Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 36a). The Gemara queries the Mishnah there 'Hillel instituted Pruzbul' - 'Is it possible that the Torah rules that it is Meshamet, and Hillel institutes that it isn't? ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): To which it answers by establishing it by Shevi'is nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): To which it answers by establishing it by Shevi'is nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

Implied Question: Even though Hillel lived in the era of Bayis Sheini ...

Answer: The Gemara holds that even then, since the Yovel did not apply, Sh'mitah did not apply min ha'Torah either ...

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara states 'They counted Yovlos in order to count Sh'mitin', it means mi'de'Rabanan ...

Question: But here it seems to take on that in Bayis Sheini, Yovel applied min ha'Torah?

Precedent: And this is also implied in Kerisus at the end of Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah (Daf 11a) - "Vayitnu Yedeihem Lehotzi Nesheihem ve'Ashamim" ...

Precedent (cont.): 'This teaches us' said Rav Chisda, 'that they all had relations with a Shifchah Charufah' - who is half Shifchah, half bas-Chorin who is betrothed to an Eved Ivri ...

Source: And we learned in the previous Perek (Daf 29a) that 'Eved Ivri only applies when the Yovel applies' ...

Precedent (concl.): So we see that Yovel did apply in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash.

Answer: We must therefore say that Yovel did indeed apply in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash

Implied Question: Because even though not all of Yisrael returned in the days of Ezra, as the Pasuk writes (in Nechemyah 7) "The entire community altogether numbered forty thouwsand thousand, three hundred and sixty" ...

Answer: Nevertheless some members of each tribe did return ...

Answer (cont.): And it is therefore considered 'All its inhabitants are on it' ...

Source: As the Gemara says later - that they counted Yovlos even though they did not all return.

Alternative Explanation: And we must explain that which is mentioned in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin 36.), that Hillel did not institute it for his generation, rather, he knew that that the Mikdash would be destroyed in the future and therefore he instituted Pruzbal.

Implied Question: And in spite of the Gemara's She'eilah there as to 'Whether Hillel instituted P'ruzbul for his generation or for future generations' ...

Answer: That She'eilah does not according to Abaye but according to Rava (See Avodah Berurah), who answers there 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.

Clarification: ... Is a Nesinah, whereas generally, a forced Nesinah is not considered a Nesinah.

Question #1: Is it really necessary to bring a proof that a forced Nesinah is not a Nesinah? Why is it not obvious that one cannot force someone to accept a gift against his will?

Question #2: Moreover, how can Rav Papa argue with that? (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 18).

Answer: To be sure, it is obvious that a gift that is given voluntarilly, that has no specific motive cannot be given against the will of the recipient - even according to Rav Papa ...

Answer (cont.): And they are arguing here over a gift that has a specific motive - where (for example) he says to her 'Here is your Get on condition you give me two hundred Zuz, which she now needs to give in order to fulfill the condition of the Get, and the receipt of the money in our Mishnah ...

Answer (concl.): And also where there is an obligation to give, such as a debt or a Pikadon, there giving against the recipient's will is certainly considered a Nesinah ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Gozel Basra (Bava Kama, Daf 118a & 118b) - 'If he lent him or deposited by him in an inhabited location, he may not return it in the desert - implying that returning it to an inhabited location is permitted even against the owner's will.

Question: The Mishnaeh in Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 74a & 74b) in a case where a man says to his wife states 'Here is your Get on condition you give me my coat back', and where she lost the coat, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel obligates her give him its value ...

Question (cont.): Even against his will ...

Proof: Even against his will - seeing as the Rabanan argue because 'he said specifically his coat'?

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara asks there what the Din will be regarding someone who says to his wife 'Here is your Get on condition you give me two hundred Zuz' and he is subsequently Mochel her ...

Proof (cont.): Both according to the Rabanan and according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel; according to the Rabanan - who only say their Din where he is not Mochel her, but here he declared 'Machul lach' ...

Proof (cont.): One is forced to say that the Rabanan who maintain that he meant specifically 'his coat' are speaking where she returns the money against his will ...

Proof (cont.): Because if it was with his agreement, it would not be worse than 'Mechulin lach' ...

Proof (concl.): Nevertheless, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that she may give him the money.

Question (concl.): So we see that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, a forced Nesinah is considered a Nesinah, so how can Rava say here that it is not?

Answer: We must therefore say that according to Rava, when Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says there that 'she should give him the value of his coat', he means with his consent ...

Answer (cont.): And nevertheless, the Rabanan argue and say that he meant specifically 'his coat', and consequently she is not divorced ...

Implied Question: And as for the (above-mentioned) She'eilah there ...

Answer: That is not according to Rava, in whose opinion the Rabanan hold that even 'Mechulin lach' is not effective.

Question: According to Rava, who holds that even in a town there is no Nesinah against the owner's will, why did the purchaser see fit to hide? Why could he not simply refuse to accept it, in which case it would not have been a Nesinah, and he would have got it back after twelve months?

Answer: Had he been in town, he would have felt embarrassed not to have accepted it; Nevertheless it is implied that according to Rava, even in his presence, it is not considered a Nesinah against his will.

Question: How is it implied that according to Rava, even in his presence, it is not considered a Nesinah against his will, bearing in mind that Hillel's Takanah was specifically not in the owner's presence? ...

Question (cont.): Inasmuch as Hillel only found it necessary to institute his ruling not in the owner's presence

Question (concl.): But in his presence, the Nesinah is valid irrespective of whether it is with his consent or against his will, as Rav Papa asked him?

Answer: It is evident because, had in his presence against his will been considered a Nesinah, Hillel would not have found it necessary to institute his ruling not in his presence to throw his money into a reserved room, since he could have been Mezakeh it to him through a third person ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since Hillel found it necessary to institute a forced Nesinah, that generally ... .

Answer (concl.): Whereas Rav Papa, who queries Rava, does not hold of this S'vara.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one takes from there stones, whereas from a 'Metzulah' one takes sand.

Explanation #2: The Rashbam however, explains in Bava Basra (Daf 16 a & 16b) that from a 'Chulsis' one takes glass whilst a 'Metzulah' is a fish-pond, as the Gemara in B'rachos (Daf 9b) describes it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is written "Lo" (with both a 'Vav' and an 'Alef' - implying that it has and that it hasn't ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Which means that it does not have a wall now, but it did have one before ...

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

Explanation #2: But - in good Chumashim it is written "Lo" with an 'Alef', and read with a 'Vav' (See also Tosfos, Chulin, Daf 65s DH 'Af-al-Pi').

Clarification: Is there no town in the Galil that is surrounded by a wall other than Gamla, and in Eiver ha'Yarden other than G'dud?

Question: Why does the Gemara not pose the same question on the Mishnah?

Answer: The Gemara is justified in asking (exclusively) on the Beraisa, because it is more particular to mention Gamla and G'dud by name (which the Mishnah doesn't).

Question: According to Rava as well, we have to say that there are two towns called Yerushalayim (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer: According to Rava, we do not need to say there are two Yerushalayims in Yehudah, but in other countries, whereas according to Rav Ashi, there must be two Yerushalayims in Yehudah.

Clarification: With regard to selling a house in a Bati Arei Chomah and sending Metzora'im outside the town ...

Clarification (cont.): Since it is specifically from Batei Arei Chomah that one sends Metzora'im outside the walls, but not from other towns.

Clarification (concl.): The stones of a plagued house, on the other hand, must be thrown outside the town - even if it did not have a wall around it in the time of Yehoshua ...

Source: As the Toras Kohanim Darshens "Es'hen" (the stones) you shall throw outside the town, but a person (who is plagued) does not go outside the town, unless it had a wall around it'.

Question: From where do we know this, seeing as the Torah does not mention a walled town in connection with a Metzora?

Answer: ha'Rav Rabeinu Yitzchak explains that we learn "Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" that is written by a Metzora (Vayikra 13) from "Moshav" - "Beis Moshav Ir Chomah" (Ibid. 25).

Explanation #1: Rashi here, writes that they sanctify the walls with two Todos and with Shir; Beis-Din walk in front and the two Todos behind them - as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os (Daf 16a & 16b).

Explanation #2: Whereas in Maseches Shevu'os he states that - 'Although we find the sanctification of the walls of Yerushalayim with two Todos and with Shir, whenever they came to add to the city or the Azaros ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): I do not know how they sanctified the other towns'.

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on the Beraisa cited by the Yerushalmi in Maseches Gitin - which Rashi cites in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 36a). The Beraisa, commenting on the double Lashon in the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah Shamot", explains ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): 'The Pasuk is referring to two Sh'mitos (of the land), one, Sh'mitas ha'Yovel, the other, Sh'mitas Shevi'is; When you are Meshamet Yovel, you should also be Meshamet Shevi'is, but when you are not Meshamet Yovel, then you should not be Meshamet Shevi'is either' ...

Question: Whereas here it says that they only counted Yovlos in order to sanctify Sh'mitin?

Answer #1: Rashi there answers that 'The case in Erchin (here) is mi'de'Rabanan - though the Toras Kohanim does not imply this'.

Answer #2: He also cites an opinion that it is a Machlokes Tana'im.

Answer #3: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam explains, the Beraisa cited at the beginning of Perek ha'Shole'ach - 'Rebbi Omer "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot" - the Pasuk is referring to two Sh'mitos - one the Sh'mitah of land, the other, the Sh'mitah of money', is not talking about plowing and planting but about fields reverting to the4ir owners in the Yovel ...

Explanation: It calls Hashmatas Karka 'Yovel', whereas when it mentions 'Shevi'is', it is referring to Hashmatas Kesafim (loans [See Avodah Berurah]) - since Shevi'is is Meshamet Kesafim but not Yovel.

Explanation: What the Tana means is that - When you are Meshamet Yovel you are Meshamet Shevi'is, but nowadays, when the Yovel does not apply, you are not Meshassmet Shevi'is, like the Yerushalmi says ...

Answer #3 (cont.): The Rabanan however, argue with Rebbi, and say that Yovel applies even when there is no Sh'mitah (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Source: As stated in the Toras Kohanim - 'From where do we know that one practices Shevi'is, even when there is no Yovel? Because the Torah writes (in Vayikra 25:8) "ve'Hayu l'cha Sheva Shabsos ha'Shanim" ...

Answer #3 (cont.): And from where do we know that one practices Yovel, even when there is no Sh'mitah? Because the Torah writes (Ibid.) "ve'Hayu l'cha Tesha ve'Arba'im Shanah" ...

Answer #3 (concl.): And the current Sugya goes like the Rabanan.

Alternative Explanation: It is possible however, to establish the Toras Kohanim even according to Rebbi ...

Alternative Explanation (cont.): And when it says 'Shevi'is Af-al-Pi she'Ein Yovel - it means even though they did not keep the Sh'mitah, ignoring it sinfully ...

Source: Like the Beraisa cited at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah (Daf 9b 10a) "Yovel Hi" - even though they were not Meshamet the land, even though they did not blow the Shofar (in the Yovel) ...

Source (cont.): Perhaps it is Yovel even if they did not send the Avadim (Ivrim) away; Therefore the Torah writes "Hi", Divrei Rebbi Yehudah ...

Source (concl.): Rebbi Yossi says "Yovel", even if they were not Meshamet, and even if they did not send away the Avadim. Perhaps it is Yovel even if they did not blow the Shofar; Therefore the Torah writes "Hi" '.