Question: How could Rebbi then permit Beis Sha'n (regarding Ma'asros), in the first Perek of Chulin (6:)?

Answer: Rabeinu Nisim answers in his 'Megilas S'tarim' that Devarim ha'Mutarim va'Acherim Nahagu bahen Isur' speaks where the people know that it is permitted, only they choose to be strict.

Proof: And this is implied in the words 'Devarim ha'Mutarim'.

Answer (cont.): But stringencies that people undertook in error, believing that it is forbidden, when really it is permitted - one is allowed to permit it in their presence.

Support: And this distinction is implied in the Yerushalmi.

Question: That being the case, seeing as they knew that one is Patur, why does the Gemara go on to say 'In case one comes toseparate from what is Chayav on what is Patur?

Answer: Not everybody knows.

Question: The Gemara implies that it is only in front of the ordinary people or the Kutim that one is forbidden to permit, but in front of the Chachamim or not in the presence of the ordinary people ... it is permitted.

Question: Why is that, seeing as we learned in our Mishnah that 'One places on him the Chumros of the place that he has come from and the place that he is going to?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that the Mishnah is talking about a major Minhag that was instituted by Talmidei-Chachamim, whereas the Gemara here is talking about a Minhag which the people themselves adopted, as are all the cases cited in the Sugya.

Clarification: And d'Ayt'ra that is brought later in the Sugya was traditionally a major Minhag.

The Ri's Safek: The Ri is uncertain as to whether one can permit the Chachamim to drop a Minhag that is not Chashuv,in the same way as one is permitted to permit it in their presence.

Side #1: As is implied later 'And he did not want to say to them that they are permitted, only because he considered the local people like Kutim, but to the Talmidim he would have specifically permitted it.

Side #2: Or perhaps they were only permitted to allow themselves in their presence, but not to allow them to do it.

Side #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means is that 'He did not want to tell them that they were allowed, and the stringency that they undertook was not because it was forbidden, due to a Minhag Sh'tus'. In front of the Talmidim he would have allowed himself to do it, but he would not have allowed them to do so.

Answer #2: The Rashba explains that there is no Kashya from our Mishnah - since Rav Ashi establishes it by someone who does not intend to return, and by the Kutim, it is Asur even where they do.

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas according to Abaye, our Mishnah speaks from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, but from Eretz Yisrael, we do like them.

Answer #2 (cont.): And by the Kutim, it is Asur even from Eretz Yisraelto Bavel. And the cases cited in the Gemara also speak from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks from the first Perek in Sanhedrin (Daf 5.) which states that it is obvious that from here (Bavel) to there (Eretz Yisrael) authorization is effective, since here is called "Sheivet", and there, "Mechokek" ...

Question (cont.): Implying that the B'eni Bavel are more powerful?

Answer: That speaks with regard to extracting money (exclusively), but as far as Isur ve'Heter and S'michah are concerned, the B'nei Eretz Yisrael are more powerful, since they learn Torah publicly, and we have learned (in Bava Basra (Daf 158:) that 'The air of Eretz Yisrael makes a person wise.'

implied Question: The Gemara ought really to have said 'Lo Avdinan Kavasaihu' ...

Answer: And it only said 'Avdinan Kavasaihu', on account of the Gemara in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 18.) ...

Answer (cont.): Which describes how when Rebbi Zeira went to Eretz Yisrael, he ate the Mugremes of Rav and Shmuel. It asks there whether Rebbi Zeira does not hold of the principle 'Nosnin alav Chumrei Makom ... ?'

Answer (concl.): And it answers 'That speaks ... but from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, since we are subservient to them, we must do like them.'

Precedent: The Gemara in Chulin too, answers that Rebbi Zeira did not intend to return.

Question: It transpires that the Tana is speaking 'li'Tzedadin' (in two opposite cases, since 'the stringencies of the place where he came from', speaks where he intended to return; whereas 'the Chumros of the place where he is going to' speaks where did not intend to return'.

Question: The Ri asks from the Yerushalmi, which describes how, when Rebbi Shimon saw a man picking wild cabbages in the Sh'mitah, and asked him what he thought he was doing, the man retorted that Rebbi Shimon himself permitted it. To which Rebbi Shimon replied that his colleagues disagreed with him (and that he was therefore an individual opinion).

Question (cont.): He applied to him the Pasuk "Poretz Geder Yishchenu Nachash", and that is precisely what happened. He was bitten by a snake and died.

Question (concl.): The question is that since Rebbi Shimon himself ate, why was he angry with others who reliedon his opinion and ate, too?

Answer: Nevertheless, he did not want Amei ha'Aretz torely on him him, as long as the Halachah was not declared officially like him.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Beraisa is speaking after the Biy'ur.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Since Biy'ur does not apply to a cabbage, because its root does not become destroyed in the ground, in which case we cannot apply to it the principle 'Destroy it from the wild animals in the field!'

Question #1: The Ri asks that, in that case, why do we require the Pasuk of "We will not be able to gather in our crops? Why not rather give the reason as the Pasuk "for your animals"?

Question #2: Moreover, why does he (Rebbi Shimon) confine the D'rashah to the S'fichim of a cabbage? Why does he not preclude all those mentioned in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 2) from Biy'ur, as we learned there - 'the root of the Lof, the Shoteh and the Dandenah ... '?

Question #3: Furthermore, why is it that the Rabbanan decreed here 'S'fichei K'ruv' because of other Sefichim, and all the species cited there they did not decree?

Question #4: Furthermore, the Riva asks, earlier the Tana stated 'And I went into the garden behind him and he took some Sefichei K'ruv and ate it!', implying that he detached them from the ground and that many of them were still attached. If so, it is speaking before Biy'ur?

Question #5: Moreover, asks Rabeinu Tam, we say in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 5.) 'Let us learn it (that a T'reifah should be permitted to go on the Mizbe'ach) from the Minchas ha'Omer?

Question #5 (cont.): Minchas ha'Omer is different, inasmuch as it permits Chadash. (See Shitah Mekubetzes in Menachos)? It speaks in the Sh'mitah-year. Even in the Sh'mitah-year, it permits Sefichim according to Rebbi Akiva, who forbids Sefichim.

Question #5 (cont.): Now Pesach of the Sh'mitah-year it is still before the time of Biy'ur, since at that time, the produce has not yet terminated in the fields! On the contrary, it then stands in its fullness. And Biy'ur will only occur in the eighth year, when there is nothing left in the fields for the wild animals to eat?

Question #6: Furthermore, it says 'that both are speaking according to Rebbi Akiva, but surely the Rabbanan do not dispute the D'rashah of 'Kalah le'Chayah min ha'Sadeh', in which case they will concede that Sefichim are forbidden after the Biy'ur?

Proof: Because the Sifri says in connection with the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva 'You told us "Do not plant!", and what we gather we cannot preserve (i.e.it becomes forbidden) After the Biy'ur, you order us to destroy. What are we supposed to eat after the Biy'ur?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Gemara is speaking about before the Biy'ur, as is implied by the Pasuk of "Lo Ne'esof" which is cited in the Sugya, and about which the Torah writes "what shall we eat in the seventh year!"

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Akiva learns from this Pasuk that Sefichim are forbidden, whereas the Rabbanan disagree with him, since they Darshen "Lo Ne'esof" with regard to preserving it,which does not become Asur until after the Biy'ur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): and Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan now argue according to Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon permits Sefichim of cabbages, since the Torah only forbids Sefichim that are similar to seeds, seeing as the Torah writes "Behold we cannot sow seeds!" Sefichim of cabbages on the other hand, are more comparable to a tree ...

Proof: As we learned in Kesuvos (111:) 'Our father left us a cabbage, which we would climb using a ladder!'

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, we do not decree Sefichei K'ruv on account of other Sefichim; whereas the Rabbanan maintain that we do.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And their Machlokes is confined to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Isur of Sefichim is d'Oraysa. But according to the Rabbanan, who maintain that it is only de'Rabbanan, one cannot decree.

Question: Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on asks that he (Rebbi Shimon) holds the opposite in Maseches Shevi'is (Perek 9, Mishnah 1) where he is quoted as saying that 'All Sefichim are permitted except for Sefichei K'ruv, since there is nothing like it among the vegetables that grow in the field'?

Rejected Answer: Nor can we change the text there to 'Asurin', since the Yerushalmi specifically has the text 'Mutarin'.

Answer: And he answers that the Mishnah is speaking about Sefichim that grew in the sixth year be'Heter, and they remained attached through the seventh year until after the Biy'ur.

Answer (cont.): Other Sefichim are therefore permitted because, seeing as one can easily tell the difference between those that grew in Sh'mitah (that are small) and those that grew in the sixth year (which are large), there is no need to issue a decree on the latter on account of the former.

Proof: And so it says in the Yerushalmi, quoting Rebbi Yitzchak: ''Any vegetable that one can distinguish between new ones and old ones ... But here (Sefichei K'ruv), we are afraid that perhaps he will go and bring from what grew be'Isur, and claim that it is what grew originally.

Answer (concl.): And the current Sugya is speaking in the Sh'mitah itself, as Rabeinu Tam explains.

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Nisim (Ga'on) also explains differently differently. According to him, our Sugya speaks regarding Sefichim of Sh'mitah which remained until Motza'ei Shevi'is - which are forbidden mi'de'Rabbanan until the equivalent amount has grown.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And Rebbi Shimon forbids other Sefichim on Motza'ei Shevi'is, because whoever sees them fully grown, will think that they were picked in the Sh'mitah.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas Sefichei K'ruv, which have no similar species among the vegetables of the field, they did not decree on account of other Sefichim. This is because someone who sees them fully grown, will not think that they were picked in the Sh'mitah, since it is normal for them to grow in a short time?

Explanation #3 (cont.): And when Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi ben Lekunya ate Sefichei K'ruv, it was on Motza'ei Shevi'is, according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai (though this does not seem correct [See Maharsha]).

Yerushalmi & Tosefta: The Gemara (Yerushalmi, 8:) of D'mai, reads with regard to Sefichim 'From Rosh ha'Shanah until Chanukah Sefichim are forbidden, whereas from Chanukah until Rosh ha'Shanah they are permitted'.

Yerushalmi & Tosefta (cont.): And the Tosefta (Perek 5) learns that 'Onions that remain from Sh'mitah until Motza'ei Shevi'is are permitted provided the equivalent amount has grown, otherwise they are forbidden'.

Yerushalmi & Tosefta (cont.): Both rulings go according to Rebbi Akiva, who forbids Sefichim min ha'Torah in the Sh'mitah. But according to the Rabbanan, one cannot decree.

Question: The Rashba queries Rabeinu Nisim with regard to what he writes that whatever grows in the Sh'mitah and remains until Motza'ei Shevi'is is forbidden, whenever there it is possible to think that it has been picked in the Sh'mitah ...

Question (cont.): He asks from a Beraisa in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 15.) where Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that 'An Esrog that grew in the sixth year that remains until the Sh'mitah, is Patur from Ma'aser and from Biy'ur.

Question (cont.): Now Biy'ur only applies when the fruit terminates (in the eighth year), yet the Tana exempts it from Biy'ur, even though it is possible to err and to think that the Esrog grew in the Sh'mitah.

Answer #1: It speaks according to the Torah law .,.

Answer #2: Or where it was picked at the beginning of the Sh'mitah-year, where it is not possible to make a mistake.

Question: The Ri however, asks the following Kashya: Our Sugya implies that according to all opinions, vegetables that grow in the Sh'mitah year may not be eaten, whilst in Maseches Shevi'is it seems that they may ...

Question: Since we learned there (Perek 9, Mishnah 4) that if someone says to a laborer 'Here is a Dinar, go and pick for me vegetables today!? And this Mishnah is cited in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (62.)

Answer: And he answers that it is actually speaking about vegetables that grew in the sixth year, which have a Din of Sh'mitah regarding doing business with them and in other issues, since it is picked in the Sh'mitah; since regarding vegetables, we go after when it is picked.

Refuted Explanation: He is not referring to the Sod ha'Ibur (the oral tradition on how to fix Rosh Chodesh), since the B'nei Bavel too, were experts in Sod ha'Ibur.

Correct Explanation: What it does mean, Rabeinu Tam explains, is that they lived in a location which the emissaries of Beis-Din reached, and there they kept only one day - seeing as they knew when Rosh Chodesh was fixed.

Reason: Consequently, there is no reason to issue a decree, in case one will come to do work on Yom-Tov, since they heard when Kidush ha'Chodesh took place.