1)

(a)After establishing Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah, Rav Nachman adds 'u'che'de'Rebbi Ami ... u'che'de'Rebbi Yanai ... ', who adds to the Rov of 'Rov Anshei ha'Ir Masi'in li'Kehunah' - that of 'Si'ah shel Bnei Adam Kesheirin Overes l'Sham' (meaning that most of the travelers were Kasher, too).

(b)When Rebbi Yanai says 'Niv'eles bi'Keronos, Kesheirah li'Kehunah', he means - that the rape took place at the time when the caravan passed (not 'in the Keronos').

(c)Had we known that it was a resident from the town (which had a Rov Masi'in li'Kehunah) that raped her - she would be forbidden to marry a Kohen.

2)

(a)When Rav Dimi Amar Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina ... arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he said 'Holchin Achar Rov ha'Ir, v'Ein Holchin Achar Rov Si'ah'. Others cite this statement in the name of - Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina.

(b)His statement however, is unacceptable - because if we go after Rov ha'Ir, whose inhabitants are static, then we will certainly go after Rov Si'ah, which moves!

(c)What he really said therefore, was - 'Holchin Achar Rov ha'Ir, v'Hu d'Ika Rov Si'ah Bahadah' (that one requires both Rov's).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua did not accept 'Rov Si'ah' on its own, (in spite of their being no reason not to) - due to a decree because of 'Rov ha'Ir' ...which in turn ...

(b)... is not permitted on its own, seeing as it speaks where it was the woman from the caravan who went to the man's house, which would not permit her on its own (even though 'Rov ha'Ir' is Kasher) - because, seeing as the man remained in his place, it is considered 'Kavu'a', and ...

(c)... as Rebbi Zeira has taught - 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' (any Rov that occurs in its intial location has a Din of half-half).

(d)If the man had gone out to the woman - she would indeed have been permitted even without 'Rov Si'ah'.

4)

(a)We query the need for two Rov's from the Beraisa which discusses a piece of meat that is Safek Kasher. If someone ...

1. ... purchased a piece of meat from a butcher in a town where nine butchers sell Kasher meat, and one, non-Kasher meat, and he cannot recall from which store he purchased it - the meat is forbidden (because of 'Kol Kavu'a ... ').

2. ... finds a piece of meat lying on the street in the same town, and he does not know from which store it originated - the meat is permitted (because of 'Kol d'Parish ... ').

(b)In the latter case - it will make no difference whether the gates of the city were open (creating the possibility that the meat came from a passing butcher or from another butcher in the same country [of whom the majority are Kasher]) or not, seeing as Rebbi Zeira established the Beraisa even when the gates of the city are shut.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua nevertheless requires a double Rov in our Mishnah - because he maintains that Chazal were stringent by Yuchsin (cases of marriage regarding Kehunah).

5)

(a)Rebbi Zeira, who teaches us the Din of 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' - makes no distinction between l'Kula and l'Chumra (he holds of the principle - even l'Kula).

(b)The Beraisa forbidding the meat that one purchased from a butcher in a town where nine stores sold Kasher meat, and one non-Kasher meat, is therefore not an absolute source for Rebbi Zeira's principle - because it speaks only l'Chumra (but not l'Kula, which is a greater Chidush).

(c)We also reject the suggestion that the Beraisa which renders Tamei someone who touched one out of a pile of nine frogs and one toad is the source - for the same reason.

(d)We therefore conclude that the source for Rebbi Zeira's principle is the reverse case - where the Beraisa renders Tahor someone who touched one out of a pile of nine toads and one frog in a Reshus-ha'Rabim (because in a Reshus ha'Yachid, we learn from Sotah that he is Tamei). If not for 'Kol Kavu'a', the Rov would have rendered him Vadai Tamei.

6)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "v'Arav Lo v'Kam Alav" - that one is not Chayav if one throws a stone at Reuven and kills Shimon.

(b)The Rabanan d'bei Rebbi Yanai learn from there 'P'rat l'Zorek Even l'Gav' - meaning that one is Patur if one throws a stone among a group of people, and kills someone.

(c)This cannot be speaking when ...

1. ... the majority of the group are Nochrim - because then he would be Patur anyway, seeing as a majority are Nochrim.

2. ... half were Jews and half are Nochrim - because he would still be Patur because of the Pasuk in Mas'ei "v'Hitzilu ha'Eidah".

(d)They are therefore speaking about a case where he threw a stone into a group of people comprising a majority of Jews and a minority of Nochrim ...

(e)... and it comes to teach us that 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami'.

7)

(a)Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yosi (and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri) in our Mishnah. According to Rav Chanan bar Rava, Rav - comments that the ruling in our Mishnah was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary concession, but generally, a double Rov is required).

(b)Assuming that the Mishnah is speaking about one Rov only (Rov ha'Ir), Rebbi Yirmeyahu queries Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav from a Mishnah in Machshirin, which discusses a castaway child of unknown status. The Tana does not contend with the possibility that the baby may be an Asufi (a foundling) in which case she would be Pasul li'Kehunah anyway - because he is speaking in a case where the baby's limbs were well-formed (a clear indication that she is not a foundling).

(c)The Tana ascribe him the status of ...

1. ... a Nochri - in a town where the majority of the residents are Nochrim.

2. ... a Yisrael - in a town where the majority of the residents are Yisraelim.

(d)If the numbers in the two towns are a Safek - then he is also considered a Yisrael.

8)

(a)Rav qualifies the second ruling ('Im Rov Yisrael, Yisrael') - by confining it to the obligation to feed him (in keeping with the Pasuk "v'Chei Achicha Imach").

(b)With regard to Yuchsin however, Rav will hold that, assuming that the child is a girl - she is not permitted to marry a Kohen ...

(c)... because we are strict by Yuchsin, unless there are two Rov's.

(d)When Rebbi Yirmeyahu asked this Kashya, he forgot a statement by Rav himself, cited by Rav Yehudah - who establishes our Mishnah by 'K'ronos shel Tzipori' (like we explained earlier).

9)

(a)Rav Chiya bar Ashi really rules that one always requires a double Rov for Yuchsin (like our Mishnah). On the other hand, Rav Chanan bar Rava Amar Rav really says that although our Mishnah speaks when there was a double Rov, that was a Hora'as Sha'ah. Normally, one Rov will suffice (even for Yuchsin). There is no way of reconciling this statement of Rav with Rav himself, who comments, with regard to the Beraisa of 'Matza Bah Tinok' 'Aval l'Yuchsin, Lo'. He either said one, or the other, but not, both.

(b)Shmuel, like Rav, qualifies the Mishnah in Machshirin, establishing it in a case - confining it to digging up a pit on Shabbos in which the Safek is buried.

(c)This cannot pertain to the case of Rov Yisrael (like Rav's statements does), due to a statement by Rav Yosef Amar ... Shmuel - that we do not follow the majority to permit Piku'ach Nefesh.

(d)Shmuel's ruling therefore - pertains to the Reisha 'Im Rov Nochrim, Nochri', and we amend it to read 'Lefake'ach es ha'Gal Eino Kein'.

10)

(a)Rav Papa establishes the Mishnah in Machshirin ...

1. ... 'Im Rov Nochrim, Nochri' - with regard to feeding him Neveilos (and certainly with regard to not returning his lost articles and payment of damages).

2. ... 'Im Rov Yisrael, Yisrael' - with regard to returning his lost articles.

(b)Resh Lakish establishes 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Yisrael' with regard to Nizakin, not with regard to returning him his lost articles - as a. one is taking the article away from the Yisrael who found it, and b. it is strictly forbidden to return the lost article of a Nochri (unless it is in order to create a Kidush Hash-m).

(c)The Tana cannot be referring to a case where an ox belonging to a Yisrael gored one belonging to a Nochri - because the owner of the goring ox is entitled to demand proof that he is a Yisrael.

(d)It must therefore be referring to - to the reverse case, and it is the Yisrael who is demanding full damages, even though the Safek's ox is a Shor Tam (which, if belonging to a Yisra'el, is only obligated to pay half).

11)

(a)If a divorced woman claims that, when her husband married her she was a Besulah, and he claims that she was an Almanah, she receives a Manah, unless she has witnesses that she was a Besulah. To enable her to receive two hundred Zuz - the witnesses will need to testify that she went to the Chupah as a Besulah, either with a Heinumah (which will be explained later) or with her hair let loose over her shoulders.

(b)If her husband dies, and she has the same argument with his heirs - the Din will be exactly the same.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah adds to the Tana Kama's Simanei Besulah - that they distributed 'Kelayos' (ears of corn that were dried when they was still moist [a process that ensures that they remain constantly sweet]) to the children.

12)

(a)Our Misnah writes that Rebbi Yehoshua concedes 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' is believed. The case is - if a man points to a certain field, and says to his friend that at one stage, it had belonged to his (friend's) father, but that he had bought it from him.

(b)He is believed - because if he had not said anything, it would have been his anyway (since we only know that it had previously belonged to his friend's father through his testimony).

(c)He will not be believed however - if there are witnesses who testify that the field had originally belonged to the other man's father, because then it is no longer a 'Peh she'Asar'.