Question: From where do we know that me'Eis le'Eis is required by Erchin?

Answer: The Ri explains that we learn it from "ben Chodesh", inasmuch as just as a month-old baby cannot be assessed until he is a full month old - since one cannot go after the months of the world (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Answer (cont.): So too, is the case by a five-year old and a twenty-year old.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that this is the arm-pit, which is called 'Ishayla' in old French.

Introduction to Refutation: This is not correct however - since the Beraisa quoted in the Gemara states 'up to the 'Atzil', which cannot possibly be the 'Ishayla' ...

Introduction to Refutation (cont.): Because the Gemara states in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 18b) "And they shall not gird themselves where one perspires" - 'That they did not wear the belt in a location of perspiration, not below their loins and not above their 'Atzilim', only next to the Atzilim of their arms' ...

Refutation: And if this refers to the arm-pit, then on the contrary, that is a place where one perspires.

Authentic Explanation: The Ri therefore exlains that it refers to the elbow.

Reference: And Tosfos explains at length in Menachos (Daf 37a & 37b) and in Zevachim (Daf 19a).

Question: It was customary everywhere to weigh more than the required weight ...

Proof: As is evident in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 88b) ...

Question (cont.): So how can the Gemara think that the laws of weights (and measures) have been negated?

Answer: What the Gemara means here is that - after weighing, they would throw two thirds of the overweight more (See Avodah Berurah)

Answer (cont.): Thereby causing us to think that it was negated, since they gave more than the Din required.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'R. Mordechai asked who the author of the Beraisa is - which is neither Rebbi Akiva nor the Rabbanan ...

Question (cont.): Who up to now only argue in that one holds 'The seller sells generously', the other (the Rabbanan), 'that 'He sells restrictively, holding back the path for himself, and does not need the extra Lashon ...

Question (cont.): But there where the extra Lashon is necessary, the Rabbanan will concede that it is effective

Question (concl.): That being the case, who is the author?

Clarification: One can explain all the She'eilos via 'Im Timtzi Lomar', as follows: 'Omdi Mahu' - Do we say that he means to give a stick that cannot be bent, or perhaps ... a stick that can stand by itself, even if it can be bent.

Clarification (c ont.): 'Rochbi Mahu' - Even if we say that, by 'Omdi' he gives a stick that can be bent, what will be the Din by 'Rochbi' - Do we need it to be literally like his width, which cannot be bent, in that when he bends his height, he cannot bend his width, so too, the stick must be unbendable ...

Clarification (cont.): Or perhaps he means a stick that as long as his width - even though it can be bent.

Clarification (cont.): And if you say that by 'Rochbi' he gives a stick that can be bent ...

Clarification (cont.): What will be the Din by 'Yeshivasi' - Does he mean one that cannot be bent - Just as I am sitting from my head till my feet (See Avodah Berurah), or perhaps he means a stick that is bent, just as he is bent when sitting ...

Clarification (cont.): And if you say that 'Yeshivasi' implies a bent stick, since he is bent when he sits, what will be the Din by 'Ovi' - Do we say that he means without bending seeing as his thickness is unbendable, or perhaps he mens a large stick as long as his thickness, even though it can be bent.

Clarification (cont.): And if you will say that by 'Ovi' he means even though it can be bent, what is the Din by 'Hekefi' - Does he mean a stick that can surround his entire body, which is so think that he cannot unbend it, or perhaps he means a stick that can go round his body, even if it is thin (and bendable).

Explanation #2: But R. Elchanan explains by 'Yeshivasi' - Does he mean from his head to the location where he is sitting, which is equivalent to half his body, or perhaps he means his entire body, but in sitting formation - i.e. from his head till his feet.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas othes explain 'Yeshivaso Mahu' - Does he mean a stick that takes up the height of his sitting, as opposed to the height of his standing, or perhaps he means a stick that covers the location where he is sitting.

Question: R. Elchanan asks that, seeing as he has already weighed the donkey's flesh against his hand (See Avodah Berurah), why does need to then place donkey's flesh into the barrel?

Answer: And he explains that what the Gemara means is that he weighs flesh, sinews and bones when he places the flesh into the water until it becomes full, and he places the flesh into the water first, and then weighs it against his hand.

Refutation: Tosfos found in the name of the Ri however, that the Beraisa deliberately mentions the weighing first, before the placing, and not vice-versa ...

Reason: Because when the water becomes absorbed into the flesh it causes it to become very much heavier than a human hand (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15), seeing as a live person carries himself (See Avodah Berurah), rendering a live person lighter than a deceased one ...

Conclusion: It is a Dochek to say that one weighs the donkey's flesh against the hand as if it has been severed (Refer to Gilyon), since it weighs more than if it would still be completely attached to the body.

Question: R. Elchanan asks how we can learn from here that up to the ankle is called 'Regel' - perhaps the reason is because he cannot lean on it, in which case until the knee will also be called 'Regel' (See Avodah Berurah)?

Question (cont.): And also when the Gemara in Chagigah (Daf 3a & 3b) precludes a lame and a blind person, it is because he (the lame person) cannot walk and lean without a stick.

Answer: And he answers that there in Chagigah the Gemara cites two D'rashos from "Regalim"; One - to preclude a lame and a blind person because they are unable to walk and to lean without some sort of support, even though they (i.e. the lame person) have a leg from the knee upwards ...

Answer (cont.): The other - "Regalim", 'to preclude people with stumps, because they don't have a leg (Refer to Gilyon).

Refuted Explanation: If someone's leg is severed and a bit remains from the knee downwards, the Chalitzah is Kasher.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since the Gemara says in Yevamos (Daf 103a & 103b) that, even if she performed Chalitzah on a man whose leg is turned upside-down, her Chalitzah is invalid.

Authentic Explanation: We must therefore explain that it is referring to the knots of the straps of the shoe - that if she ties them below the knee, it is Kasher, because it fulfils the Pasuk "And she shall take off his shoe from on his foot" ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): But if she tied it above the knee, the Chalitzah is Pasul, since it is not considered "from on his foot".

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that his hand has already been severed, so even his initial value that he is now being assessed retroactively - as to how much he was worth before, is assessed cheaply, since they now see him degraded.

Question #1: The Ri queries this however, why is this any different than 'Noge'ach', about which the Torah writes (in Sh'mos 21:30) "And he shall pay the redemption of his (the Nizak's) Soul" - that he must pay his full value ...

Question #1 (cont.): Here as well by the damages that Torah obligates him to pay, we should assess the full damage?

Question #2: Moreover, what does the Gemara say later 've'Idach Pesika, Haynu hach?' - That one assesses the hand of the Eved as if he had only one hand, and the other one has been severed, That is the same assessment as Nizakin? ...

Question #2 (cont.): On the contrary, it is not the same as Nizakin, seeing as by Nizakin we assess less than the real value, since when his hand is severed, he is degraded ...

Question #2 (cont.): Whereas here in the case of Eved, even though one hand has been severed, we nevertheless assess him fully according to his work with one hand, and he is a 'complete' man?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Abaye said to him 'How can you compare them, seeing as there he is degraded by damages - inasmuch as when his hand is severed, he is worth less than if his hand would have been bound, in which case, he must be assessed according to his degraded state ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas here by 'Noge'ach', the man is complete, seeing as both hands are intact. Consequently, one assesses him for less than his value, as if his hand was given over to the king (or to his first master [Chok Nasan]).

Clarification: As we learned in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15a & 15b) 'Karka'os ... and a Kohen', and the same applies to Adam' ...

Reason: Because Kohen is mentioned ten times in the Parshah, aaas Rashi explains.

Question #1: R. Elchanan asks why not more than ten are required, seeing as a Beis-Din cannot consist of an even number, since whatever depends on S'vara, needs a 'clincher'?

Question #2: And it is also called a Beis-Din, and a Beis-Din cannot have an even number, so one must add one, to make it eleven? ...

Source: Because regarding all Batei-Dinim, both of Mamon and of Dinei Nefashos the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Daf 2b) applies the principle 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul, Mosifin aleihen Od Echad'

Reference: See also Tosfos Megilah (Daf 23b DH 'Asarah').