that Bavel can mean "mixed," meaning mixed with Tanach, Mishnah, and Gemara.

Explanation#1: Rabeinu Elchanan understands that this refers to ruling in Halachah, as discussed later in the Gemara.

Explanation#2: Rashi explains this regarding setting times for Torah study.

Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text, "One does not make jewelry for idols, chokers (or pieces of jewelry used to close the tops of their shirts), earrings, and rings. Rebbi Eliezer says this is permitted."

Implied Question: It appears that this text is erroneous. It is not logical that any Tana would permit making jewelry for idols Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: It is impossible to say that Rebbi Eliezer permitted this due to the hatred that would be caused if one refused to make jewelry for idols, similar to the leniency that one is allowed to assist idolatrous women in birth because otherwise this will cause hatred. (Why can't we apply this reason for leniency?)

Answer: The cases are incomparable. In the case of assisting in birth, there is certainly anger, as one cannot make an excuse (that will be accepted by the idolater) why they are not helping in the birth (which is a life threatening situaion). However, here the jeweler can explain that it is forbidden for Jews to make any jewelry for idols.

Implied Question: One also cannot say that this teaches us that if one accepted wages to make jewelry for idols, his wages are permitted b'Dieved. (Why not?)

Answer: If so, this is the Amora Rebbi Elazar's statement in the Gemara, that if he built it his wages are permitted.

Text: It appears that Rashi did not have this text, as he did not explain the meaning of Katla'os (which is an uncommon word).

Question: Even so, a person is not allowed to benefit from monies of idolatry, even if it is less than a Perutah! If so, there is apparently forbidden money mixed into his wages!

Answer: Being that because of this last hit of the hammer the idolater would not give him less wages, it is not considered as if he is getting any wages whatsoever for this last hit.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that idolaters are unforgiving regarding someone stealing less than a Perutah from them. (Why do we assume that the idolatrous employer does not care?)

Answer: Even so, here he is not so stingy.

Observation: This is also true regarding the Gemara in Kidushin (48a) which discusses a case of a woman who tells a man, "Make for me bracelets, earrings, and rings, and I will be Mekudeshes to you." She is not considered Mekudeshes. The Gemara explains that this is because we hold that wages are earned as the worker works. If so, every Perutah of work that he does is a loan, and we know that if someone is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin is invalid.

Question: This is difficult. How is this different from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (65a) regarding the Mishnah's statement there that one can increase rent (akin to wages, see Mishnah there at length)? Rabah and Rav Yosef both say there that rent is only paid at the end of the month. Rava comments there that the Rabbanan checked this out thoroughly, and established that this is based on a Pasuk. (If it is so clear rent is paid at the end of the month, and not throughout the month, how can our Gemara and the Gemara in Kidushin assume that wages are owed throughout the work?)

Answer: Certainly, as long as the worker does not quit, he only receives his wages at the end of the job. The employer does not transgress Bal Talin (prohibition against holding the wages of workers past the sundown or sunrise immediately after they finish their job). It is also permitted to add more wages, as there is no Ribis in doing so (see Mishnah's case in Bava Metzia 65a). However, if a worker wants to quit, he has the right to do so, and he gets paid based on what he has done until now. This is then called the end of his employment.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara there does not discuss the argument of whether rent or wages is paid throughout. The Gemara merely quotes a Pasuk that indicates that there is no Ribis possible in this case, as we have stated, just as there is no prohibition of Bal Talin. The argument whether wages are throughout or only at the end is only relative to our Gemara and the Gemara in Kidushin, as we have explained. [See Tosfos in Bava Kama 99a DH "v'Ee" and Tosfos in Kidushin 48a, DH "d'Kulei Alma."]