Authentic Answer: The Ri explains that the case later (where the owner of the wine only receives his wages) speaks where the owner of the wine poured out his wine on his own initiative, in which case the owner of the honey can say to him 'Why did you do that? I would have made the efort and saved my honey!' ...

Authentic Answer (cont.): ... whereas in our case, it speaks where the owner of the honey is coming to pour out the wine, and it is a 'T'nai Beis-Din that the owner of the wine cannot stop him from doing so, only he is obligated to pay the value of the wine out of his honey.

Authentic Answer (cont.): And that is similar to the case of 'the swarm of bees', where he is permitted to cut off the branch to save his bees.

Authentic Answer (concl.): And it is also similar to the case of 'the flax'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara answers that he is not speaking about individual opinions (seeing as the current Beraisa conforms to the Mishnah later, as Tosfos just explained) ...

Answer: ... it is because we can assume that just as the Chachamim argue in the case of 'the swarm of bees', as we see in the Mishnah later (in the last Perek, Daf 114a), so too, will they argue in the other cases ...

Reason: ... because the reason for all the rulings is one and the same.

Question: Why did they fix specifically Monday and Thursday?

Answer: Because the Midrash (Tanchuma [See Mesores ha'Shas]) states that Moshe Rabeinu a.h. ascended the Mountain on a Thursday to receive the second set of Luchos, and he descended on a Monday, when Hash-m made up with him ...

Answer (cont.): ... and since that ascent and descent signified a time of goodwill, they fixed Monday and Thursday

Answer (concl.): And it is for the same reason that they chose Monday and Thursday as fast-days.

Implied Question: Even though he ascended the Mountain early in the morning ...

Implied Question: ... as the Torah writes in Sh'mos (34) 'And you shall ascend in the morning" - and all subsequent ascensions presumably, took place in the morning and not at night-time, in which case one will find that there are only forty days minus one night ...

Answer: One need not wory about that.

Support: And that is also how it comes out according to the Seider Olam (Perek 6) which says that 'He ascended the Mountain on the seventh of Sivan and descended on the seventeenth of Tamuz, when he smashed the Luchos; He went up again on the eighteenth and Davened on their behalf, as the Pasuk states "And I fell before Hash-m for forty days" ...

Support (cont.): ... On the twenty-ninth of Av, when Hash-m made up with him, he descended once more to carve out the (second) Luchos; after which he ascended again for another forty days from the thirtieth of Av until the tenth of Tishri, when Hash-m made up with him (completely). That is when Moshe descended, holding the Luchos.

Support (cont.): ... On that day Hash-m forgave Yisrael, as the Pasuk writes "And Hash-m said 'I have forgiven you like your words' ".That is why it is (a day of) forgiveness and atonement for all generations'.

Support (concl.): It transpires that the forty latter days are missing a night, seeing as he ascended on the thirtieth of Av early in the morning and descended on Yom Kipur ...

Alternative: ... unless we say that they declared Ellul a full month.

Implied Question: And when the Pasuk writes in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 10) "And I stood on the Mountain like the first (set of) days - forty days and forty nights" ...

Answer: ... it means "like the first days", but not like the nights, since the latter nights were missing one.

Question: Even though we need "like the first days" to teach us that 'just as the first days were accompanied by goodwill, so too, the latter ones - but during the middle ones Hash-m was angry'.

Answer: The Torah could have written "like the first ones", but it added the word "days", to teach us "days" 'and not nights'.

Answer (cont.): On the other hand, had it wanted to convey the latter D'rashah exclusively, it ought to have written "And I stood on the Mountain for forty days" and no more.

Question: But at the end of Ki Sissa (34:28) the Torah writes "And he was with Hash-m forty days and forty nights" - in connection with the second Luchos ...

Answer: ... that Pasuk refers to the (middle) days when he fell before Hash-m ...

Answer (cont.): lnd it inserts it here, because it did not explain earlier, when it said "perhaps I will atone for your sin", how long he stood in prayer.

Implied Question: And when the Torah writes after this "And he wrote on the Luchos ... "?

Answer: ... it refers to the period following those forty days and forty nights, and those last ones were missing a night.

Question: It is fine according to Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion, in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 87b) Sivan of that year fell on Sunday, since then, he ascended on the fifth - according to the Cheshbon that one month is full and one month, short - since the thirtieth of Av fell on Thursday ...

Question (cont.): ... But according to the Rabanan, who maintain that Rosh Chodesh fell on Monday, it turns out that the thirtieth of Av fell on Friday (and not on Thursday) ...

Answer #1: Unless we say according to the Rabanan, either that Moshe burned the Golden Calf and punished the sinners on the seventeenth of Tamuz and ascended the Mountain on the same day; he came down on the twenty-eighth of Av early in the morning and carved out the Luchos, and ascended again on the twenty-ninth of Av, which was a Thursday ...

Answer #2: ... or that he descended on the twenty-ninth of Av and ascended again on the same day, and Av was a short month, in order that the day of his descent should turn out to be on Yom Kipur ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... on which the second Luchos were given, as the Gemara states in Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 121a).

Question #1: According to the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshas Ki Sissa [See Mesores ha'Shas]) however, which explains that Moshe descended on the seventeenth of Tamuz, burned the Eigel and punished the sinners on the eighteenth and ascended on the nineteenth ...

Question #1 (cont.): ... and the day that Moshe ascended for the third set of forty days was on Rosh Chodesh Ellul, it can not have been on Thursday, either according to the Rabanan or according to Rebbi Yossi?

Question #2: Nor will his descent turn out to have taken place on Yom Kipur?

Answer): Unless we say that they declared Ellul a full month (See Tosfos Shabbos, Daf 89a DH 'le'Sof').

Question: Beis-Din already sat daily before the Takanah of Ezra, as the Gemara states in Kesuvos (on Daf 3a, Tosfos DH 'she'Batei'), so what did Ezra institute? Did he institute that they should only sit on Mondays and Thursdays?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam (See Mesores ha'Shas) explains that initially, they would only sit in one city, and he instituted that they should sit in every city.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that they only instituted Chafifah on the head.

Support: And so it is implied when the Gemara will say shortly 'd'Oraysa - perhaps it will become knotted'.

Proof: In fact, the term 'Chafifah' only applies to the head ...

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Nazir (Daf 42a) 'Nazir Chofef u'Mefaspes (separate), Aval Lo Sorek (comb)' ...

Proof (cont.): ... but regarding other parts of the body, the equivalent term is 'Hadachah' ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in the last Perek of Nidah (Daf 66b, See Tosfos DH 'Im') 'A man should teach in his home that a woman must wash (Madichah) the folds in her skin with water' ...

Chidush: Which also implies that it is only the folds in the skin that require washing, but not the rest of her body.

Question: Even though one could say that it mentions 'the folds' to teach us that, although the water does not need to actually enter the folds, they must be able to do so ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Gemara did not say 'even the folds', it implies the folds exclusively, and not the rest of her body.

Implied Question: And as for the Sugya 'Are you short of pots?' (to wash in [Ibid, Daf 68a]), even though it is not obligatory to do so ...

Answer: ... she (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's wife) was accustomed to washing, just as it is the Minhag nowadays to wash the entire body in warm water (See Tosfos, NIdah 66b DH 'Im').

Halachah: We do not Pasken like this, but like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who rules that 'The words of Torah are not subject to Tum'ah' ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'Reishis ha'Gez' (Chulin, Daf 136b, Tosfos DH 'Rebbi') and in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf '22a) 'Nowadays the universal Minhag is like the three elders ... '.

Question: How could Rebbi Yehudah dare to negate the Takanah of Ezra?

Answer #1: Perhaps in his opinion, Ezra never initiate such a Takanah ...

Answer #2: ... Or perhaps he stipulated that whoever wishes to negate it may do so ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Since in such a case, it is permitted, as the Gemara states at the beginning of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 3b).

Answer #3: Alternatively, the Isur did not spread to most of Yisrael ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states with regard to 'oil' in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 36a).

Implied Question: Even though it is implied there that if Daniel instigated the decree, Rebbi Yehudah would not be able to annul it ...

Answer: ... that is only because it (the decree on oil) is written in a Pasuk, whereas that of Ezra is not.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara Darshens in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf 21b) that, since the Pasuk writes "And you shall teach them to your children", after which it writes "The day on which you stood" - 'Just as there Ba'alei Keri are forbidden' ...

Answer: ... that is merely an Asmachta, seeing as it is Ezra who instituted it.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara states in 'Mi she'Meiso' (Ibid. Daf 18b) that 'Benayahu broke the sheet of ice and went down and Toveled' ...

Answer: ... that was not to study Torah, since that was before Ezra's time - but in order to eat Chulin be'Taharah.

Question: Why give the reason of 'Lo Nischalkah'? What is wrong with the reason that the Gemara gives in 'Lo Yachpor' (Bava Basra, Daf 23b) that 'We need to go after the majority of the world?

Refuted Answer: Even though the Gemara says there that 'If it is situated among the mountains, we do not go after the majority' - and "Yerushalayim is surrounded by mountains" ...

Refutation: ... nevertheless, Yisrael would enter and leave it when they were Oleh Regel, and even on the other days of the year, to bring their Nedarim and Nedavos ...

Refutation (cont.): In fact, even the nations of the world used to come there for business, as it was called "the peddlar of the nations" (See Rashash).

Answer #1: Nevertheless, there were areas there where one would find only residents of Yerushalayim.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking in the days of Chizkiyah, when all of Yisrael lived in Yerushalayim, and nobody came there to do business.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot take this to mean that really it was apportioned, only (later) they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place, which is why it is not subject to Tum'as Nega'im ...

Refutation: ... because in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 12a) it implies that according to the opinion that holds 'Lo Nischalkah', it is meant literally.

Question: From where does the Gemara know that 'Lo Nischalkah' is meant literally? Perhaps he holds 'Nischalkah', only they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place ...

Precedent: ... like Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Nischalkah and it is Metamei, only the Beis-ha'Mikdash itself is not Metamei, even though it was apportioned ...

Precedent (cont.): Since they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place, as the Gemara explains there (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim)?

Answer: Because on the one hand, it is a S'vara to say that, as far as the Beis-ha'Mikdash is concerned, although it was apportioned, they went and reacquired it so that all of Yisrael should have a portion in it ...

Answer (cont.): ... but on the other, with regard to Yerushalayim, if it was initially apportioned, why would they go and reacquire it?

Question: Why is it not forbidden, on account of the prohibition to do business with Tamei things?

Source #1: ... as we learned in Maseches Shevi'is (7:3) 'One may not do business with Neveilos and T'reifos' ...

Source #2: And in Perek Kol Sha'ah too (Pesachim, Daf 23b, DH 'Amar') it says 'Hunters of Chayos and birds who happen to have Tamei species ... ' - specifically 'happen to have', but Lechatchilah, it is forbidden ...

Torah Source: ... as the Gemara Darshens there "Yih'yu" - 'they shall retain their original status'.

Source #3: Also the Toras Kohanim (in Shemini 3:11) Darshens "Sheketz Hu lachem" - 'that one may not do business with them'.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that that speaks specifically about something that stands to be eaten, but if one rears them in order to anoint skins with their fat or to sell them to a Yisrael to do so, it is permitted.

Answer (cont.): And in the same way, one may sell Cheilev, there where it does not stand to be eaten.

Yerushalmi: And it is by the same token that the Yerushalmi, in this Perek, explains that one may do business with horses and donkeys, since presumably they are designated for working.

Question: But they issued this decree during the war with Titus, as the Gemara explains in the last Perek of Sotah (Daf 40a)

Question (cont.): Titus lived in the time of the Churban, as we learned in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 56b), which the kingdom of the Chashmona'im preceded by a long time, as we learned in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 9a)?

Answer #1: Initially they decreed, but the people did not accept it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, had someone initially wanted to accept the curse, he would not have been declared a transgressor, whereas in the end, he would have transgressed an Isur de'Rabanan.

Conclusion: And it (therefore) appears that the prohibition of rearing Chazirim in the Mishnah refers to the decree that they issued during the war with Titus.

Source: It is a Mishnah in Menachos, in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Daf 64b, Tosfos, DH 'Arur').

Question: But this episode took place in the days of Mordechai, as the Gemara says there - that when 'A deaf-mute came and placed his hand on the garden ... Mordechai said to them ... ' ...

Question (cont.): ... and it would be most surprising for Mordechai to have lived so long - since the family of the Chashmona'im lived only two hundred and six years before the Churban, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 9a) ... (and Mordechai went into exile with Yechonyah before the Churban Bayis Rishon)?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that all those years when they were experts at conveying hints and coining expressions, they would call the Chacham concerned 'Mordechai', who was the sage and who was expert in expressions.

Clarification: However, it appears that the episode of the three women that the Gemara cites there actually occurred with (the original) 'Mordechai' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... since the Gemara says there 'That is what the Mishnah means when it says 'Pesachyah (alias Mordechai) was in charge of the birds-nests' (in connection with the Korbanos).