Question: From where do we know that Retzichah does not override Yom-Tov, seeing as it would even override Shabbos, were it not for the Pasuk in Ki Sissa, Sh'mos 35:3 "be'Chol Moshvoseichem", which the Torah does not use in connection with Yom-Tov. In that case, let it override Yom-Tov from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Avodah which is overridden by Retzichah, yet it overrides Yom-Tov.

Answer: We can reject the Kal-va'Chomer from Shabbos, which is overridden by Avodah, yet Retzichah does not override it.

Question: However, one cannot really ask 'Shabbos Yochi'ach, which is pushed away before Avodah', seeing as that refers specifically to Avodas Tzibur, and Rava is asking according to Abaye, who makes the 'Kal-va'Chomer from Korban Yachid (see 'Chamra ve'Chaye').

Answer: The Kashya falls away however, when we bear in mind that the 'Kal-va'Chomer' can work both le'Kula and le'Chumra, in which case we will apply the principle in such a case, we always go le'Chumra (see 'Chamra ve'Chaye').

Change of Text: Some commentaries omit this Kashya from the text ...

Reason #1: ... since Chizkiyah did not rule over the whole of Yisrael, bearing in mind that it was in his days that the ten tribes went into exile (see Maharam).

Reason 2#: Moreover, Shevna (whom the Gemara quotes in the answer), was a Rasha, and cannot therefore be counted.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that when the Gemara asks from David, it does not counter by citing Achitofel, whom David referred to as his esteemed Rebbe - because he was a Rasha, and Resha'im are not counted.

Question: What is difficult however, is why the Gemara does not counter the Kashya from David by citing Mefiboshes, who the Gemara in B'rachos describes as having shamed David in Halachah?

Clarification: (This does not mean that they had to be great all their lives, but that) they had to be great from the time that they rose to greatness for the rest of their lives.

Explanation: Consequently, the text that adds "ve'ha Hava Elazar (Ika Pinchas)', is based on the fact that Elazar rose to greatness only after Yehoshua.

Question: Why does the Gemara not counter the Kashya from Yehoshua with 'Havah Osniel ben K'naz', who revived the Halachos that were forgotten during the mourning period of Moshe?

Clarification: Huna bar Nasan was close to the King of Persia, as we learned in Zevachim, Daf 19a, and the Pasuk "And kings will be your nurturers" was fulfilled in him (when the king taught him a lesson by quoting him a Pasuk).

Clarification: On account of the Pasuk "Lo Sa'aneh al Riv" (which we read 've'Lo Sa'aneh al Rav').

Explanation #1: By Dinei Mamonos however, we are not concerned about conforming to the ruling of the foremost judge. It is possible however, to disagree with him by querying him (see Maharam), even though his ruling is final.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, "Lo Sa'aneh al Riv/Rav" is confined to Dinei Nefashos, and does not extend to Dinei Mamonos at all ...

Implied Question: ... despite the fact that the following word "Lintos" does pertains to Dinei Mamonos, according to one opinion on Daf 3b.

Clarification #1: It implies here, that Naval was considered a Moreid be'Malchus (guilty of treason), seeing as David considered himself King.

Clarification #2: Likewise in Bamah Beheeimah (Shabbos, 66a and 66b), where the Gemara states that David ought to have judged Uri'ah ha'Chiti via the Sanhedrin, but he didn't - even though he was a Moreid be'Malchus, as the Gemara explains there.

Question: There is a problem with this however, from the Gemara in Megilah, (Daf 14b and 15a), which maintains that a Moreid be'Malchus does not need to be judged?

Answer: What the Gemara there means is that he does not need to be judged with all the stringencies of other Chayvei Misos, but to accept the witnesses and to ascertain that he is guilty via Sanhedrin is obligatory.

Explanation (Part 1): It seems that by 'not necessary', we mean with regard to the Mishnah that we learned earlier 'Dinei Nefashos Gomrin bo ba'Yom li'Zechus, u'va'Yom she'le'Acharav le'Chovah', u'va'Laylah she'le'Acharav Ein Gomrin'. Whereas a 'Mored be'Malchus' one may even sentence him to death on the same day.

Explanation (Part 2): ... and this explains the dialogue between Avigayil and David ha'Melech, where the former asked the king whether one is permitted to judge Dinei Nefashos at night-time (see Maharam). To which David replied that it was not necessary to judge him like other Dinei Nefashos, but that it was permitted even to sentence him to death on the same day.

Proof: And this is evident in the Yerushalmi of this Perek, which quotes Avigayil as having asked 'And is it permitted to judge Dinei Nefashos by night?', to which David replied 'His Din was already finalized before nightfall!'

Clarification: This statement pertains exclusively to Kidush ha'Chodesh and Ibur Shanah, because as far as the other items in the Beraisa are concerned, a father and son are invalidated from judging altogether.

Clarification (Part 1): This does not refer to 'Ein ha'Kol Kesheirin Ladun Dinei Nefashos' ...

Proof #1: ... because if it did, then it ought rather to have included a Chalal, which would have been a bigger Chidush - that even a Chalal, who is Kasher to marry into the Kahal, is Pasul from judging Dinei Nefashos, since the Torah writes "Itcha" - 'be'Domeh Lach'.

Proof #2: Moreover, our Mishnah (with regard to Dinei Nefashos) specifically permits 'only Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'eilim who are eligible to marry into the Kehunah'.

Clarification (Part 2): Consequently, it must therefore pertain exclusively to 'ha'Kol Kesheirin Ladun Dinei Mamonos' ...

Proof: And so it is evident from the Tzerichusa which it makes, that it refers to Dinei Mamonos.

Question: Even though in Perek Ba Siman (Nidah, Daf 49b), the Gemara makes the opposite Tzerichusa with regard to Dinei Nefashos ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, in our Sugya, the correct explanation is that it pertains to Dinei Mamonos and not to Dinei Nefashos (See Tosfos in Nidah DH 'Tenina').

Question (Part 1): Why does the Gemara not answer that it comes to include a blind person, who is eligible to judge Dinei Mamonos according to our Mishnah, as we learned earlier on Daf 34b, but not to judge Dinei Nefashos, as we learned in Yevamos, Daf 101a & 10b, where it precludes him from the Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef 'Just as Beis-Din is free from injustice, so too must they be free of blemishes'?

Question (Part 2): And by the same token, all blemishes invalidate them, seeing as the Pasuk writes "and there are no blemishes on you", which is meant literally?

Answer: The Gemara understands that the Mishnah is speaking about the P'sul of Yuchsin (and not Mumin).

Proof: A proof for this lies in the Seifa, where the Tana concludes ' ... only kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'eilim who are eligible to marry into the Kehunah'.

Clarification #1: The Kashya refers to Rav Yehudah, why he needs to extrapolate from two different Mishnahs 'to include Mamzer'?

Clarification #2: It cannot refer to the Mishnah itself, since the Tana there inserts many things in one Mishnah, even though it already learned it elsewhere.

Precedent: And we find a similar pattern in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim, 69b & 70a), with regard to 'K'lal Gadol Amar R. Akiva; Kol Melachah she'Efshar La'asosah ... ' (where the Gemara queries Rav Yehudah, who rules like R. Akiva in two places).

Clarification: This implies that a regular Ger is eligible to judge Dinei Mamonos.

Question: In the Gemara in 'ha'Choletz' (Yevamos, 105b & 106a) however, we learned that Rava appointe Rav Mari bar Rachel among the Dayanim of Bavel, because 'since his mother was from Yisrael, he is included in the Pasuk "mi'Kerev Achecha", implying that one's mother needs to be from Yisrael in order to be a Dayan?

Answer: Our Gemara is referring to judging a Ger like himself (as we have learned in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (ibid., Daf 102a & 102b) - 'A Ger is permitted to judge his fellow-Ger min ha'Torah', whereas the Gemara in 'ha'Choletz' is talking about judging a full-fledged Yisrael.

Rejection of Rashi: ... and not like Rashi, who maintains that it is only regarding Dinei Nefashos that a Ger may judge his fellow Ger and not a Yisrael, whereas Dinei Mamonos, he is even permitted to judge a full-fledged Yisrael.

Proof: Furthermore, the Gemara there (in 'ha'Choletz') cites the Pasuk "mi'Kerev Achecha", whereas our Sugya will shortly preclude a Ger regarding Dinei Nefashos from "ve'Nas'u Itach" - 'Itach be'Domin Lach'.

Question: The Gemara in 'Asarah Yuchsin' (Kidushin, 106b), after extrapolating from the Mishnah there 'Mi she'Huchzeku mi'Shotrei ha'Rabim' that Pesulin are disqualified from judging, queries that from the Mishnah in Nidah 'ha'Kol Kesheirin Ladun' on which Rav Yehudah commented 'to include a Mamzer'. What is the Kashya? Why can we not answer that there too, the Mishnah is speaking about a Mamzer judging a Mamzer like himself (but not a regular Yisrael)?

Answer: A Mamzer is different (than a Ger), since, seeing as both his father and mother are from Yisrael, he is considered "mi'Kerev Achecha" (in which case he is eligible to judge a full-fledged Yisrael too).

Implied Question: Why does our Gemara then find it necessary to make a Tzerichusa between a Ger and a Mamzer, seeing as the two are different (as we just established)?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara makes the Tzerichusa, seeing as the Mishnah is learned S'tam, and the difference between the two is not mentioned there.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Daf 102b & 103a), when Rav Yehudah invited Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah to sit on a Beis-Din to supervise a Chalitzah, the latter replied 'Have we not learned (with regard to Chalitzah) "be'Yisrael", 'in a Beis-Din of Yisrael, and not in a Beis-Din of Geirim' (See Maharam) ...

Question (Part 2): And Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, Rabeinu Tam used to say, was the son of Rav Yehudah Hindavah - a Ger who had no heirs (as the Gemara explains in Kidushin 22b, which states that his father and he both converted).

Question (Part 3): The Gemara that we currently quoting suggests otherwise, since, according to Rabeinu Tam, even without "be'Yisrael", Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah would have been Pasul to sit in any Beis-Din (even not for Chalitzah), since his mother was not from Yisrael?

Suggested Answer: Nor can we answer that we need "be'Yisrael" to invalidate even the Chalitzah of the children of Geirim at the hands of a Beis-Din of Geirim (and that Rav Yehudah invited Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah to sit on such a Beis-Din) ...

Refutation: ... because the sons of Geirim, who are both conceived and born bi'Kedushah, are considered full-fledged Yisre'eilim, like the Gemara states in Perek Na'arah (Kesuvos, 44b & 45a) which specifically declares a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who was conceived and born bi'Kedushah as a proper Yisre'eilis.

Answer: We mst therefore say that we need "be'Yisrael" to disqualify a Ger from judging Chalitzah even if his mother is from Yisrael - and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's mother was from Yisrael.

Implied Question: Bearing in mind that Moshe was not a Ba'al-Mum (as we see from Perek Eilu Mumin (Bechoros, 37b) 'If so, you have declared Moshe a Ba'al-Mum!'), why could we not learn 'Ba'al-Mum' too from "Itcha"?

Answer: Because it does not seem logical to Darshen "Itcha" for that, if not for the Pasuk "u'Mum Ein bach".