1)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which ascribes a poor Ma'arich the status of an Ani even is his father left him a fortune is that - in that case, he is an Ashir, and he ought to pay accordingly.

(b)We refute Rebbi Avahu's suggestion that the Tana means Meni'ach Lo Ribu (that his father promised to leave him a fortune) - because that would be obvious.

(c)So we finally establish the Mishnah - by a Goseis (a person on his death-bed), who bequeathed him a fortune.

(d)We might have thought otherwise - due to the principle Rov Gos'sin le'Misah (in which case the inheritance ought already to be considered his).

2)

(a)And to resolve the same problem in the case of the ship, we establish the case - where the ship is rented out to others.

(b)We cannot add the rental of the goods (which is the fortune to which the Tana refers) to his assets, which would make him rich - due to the principle that S'chirus only falls due when the term of renting expires.

(c)Rav Chisda explains that we cannot reckon with the ship, which is his property - because our Mishnah holds that, when assessing the Ma'arich with regard to Heseg Yad, the Kohen is not permitted to include anything that he requires for his livelihood ...

(d)... like the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in the sixth Perek, where he rules that the Kohen must leave a poor Ma'arich who is a farmer - his pair of oxen and plow, and an ass-driver, his donkey.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a man of over sixty who declares the Erech of a man under sixty - must pay Hekdesh the Erech of a man under sixty.

2. ... a woman who declares the Erech of a man - must pay Hekdesh the Erech of a man.

3. ... someone who declares the Erech of a boy under five who turns five before the Ma'arich has paid - must pay the Erech of a boy under five.

(b)The Beraisa establishes the Hekesh of Damim to Erchin (that we already learned in the first Perek) in two regards; firstly, regarding ...

1. ... Margalis le'Kalim - If he owns a pearl worth thirty Sela'im in the village were he resides, we do not wait for him to move to the city, where it will be worth fifty (even if such a move is imminent - due to the principle that In the realm of Hekdesh, we always stick to the time and place of the object); secondly regarding ...

2. ... Lidon bi'Chevodo - If the Ma'arich undertakes to pay the Erech of a limb on which the Ne'erach's life depends (such as his heart), then the Ma'arich is obligated to pay his full Erech.

(c)Bearing in mind the principle Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah, the Hekesh ought to work both ways. However, we learn from the Pasuk "k'Erk'cha Yakum" that - in the realm of Erchin, we go after the time of the Erech, and not after the time of the declaration (preventing us from comparing Erchin to Damim in this regard).

(d)We know that by Damim we go after the time of the payment - because, since there is no way of assessing the value of the person or the article at the time of the declaration, there is no other alternative.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah reckons a baby on the thirtieth day after birth, like one of less than thirty days, in which case - the Ma'arich is exempt from paying anything (because a child under five has no Erech.

(b)The Tana rules that - the fifth and the twentieth years belong to the previous period (of one month till five and five till twenty, respectively).

(c)And we learn this from the word "le'Ma'alah" (in the Pasuk "ve'Im mi'ben Shishim Shanah va'Ma'alah") - implying that the sixtieth year itself belongs to the twenty to sixty period.

5)

(a)The problem with learning the fifth and the twentieth years from the sixtieth is that - whereas the latter is le'Chumra (from fifteen Shekalim up to fifty for a male), the former are both le'Kula (from twenty down to five and from fifty to twenty respectively).

(b)We answer with 'Shanah' 'Shanah' li'Gezeirah-Shavah - which overrides all Pirchos.

(c)If at least one of the two "Shanah" was not Mufneh (superfluous), we would be able to dismiss the Gezeirah-Shavah with the same Pircha that we asked in our Mishnah (that we cannot learn a Kula from a Chumra).

(d)And we prove that they are both Mufnah - because the Torah could have simply omitted the word "Shanah" in both cases.

6)

(a)We suggest that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi, who holds - 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal.

(b)When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa citing the Pasuk in Bo "mi'Yom ha'Rishon ad Yom ha'Shevi'i", he suggests that the first and the seventh days are not included, he is referring to - the Isur of eating Chametz.

(c)And he takes his cue from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "me'Rosho ve'ad Raglav" (in connection with a Metzora) whom the Torah declares Tahor if his entire body is stricken with Tzara'as, including his head and his feet - where he takes for granted that the Pasuk precludes the head and the feet from the Tazra'as that covers the Metzora's entire body (Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal).

7)

(a)The Tana Kama automatically precludes the head and the feet from the Tzara'as that has spread to the entire body, for one of two reasons; Either because the Simanim of the body - two white hairs or the plague spreading, differ from those of the head - two golden hairs ...

(b)... or - because (based on the Pasuk "le'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen") the Kohen cannot see the top of the head and between the toes (see Shitah Mekubetzes) of the feet at one and the same time, anyway.

(c)And he learns that the previous Pasuk in Bo includes the first and the seventh days from the Pasuk in Bo - "ad Yom ha'Echad ve'Esrim la'Chodesh" (with reference to the earlier Pasuk "ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos").

8)

(a)Rebbi dismisses the Tana Kama's proof as unnecessary - because he holds Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal, in which case "mi'Yom ha'Rishon ve'ad Yom ha'Shevi'i" will automatically include the first and the last days.

(b)We nevertheless reconcile Rebbi with the Mishnah - because according to him, the Pesukim themselves are ambiguous (since if "ve'ad" in the Pasuk "mi'ben Chodesh ve'ad ben Chamesh Shanim" is bi'Chelal, why does the Torah then write "mi'ben Chamesh ve'ad ben Esrim Shanah"? It should have omitted the words "mi'ben Chamesh" and continued "ve'ad ben Esrim Shanah"?

9)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "va'Ma'alah" "ve'Im mi'ben Chodesh va'Ma'alah" that - each age bracket pertaining to Erchin requires not just the full year, but an extra month and a day (just like the minimum age of a ben Levi mentioned there).

(b)The Torah cannot just be coming to teach us that here, like there, requires one full day (meaning that one has to wait until nightfall) - because then, seeing as the Torah writes there explicitly "va'Ma'alah", the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' would be ineffective.

10)

(a)The Beraisa states that the years that the Torah mentions in connection with Kodshim ("Kevasim b'nei Shanah"), the one year redemption period of Batei Arei Chomah, the two years during which a Sadeh Achuzah cannot be redeemed, the six years of an Eved Ivri and those of a Ben and a Bas (which will be explained shortly) - are all full years from the date and the time of day to the equivalent date and time of day (as opposed to Rosh Hashanah closing the first and subsequent years).

(b)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov extrapolates this, regarding ...

1. ... Kodshim and Batei Arei Chomah from "Keves ben Shenaso" (Kodshim) - which implies its year (and not of the world) and "ad Tom Sh'nas Mimkaro" (Batei Arei Chomah) - which likewise implies its year of sale.

2. ... Sadeh Achuzah from "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor Lach" - implying that the purchaser receives two years or three produces (if the seller sold him the field together with the standing corn), which is only possible if the two-year period terminates in Nisan (when the crops are ripe) at the same time as it began.

3. ... Eved Ivri from "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod, u'va'Shevi'is ... " that - sometimes, he goes out in the seventh year which, like the previous case, is only possible if "six years" means six full years, as we explained.

(c)Rav Gidal Amar Rav interprets she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas with regard to Erchin - with reference to the various age groups which differ with regard to males and to females (which is how he explains Ben and Bas in the Beraisa).

(d)Rav Yosef connects it with Perek Yotzei Dofen (in Nidah), where the Tana rules that - the Neder of a boy or a girl under the age of bar or bas Mitzvah is valid, provided he or she understands the implications of the Neder (Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish).

11)

(a)When Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether he and Rav Gidal were arguing, he replied that - one of them said one thing, the other said another, and they were not arguing.

(b)We substantiate Rav Yosef's reply - by citing Rav himself, who considers all the cases of me'Eis le'Eis mentioned in Perek Yotzei Dofen, Halachah.

(c)Nevertheless, Rav ...

1. ... learned she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas with regard to Erchin (rather than to the cases in Perek Yotzei Dofen) - because the Din of Ben and Bas is written there explicitly (which Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish by Nedarim is not), like the other cases mentioned in the Beraisa; whereas Rav ...

2. ... Yosef learns she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas with regard to the cases in Perek Yotzei Dofen (and not to Erchin) - because it is in connection with Nedarim that the Tana uses the Lashon Ben and Bas (whereas by Erchin, the Torah uses the Lashon "Zachar" and "Nekeivah").

12)

(a)The proportion of years that the Erech drops when ...

1. ... a man enters the over sixty age-bracket is - just over a third (from fifty Shekalim to fifteen).

2. ... a woman enters the over sixty age-bracket is - exactly a third (from thirty Shekalim down to ten).

(b)Chizkiyah explains that this is -because, as opposed to an old man about the house, who is a nuisance, an old woman, who is still capable of doing housework, is a treasure (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)The man is described as Pacha, which means either broken and discarded - or naked [without accessories, helpless]).