1)

(a)We query the aforementioned prohibition of 'Chochmas Yevanis' from the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, which states that Lashon Sursi (the Syriac language [see also Tosfos DH 'Lashon Sursi']) is not needed in Eretz Yisrael, because one has a choice of two other languages Lashon ha'Kodesh or Greek.

(b)Likewise, Rebbi Yosi holds that Aramaic is not needed in Bavel, because one has a choice of two other languages Lashon ha'Kodesh or Persian.

(c)We reconcile the Tana Kama with the curse on someone who teaches his son Greek philosophy by confining the latter to Greek philosophy (which is forbidden), whereas the Tana Kama is referring to the Greek language.

2)

(a)Based on the Pasuk in Eichah "Eini Olelah le'Nafshi mi'Kol B'nos Iyri", Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, explains the catastrophe that befell his father's family as being that, in the space of one generation, of the thousand youths of the family, only two survived ...

(b)... himself and his cousin (the son of his father's brother), who lived in Asya.

(c)Five hundred out of the original thousand studied Torah the other five hundred studied Greek philosophy.

3)

(a)We reconcile the fact that so many members of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's family studied Greek philosophy with the ban of which we just spoke, by comparing it to Avtulmus ben Reuven, whom they gave a special dispensation 'Le'saper Kumi' since that kind of haircut (which we will explain immediately) was normally considered Darkei ha'Emori (a fashion practiced by gentile idolaters).

(b)This haircut entails either cutting the hair in front, but leaving it long at the back or cutting the hair above the ears (removing the Peyos completely), like the Romans used to do.

(c)They gave Avtulmus ben Reuven (and the members of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's family) this special dispensation because he was close to the ruling power (and sometimes needed an entree to them in order to help negate evil decrees).

4)

(a)Chazal permit keeping a dog provided it is permanently chained.

(b)They permitted keeping dogs in a border town provided they are kept chained by day (but not at night).

(c)The ramification of Rebbi Eliezer, who claims that Chazal compared keeping dogs to keeping Chazeirim are that someone who contravenes the former prohibition, is subject to the same curse as the latter one.

(d)Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman compares Bavel to a border town in this regard.

(e)We interpret Bavel in this respect as Neharda'a.

5)

(a)Rebbi Dustai be'Rebbi Yanai Darshens from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Shuvah Hash-m Rivevos Alfei Yisrael" that the Shechinah does not rest in Yisrael when there are less than twenty-two thousand Jews.

(b)Consequently, he says in a situation where Klal Yisrael is one short of that number, and someone's dog barks at a pregnant woman, causing her to lose her baby, he is responsible for keeping the Shechinah away from Yisrael.

(c)When the dog owner of the dog that had barked at a certain woman who was pregnant, assured her that its fangs had been removed she informed him that his consolation was futile, since her baby had already died from the shock.

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that one may only place dove-traps at a distance of at least thirty Ris from the town. The minimum distance that the Mishnah in Bava Basra requires to ensure that his doves do not eat up the local crops and fruit is fifty Amos.

(b)Abaye reconciles the two Mishnayos by differentiating between safeguarding the crops and the fruits (since the birds eat their fill in the space of fifty Amos), and catching other people's birds (which tend to fly up to thirty Ris from their nests).

(c)A Beraisa forbids placing traps in the vicinity of an inhabited area even at a distance of a hundred Mil from the town. To resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa and our Mishnah, Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa by a Yishuv of vineyards, which enables the doves from town to hop from one vineyard to another. Rabah establish it by a Yishuv of dove-cots.

(d)To explain why spreading traps should not then be forbidden because of the dove-cots, we give three answers: that the Tana is speaking about Shovchin belonging to Nochrim that they are Hefker or that they actually belong to the owner of the traps.

7)

(a)We have already learned that the Mazik is Chayav to pay Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes. Beis-Din assess ...

1. ...Nezek by considering the Nizak to be an Eved Ivri (others say an Eved Kena'ani), and by evaluating him with his arm (or whichever limb is wounded) and without it (and charging him the difference).

2. ... Tza'ar' (even when there is no Nezek [e.g. if the Mazik burned him on his nail, for example]) by assessing how much a person such as the Nizak would accept to be burned in this way (this will be explained later).

(b)Should a scab grow on the wound, then as long as it is the direct result of the wound, the Mazik continues to be liable to pay for its cure, otherwise, he is Patur.

(c)If the wound keeps on fluctuating, the Mazik is liable to keep on paying for its cure provided it has not yet cured completely.

(d)Beis-Din assess Sheves as a guard in a cucumber-field (which, in those days, was the lowest paid worker. However, this too, will be explained later in the Sugya).

(e)Boshes depends on the status of both the Mazik and the Nizak. With regard to ...

1. ... the Mazik the lower his status, the more he has to pay.

2. ... the Nizak the higher his status, the more the Mazik has to pay.

8)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Makeh Adam ... "u'Makeh Beheimah" that just as Makeh Beheimah ... " speaks about paying, so too, does "Makeh Adam", in which case, "Ayin Tachas Ayin" (an eye for an eye) must not be taken literally.

(b)And from the Pasuk in Masei "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach La'mus", the Tana learns 'le'Nefesh Rotze'ach I Atah Loke'ach Kofer, Aval Atah Loke'ach Kofer le'Rashei Evarim she'Ein Chozrin' (that someone who damages a limb permanently needs to pay with money rather with his own limb).

(c)The first Pasuk cannot be that of "Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, u'Makeh Adam Yamus" (as we initially quoted it) because that is speaking about a case of murder.

(d)In that case, the Tana must be referring to the Pasuk "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, Nefesh Tachas Nafesh; ve'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso ka'asher Asah Kein Ye'aseh Lo". And when he said "Makeh" "Makeh", he meant not the actual word "Makeh", but 'Haka'ah Haka'ah' (that we learn a case of 'striking' from another case of 'striking').

9)

(a)An earlier Pasuk stated "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam, Mos Yumas". Assuming that this Pasuk is not speaking about killing a person but about wounding him, in light of what we have just learned, we interpret it too, to mean Mamon (see Tosfos DH 'Af').

(b)We know that the Pasuk is not in fact, speaking about murder because a. it is compared to "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah" (Mamon), and b. the Pasuk continues "Ka'asher Yiten Mum ba'Adam Kein Yinasen Bo" (which refers to wounding).

(c)After teaching 'Mamon' from the Pasuk In Emor ("Makeh Adam ... "u'Makeh Beheimah"), the Torah switched to a Pasuk in Masei ("ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach La'mus"), as we just saw. The Tana did that, because of the alternative of learning from "Makeh Adam Yamus", that "ve'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso ... " is speaking about Misah, and not Mamon.

(d)We prefer to learn Nizakin from Misah, rather Nizakin (of Adam) from Nizakin (of Beheimah) because we prefer to learn Adam from Adam.

10)

(a)We Darshen the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach Asher Hu Rasha La'mus" to preclude 'Rashei Evarim she'Einan Chozrin', and not ...

1. ... that a murderer who receives the death sentence is not Chayav to pay for the damage as well ('Kam leih be'de'Rabah mineih') because we already know from the Pasuk in Shoftim "K'dei Rish'aso" ('Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'Lo Sh'tei Rish'ayos').

2. ... that he cannot get off the hook by paying instead of receiving the death-sentence because that we know from the Pasuk in Masei "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach".

(b)Even though we have the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer ... ", we nevertheless need "Makeh" "Makeh" to teach us that he specifically pays, and that he does not even have the option of losing his eye instead.

11)

(a)Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah learns from ...

1. ... the fact that not all eyes are equal, that sometimes the Mazik's eye is bigger than that of the Nizak that "Ayin Tachas Ayin" must mean Mamon, and cannot be taken literally.

2. ... the Pasuk "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem" that we cannot have two Dinim, to remove the eye of a Mazik whose eye is the same size as that of the Nizak, and make him pay in the event that his eye is bigger or smaller, in which case, one is always obligated to pay (even if the two are the same).

(b)We reject Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah's Limud by comparing it to murder, because according to Rebbi Dustai's way of thinking we would have to exempt the murderer from the death-penalty, because sometimes the murderer is bigger or smaller than his victim.

(c)Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah's mistake lies in the fact that the Torah is not charging him for the eye that he poked out or the body that he deprived of life (like he thought), but for the sight or the Neshamah that he destroyed.