Explanation #1: If she has a blemish, they do not praise her.

Explanation #2: Or, they praise her for something nice about her, e.g. her eyes or her hands, if they are nice.

Beis Hillel say that they praise her totally, for when they mention what is praiseworthy about her, this implies that other matters are derogatory.

Explanation: Beis Shamai hold that even though he praises it in his eyes, Chachamim should not enact [regarding a Kalah] to say Sheker, for the Torah said "mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak."

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): This word is based on "Shitah v'Hadas." Even though they are not truly one species, in any case both of them are kinds of cedar.

Question: What is the source that he merited [the pillar of fire] due to this?

Answer: The pillar of fire was [shaped] like a myrtle branch.

Support: It says in Bereishis Rabah that a branch of fire descended and made [the form of] a myrtle branch, and separated between him and his colleagues;

They said "see, this elder, a branch of fire stands in front of him, because he did so in front of the Kalah."

Implied question: He was not a full king, like it connotes in Sotah (41a)!

Answer: In any case, they honored him like a full king.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that a Mitzvah is different (he may pardon his honor for the sake of a Mitzvah), like it says in Sotah (41a) that he read from the Torah while standing?

Answer: There, it is a Mitzvah. The king must show honor to the Torah, which is more important than himself;

Here, there is no Mitzvah, for his honor is preferable to the honor of a Kalah.

Inference: This implies that when an Avel and Chasan are in the Beis ha'Keneses, the Chasan and his Shushbinin leave first, and afterwards the Avel and his consolers leave.

Also, people who are related both to the Chasan and Avel, may eat in the Chasan's house if they want, for his honor has precedence.

Also, in the morning, when they bring the Kalah to the Chasan's house, we bring the Kalah first if there is a Mes in the city. Or, they bury the Mes before the time to bring the Kalah (Avi ha'Ezri).

Question: In Hilchos Derech Eretz (Maseches Derech Eretz 7:10), R. Akiva said "my first service of Chachamim, once I was walking on the road and I found a Mes Mitzvah. I took care of [and carried] it four Mil (about four kilometers) until I brought it to the cemetery, and buried it;

When I came in front of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, they told me "for every step you took, it is as if you spilled innocent blood!"

Answer #1: They did not rebuke him for Bitul Torah. Rather, a Mes Mitzvah acquires its place. He should have buried it where he found it.

Support: Maseches Semachos (4:16) says that a Mes Mitzvah acquires its place, and one who transgresses Divrei Chachamim is Chayav Misah. And so said R. Akiva, "my first service of Chachamim..."

Note: This is not in our text of Maseches Semachos.

Answer #2 (R. Yehudah of Korvil): There, he was liable for being Batel from serving Chachamim. Serving Chachamim is greater than learning.

Explanation: We do not discuss a Mes Mitzvah. Rather, this refers to all Mesim.

Implied question: In Megilah (3b), it says "obviously, [if one could engage in] a Mes Mitzvah and Talmud Torah, a Mes Mitzvah has precedence, for a Beraisa teaches "we are Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes." (Why didn't it say so about Hotza'ah of any Mes?)

Answer: It mentions a Mes Mitzvah due to other matters there, which apply only to a Mes Mitzvah.

Implied question: It says in Mo'ed Katan (27b) "if there is a Mes in the city, no one in the city may do Melachah." We establish this to be when there is no burial group. If there is a burial group, others are permitted;

A burial group is when the city is divided into groups, and each engages in its Mes by itself.

Answer: This is not at the time of Hotza'ah. At the time of Hotza'ah, everyone must come.

Pesak: The She'altos of Rav Achai writes that automatically, we infer that we are not Mevatel [Talmud Torah] for one who did not learn written Torah or Mishnah, if there are enough people to bury him.

Distinction (Ri): Regarding Melachah, the entire city is Batel, and Melachah is forbidden even for one who did not learn written Torah or Mishnah;

In Mo'ed Katan (27b), [regarding Bitul Melachah] we do not distinguish like this [based on whether or not he learned].

Explanation: We ask about in Yehudah, for there they only gave parched grain [for a Siman of a Besulah]. Therefore, we ask what is the Siman for a widow;

Sometimes even without a Chupah, they used to give [parched grain]. We must be concerned lest they gave at a widow's Chupah!

We answer that she has no grain. I.e. they were very careful not to give parched grain at the Chupah of a widow.

Explanation: This would be a bigger Chidush, for both sides are Vadai.

Explanation #1: This is only when he was a minor, like Rashi explained. If he was an adult, it is a Chazakah;

This is like it says in Bava Basra (42a), if [one making a Chazakah] ate [produce of the field] one year in front of the father, one year in front of the son, and one year in front of the buyer, this is a Chazakah.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): This that it says below "even if he matured" means even if he matured in his father's lifetime, for an adult is like a minor regarding his father's affairs (he is ignorant of them).

Observation (R. Tam): According to this, this that we say in Bava Basra (42a) that a Chazakah in front of the son helps, this is when he was an adult at the beginning of the Chazakah.

Implied question: We do not ask particularly against Rav Huna, for there Rav Huna discusses only authorizing a relative to oversee a minor's property. We do not learn this from our Mishnah!

Answer: Rather, Rava infers there from Rav Huna that one cannot make Chazakah in a minor's property. We ask what Rava teaches [for we learn this from our Mishnah]!

Question: Why do we always discuss a protest not in front of him (the original owner)? We should discuss Chazakah not in front of him...!

Answer: The primary reason [whether or not it is a valid Chazakah] depends on Mach'ah. Surely, Chazakah has a Kol (publicity), even not in front of him;

Even so, if the Mach'ah has no Kol, it is not a Chazakah. Therefore, we discuss Mach'ah.