Implied Question: The Mishnah in Nazir (Daf 2a) and in Nedarim (Daf 2a) mentions Kinuyim, to avoid mentioning Hash-m's Name in vain, as the Gemara explains there - It does not mention them here ...

Answer: Because people did not tend to mention Hash-m's Name with regard to Erchin.

Nedarim: Are written in Parshas Nedarim (in Matos) - 'Dami alai' - and one assesses him like an Eved who is sold in the market ...

Ma'arichin: If someone says about a person in the Shuk 'Arech P'loni alai', he must give according to the years recorded in the Parshah of Shekalim/Erchin (in Bechukosai), and as per his age (and sex) he gives.

Ne'erachin: If someone obligates himself to pay his own Erech or if somebody says about him 'Erech P'loni alai'.

Explanation #1: They pay later, the woman when she is divorced (or widowed), the Eved when he is set free.

Explanation #2: Or (even immediately) if someone gave them money on condition that the master or the husband has no jurisdiction over it ...

Clarification: In any case, even if they don't have, one obligates them immediately ...

Source: As we learned in the Tosefta 'Women and Avadim can make Nedarim and can be the object of Nedarim; in the event that they have (with what to pay) one claims from them; otherwise, one writes a Sh'tar aagainst them, and claims from them later.

Halachah: As far as an Eved is concerned, even though regarding Mitzvos he has the Din of a woman, when it comes to Erchin, he has the Erech of a male ...

Reason: Since there is no Tana who says that he has the Erech of a woman (See Shitah Mekubetzes 16).

Reason: Since they have a value.

Clarification: 'u'Ma'arichin es Acherim' - If they declared 'Erech P'loni alai' they must pay his Erech (to Hekdesh) ...

Clarification (cont.): Aval Lo Ne'erachin' - If someone else declares on one of them 'Erech P'loni alai' he has said nothing - Since the Pasuk specifically mentions 'Zachar' and 'Nekeivah' (Rashi's wording).

Inference: This implies that a Cheresh has a value.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek ha'Chovel (Bava Kama, Daf 85b) 'Chersho, Nosen lo D'mei Kulo' (implying that he does not) ...

Answer #1: It is speaking about one who cannot be cured.

Answer #2: Or, as Rabeinu Tam explains, (it speaks here about) a Cheresh bi'Yedei Shamayim (who) has a value.

Clarification: A boy of twelve who is almost a man, which he does not become until he reaches the age of thirteen.

Defining the word): And it refers to him as 'Mufla' because one examines him to see whether he knows how to express (Lehafli) himself and to explain in whose Name he is making the Neder or declaring the object Hekdesh - as we learned in the Mishnah in Nidah (Daf 45b).

Clarification: This refers to 'ha'Kol', which in turn, refers to 'Ne'erachin', since it goes on the whole Mishnah - What does 'ha'Kol Ne'erachin' come to include (Rashi's wording).

Inference: It is implied that it ('Nefashos Kol-d'hu') also refers to 'Avadim' in the Mishnah

Question: But the Gemara in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 42b) asks what the Din will be regarding an Eved whose master sold him just for the K'nas, implying that he is subject to Damim?

Answer: The Sugya here is talking about a T'reifah.

Question: Why is the person who kills him not Chayav? - seeing as he is included via "Nefashos", so we see that he is called "Nefesh" ...

Proof: Since for this reason we include someone who kills a day-old baby in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 44b), despite the fact that he may be a Nefel.

Answer: The Gemara there subsequently establishes it where he is definitely a nine-month-old baby, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says 'Whoever does not wait thirty days ... '.

Inference: This implies that we compare Erchin to Damim.

Halachah: Menuval and Mukeh Sh'chin have no Damim and can therefore be Nodere others, but others cannot be Noder them, since they are not worth anything.

Clarification: This is La'av Davka, seeing as there is a date-palm and land which are subject to Damim ...

Clarification (cont.): What it therefore means is 'Any person ... '.

Clarification: The Torah writes three times "Korbano" in Vayikra in connection with Semichah ...

Clarification (cont.): From one of which Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv' (Rashi's wording).

Question: In his sharpness however, he did not take care (See Shitah Mekubetzes 22), since it is only mentioned there twice.

Answer #1: Perhaps he counts "al Rosho" that is written there like "Korbano" - asif the Torah had written 'al Rosh Korbano'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he Darshens from one of the other "Korbano" mentioned there.

Clarification: Temurah, whidch is the beginning of this animal's Hekdesh; 'Sof Hekdesh' - Semichah, which follows immediately after the Shechitah (Rashi's wording).

Implied Question: And the reason that it calls Temurah 'Sof Hekdesh' in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 54b) is ...

Answer: In contrast to the initial Korban.

Question: Why do we not learn Shechitah from Semichah in that an heir is forbidden to Shecht i?

Answer: We cannot say that, since even a Shali'ach is not precluded from Shechting it.

Question: Since the Gemara at the end of Sh'trei Midos (Menachos, Daf 93b) Darshens "ve'Samach Yado", 've'Lo Yad Shelucho', how much more so not Yad Chavero - so why do we need "Korbano"?

Answer]: If not for "Korbano", we would have said that "Yado" comes to preclude Chavero, but that Shelucho is eligible to perform Semichah.

Question: Why can we not extrapolate from here that throughout the Torah 'Ein Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', instead of learning in Kidushin (Daf 41b) that it is 'Kamoso'?

Answer: Because Semichah Yevamah and Eglah Arufah are 'Three Pesukim which come to teach us the same thing' ...

Source: Since by Yevamah it writes (in Devarim 25) "ve'Kar'u lo" - 'Hein ve'Lo Sheluchav', and by Eglah Arufah (in Devarim 21) "u'Mad'du", 've'Lo Shelucham'.

Question: Why do we not learn from the fact that we need to preclude there, that everywhere else 'Shelucho Kamoso'?

Answer: Were it not for the Pesukim cited in Kidushin, we would have learned something else from the three Pesukim regarding Semichah, Yevamah and Eglah Arufah

Clarification: If five partners bring a Korban, each of them is required to make Semichah, and one of them cannot do it on behalf of them all.

Clarification: Because he holds that one can make Semichah for all of them ...

Implied Question: And it is not considered making Semichah on somebody else's Korban ...

Answer: Since he is part of the Korban (Rashi's wording).

Introduction to Support: And this is implied in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos, Daf 94a) - 'And if already Tenufah, which is included by Shechutin, yet it is excluded by Chovrin, Semichah, which is not included by Shechutin, ought certainly to be excluded by Chovrin ...

Introduction to Support (cont.): Therefore the Torah writes "Korbano", to include all of them'.

Support: So we see that the opinion that does nopt Darshen "Korbano", learns it from Tenufah, and the Mishnah rules there that 'One of them performs Tenufaah on behalf of all of them'.

Explanation #1: Since we learn that a Yisrael may not lean on the Korban of a Nochri or of his friend from the same Pasuk, seeing as it is not his Korban ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas his father's Korban requires a separate Pasuk, since we may otherwise have thought that it is called 'his Korban'.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, because they are equal, so we learn them both from the same Pasuk ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because in the same way as a Kohen brings a Korban that is not his, we would have thought that a Yisrael may lean on his friend's Korban ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Korban of a Nochri too, we would have thought that a Kohen can make Semichah just as he provides him with Nesachim from the Tzibur's stock, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Temurah (Daf 2b) ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Hence "Korbano" comes to preclude them both, since in any event, it is not his Korban.

Source: Because the entire context speaks in the masculine ...

Implied Question: Even though the entire Torah was said in the masculine ...

Answer: Nevertheless there, "Ishah" is compared to "Ish" regarding all punishments ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Temurah if not for the Pasuk, she would not be equal to a man, as the Gemara explains in Temurah (Ibid.).

Clarification: This means that he does not Darshen the 'Vav', as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Temurah (Ibid.).

Clarification: The Gemara explains in Sukkah (Daf 28b) 'A child who wakes up and does not cry out "Ima" ' (Rashi's wording).

Clarification: If they have a Tallis, because if one is unable to buy them one, they are not Chayav, neither according to the opinion in Menachos (Daf 41a) that holds 'the obligation lies on the Tallis' nor according to the opinion that holds that it 'lies on the person' ...

Reason: Since the only difference between them is 'garments that are lying in a box' (i.e. that one is not wearing).

Implied Question: And even though the angel said (there) to Rav Ketina 'A Sadin in the summer and a Sarb'la in the winter, what will happen to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis?' - in other words 'Why are you looking for excuses to exempt yourself from Tzitzis?', as the Gemara explains there ...

Implied Question (cont.): And when, in reply to Rav Ketina's query 'Since when does one punish for an Asei?', the angel replied 'At the time of anger one does indeed punish' ...

Answer: That only applies to those days, when all Tallisos had four corners, in which case whoever changed from the norm. was subject to punishment ...

Answer (cont.): But not nowadays, when, since most Tallisos are Patur, someone who does not purchase a Tallis is not punishable (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15).

Clarification #1: Because the Gemara says in Mo'ed Katan (Daf 24a) that 'Any Atifah that does not conform to the way the Arabs do it is not considered an Atifah' - and they tend to wrap themselves down to their moustaches, as the Medrash states.

Clarification #2: Moreove, Tosfos found a 'Siluk' composed by R. Yosef Tuv Ileim - that one places one Tzitzis in front and one at the back on the right, and likewise on the left.

Question: According to the opinion that it is Chovas Tallis, even someone who does not know ought to be Chayav, as long as he possesses a Tallis?

Answer: K'lei Kufsa are only Chayav where the owner is Chayav and where he knows how to wear them.

Halachah: The Halachs Gedolos, based on the Gemara in Menachos (Ibid.) Paskens 'Tzitzis Chovas Gavra hu' ...

Proof: Bearing in mind that one recites 'Lehis'atef be'Tzitzis' ...

Support: And the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 25b & 26a) makes the same inference, and that is how the Gemara Paskens there (See Rosh, Hilchos Tzitzis).

Implied Question: In connection with Tzitzis, the Tana does not mention 'Loke'ach' ...

Answer #1: Since he probably has a Tallis ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And by Lulav too, he can be Yotzei with his father's Lulav.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the term 'Lekichah' is applicable to Tefilin because they are expensive.

Explanation #1: In Maseches Chagigah (Daf 2a), Rashi explains that they are Chayav to appear in the Azarah'.

Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi however, establishes it with regard to a Korban ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But as far as appearing in the Azarah is concerned, even little children are obligated - as the Torah writes "Hakhel ... ha'Nashim ve'ha'Taf".

Qualification: Bt this is only an Asmachta ...

Reason: It cannot be the same as Hakhel, since the Gemara there precludes women from "Zechurcha".

Conclusion: Also appearing in the Azarah must therefore be speaking with a Korban, as the Mishnah there will shortly say 'The Mitzvah of Re'iyah is to the value of two Kesef'.

Clarification: But a full-fledged Eved is Patur, asashi's wording) ...

Clarification (cont): And this is the Maskanah.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that the Seifa of the Mishnah says 'Except for women and Avadim who have not been set free' - which the Gemara there explains to mean 'that they are not completely free, only half' ...

Answer: We must say that the Reisha goes according to the Mishnah Achronah - that Beis Hillel retracted and that they ruled like Beis Shamai.

Precedent: And we find the same format in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 6b) and in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 43b) - 'The Halachah is always like Beis Hillel, and someone who wishes to follow the opinion of Beis Shamai, may do so' ...

Precedent (cont.): Where we establish the Reisha after the Bas-Kol, and the Seifa before the Bas-Kol.

Clarification: In the first Perek in Chagigah (Daf 4a), and the Gemara cites from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which mentions 'Avadim she'Einan Meshuchrarin'

Clarification (cont.): And that a lame person is Patur from Re'iyah we learn from the word "Raglayim", to preclude people who walk on crutches.

Source: In the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 9a) where the Mishnah says 'Chogeg ve'Holech Kol ha'Regel', because all seven days are Tashlumin to one another - the second to the first and the third to the second ...

Clarification: So we see that each day is Chashuv in itself, seeing as it has Tashlumin, in which case we can say that someone who was not fit on the first day but is fit on the second, is Chayav.

Clarification: Someone who was able and eligible to bring his Korban on the first day, may bring it on any of the seven days of Yom-Tov ...

Clarification (cont.): But someone who was not, is not subsequently Chayav ...

Reason: Because they are all only a complement of the first day

Conclusion: What will one then say?

Clarification: Before Beis Hillel conceded, he had the Chazakah of an Eved ...

Clarification (cont.): But after they retracted, seeing as we are able to enforce his Shichrur, it is as if he has been set free - seeing as he is no longer under the jurisdiction of his master, in which cawse he no longer has another master (Rashi's wording).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Gitin (Daf 42a) asks about K'nas concerning the master of a 'Chatzi Eved who still requires a Get Shichrur' - 'Or perhaps, since he lacks a Get Shichrur, he is still called his master' ...

Answer: We must differentiate - inasmuch as with regard to Oleh Regel, he is not his master, seeing as he cannot stop him from going to Yerushalayim, by making him work for him, but he is nevertheless called his master.

Refuted Explanation: 'This is a Machlokes in the eighth Perek of Yoma (Daf 82a) where one opinion says 'around eight or nine', whilst the other one says 'around nine or ten' - which is when one trains them to perform Mitzvos (Rashi's wording).

Refutation: This is not correct however, as it speaks there about educating a Katan to fast ...

Authentic Explanation: But concerning other Mitzvos, each one is according to the child's capacity, as we learned above in connection with Lulav, Sukkah and Tefilin.