1)

(a)Rav Papa therefore concludes that Ula Amar R. Chanina is referring to the case of 'Shidah' (a chest). The Mishnah in Keilim rules that a hive of straw or of canes a chest, a draw or a cupboard that holds forty Sa'ah of liquid - is not subject to Tum'ah.

(b)According to Beis Shamai, these are all measured from the inside; Beis Hillel say - from the outside (even though the inside measures less).

(c)Rebbi Yossi maintains that the thickness of the legs and of the rim are counted in the forty Sa'ah - but not, the space in between them.

(d)Rebbi Shimon Shezuri qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling - confining it to where the legs are at least a Tefach tall; but if they are less, then the spaces are counted as well.

2)

(a)Whereas according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Ula Amar R. Chanina is referring to the case of 'Yayin'. In the Mishnah in Taharos, Rebbi Meir considers olive-oil a Rishon le'Tum'ah, to which the Chachamim add - honey.

(b)The problem with Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, who says 'Af Yayin' is - the implication that the Chachamim preclude wine from this ruling (whilst in fact, everyone includes wine).

(c)We therefore amend it from 'Af Yayin' to - 'Yayin'.

(d)Rebbi Shimon Shezuri argues with the previous opinions - because he holds that olive-oil and honey are simply not considered liquids.

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon Shezuri in a Beraisa, once asked Rebbi Tarfon what to do with Tevel of D'mai that falls into Chulin - seeing as the Chulin prevented him from separating Ma'asros from the Tevel.

(b)Despite the fact that, min ha'Torah, the Tevel is Bateil, it is not a case of min ha'Petur al ha'Petur, because - since mi'de'Rabbanan, D'mai is Chayav, it is min ha'Petur (even mi'de'Rabbanan) al ha'Chiyuv' (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c)Rebbi Tarfon instructed him to - purchase Chulin from the market, which was Patur min ha'Torah just like his Tevel was, and to Ma'aser from it on to his Tevel ...

(d)... which would be considered min ha'Petur al ha'Petur - since (in his opinion) the majority of Amei-ha'Aretz tend to Ma'aser.

(e)He instructed him to purchase crops from the market, and not from Nochrim - because he held Ein Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael, Lehafki'a mi'Yad Ma'aser (A Nochri cannot own a land in Eretz Yisrael, to remove the obigation to Ma'aser [in which case it would have been min ha'Chiyuv al ha'Petur']).

4)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Tarfon instructed Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - to purchase from a Nochri ...

(b)... because he held Yesh Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael Lehafki'a mi'Yad Ma'asros, in which case it was indeed min ha'Petur al ha'Petur.

(c)He did not rather instruct him to buy from the market - because he disagreed with the principle Rov Amei-ha'Aretz Me'asrin ...

(d)... creating the problem - that, due to the fifty percent chance that the Am-ha'Aretz did not Ma'aser the crops, it might be a case of min ha'Chiyuv al ha'Petur or vice-versa (dyue to thye possibility that one of them did Ma'aser and the other one did not).

5)

(a)The problem with this explanation is that even if he purchased the crops from a Nochri (as per Rebbi Tarfon's instructions) - perhaps the Am ha'Aretz who sold him the Tevel of D'mai did not Ma'aser the crops, in which case it would end up being min ha'Petur al ha'Chiyuv.

(b)So we amend the case of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - from Tevel of D'mai to Tevel Vaday, which is Bateil min ha'Torah (one in two) but Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan (who said that Tevel Asur be'Mashehu).

(c)Consequently, Rebbi Tarfon's instructions, according to ...

1. ... the first Lashon - were to purchase crops from the market, which in similar vein, are Patur min ha'Torah (because Rov Amei-ha'Aretz Me'asrin hein), but Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan.

2. ... the second Lashon - were to purchase from a Nochri, which is Patur min ha'Torah (because of Yesh Kinyan le'Akum ... ), and Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)Rebbi Tarfon did not instruct Rebbi Shimon Shezuri to separate Ma'asros from the crops themselves - because, although the Tevel was Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, this was due to an external factor (the fact that the Tevel was not Bateil), and not because of a Mitzvah to Ma'aser mi'de'Rabbanan, which in fact, the Chachamim did not institute.

6)

(a)When Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya asked Rav Papa whether Ravin bar Chin'na ... Amar Rebbi Chanina incorporated this latter case of 'Nis'arev li Tevel be'Chulin', when he ruled like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, wherever his name occurs - he replied that he did.

(b)We might have thought otherwise - because this case is a Beraisa, whereas all the other cases are Mishnahs.

(c)Mar Zutra quoting Mar Zutra from Sura, asked Rav Ashi - how Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya could pose such a question, since the answer was obvious, bearing in mind that Rebbi Chanina said 'wherever' (and not 'in our Mishnahs').

7)

(a)Rav Ze'ira ... Amar Rav draws a distinction between a tear in a Seifer Torah that reaches a depth of two lines - which can be stitched, and one that reaches three - which cannot (in fact, the entire Yeri'ah must be removed and placed in Sheimos).

(b)Rabah Zuti ... quoting Rava, qualifies Rav's ruling - by confining it to an old Seifer-Torah, but not to a new one, which may be sown, even if the tear reaches a depth of three lines.

(c)Atikta does not mean necessarily old, says Rava, nor does Chadti necessarily mean, new - but treated with gall-nuts or not treated with gall-nuts, respectively.

(d)The reason for Rav's Chumra is then - because gall-nuts darken the parchment, making it look old, and a tear looks more blatant on old parchment.

8)

(a)Rava qualifies the concession to stitch a tear in a Seifer-Torah - by confining it to using sinews, but not fringes (from the weaving-loom).

(b)When Rav Yehudah bar Aba asks ...

1. ... Bein Daf le'Daf, Mahu, he means to ask - what the Din will be if the tear begins at the top of the Amud, and runs as far as the K'sav (which is a greater distance than the equivalent of three lines).

2. ... Bein Shitah le'Shitah, Mahu, he means to ask - what the Din will be if the tear occurs in between two lines (parallel to the actual K'sav).

(c)The outcome of both She'eilos is - Teiku.

9)

(a)Rebbi Ze'iri Amar Rav - validates a Mezuzah that is written only two words per line.

(b)They asked what the Din will be if it is written in a sequence of three, two and one words per line. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied that - this is certainly Kasher, as it resembles a Shirah.

(c)We reconcile this with the Beraisa, which rules As'ah ke'Shirah O Shirah Kamosah, Pesulah - by establishing the latter by a Seifer-Torah (exclusively [which must be divided into regular K'sav and the K'sav of a Shirah, in accordance with tradition]).

(d)Rabah (or Rav Acha) bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan too, validates a Mezuzah whose lines are written in the sequence of two, three and one words to a line. When he goes on to invalidate one that is written ...

1. ... like a tent, he is referring to - one that is written in the sequence one, two and three.

2. ... like a tail, he is referring to - one that is written in the sequence of three, two and one (both in the triangular shape as per the diagram in Rashi).

10)

(a)Rav Chisda requires - "al ha'Aretz" exclusively (the last two words in the Mezuzah) to be written on the last line.

(b)Some say that they belong at the end of the line; others say - at the beginning.

(c)Both opinions are based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "ki'Gevohah Shamayim al ha'Aretz". The reason of those who say that "al ha'Aretz" must be placed ...

1. ... at the end of the line is - because, in keeping with the Pasuk, the word "ha'Shamayim" belongs directly on top of 'ha'Aretz".

2. ... at the beginning of the line - because the Pasuk also implies - that the two are far apart.

11)

(a)According to Rav Chelbo, Rav Huna would roll a Mezuzah - from "Echad" to "Sh'ma".

(b)And when he also testified that he wrote the first Parshah S'tumah, he meant - either that the middle of the last line was empty, but that there was writing at the beginning and at the end, or that the beginning of the line was empty, but the end contained writing.