We find that Shlomo gave cities to Chiram. They were in Galil, which is Vadai from Eretz Yisrael. One may not give land of Eretz Yisrael to Nochrim - "Lo Sechanem"!

Rav Elyashiv: Do not say that it was in order to build the Beis ha'Mikdash. He gave this for a gift after he built it! Also, Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash does not permit Isurim! (NOTE: We find that Hataras ha'Tov of Yehoshua's Meraglim to Rachav overrode "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah"; they swore to keep her family alive. Perhaps also here, it overrode "Lo Sechanem"! However, since he could give Metaltelim, there is no need to permit giving land. - PF) Malbim and others explained that he did not give the land itself, only the rights and Shibud on the land for the Peros. Do not say that it was Kinyan Peros - according to the opinion that Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf, it is like giving the land itself! Regarding Shemitah, the Chazon Ish said that if the sale is not like Kinyan ha'Guf, it does not uproot Shemitah. If it is like Kinyan ha'Guf, it is forbidden due to Lo Sechanem.

If one sold fields, and it was found that the villagers are rich and do not work for others, is this a blemish [to invalidate the sale]?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Mishpat Shalom (CM 232:9): Our Gemara implies so. However, it is possible to bring workers from distant villagers. Even though this costs extra money, this is not a blemish in the field.

How could Rava speak with Rav Huna? Rava was born after Rav Huna died!

Tosfos (Chulin 13a): [Rav's Talmid] Rav Huna was greater than Shmuel. There was another Rav Huna, that R. Yirmeyah (his Rebbi, R. Zeira, was the Talmid of Shmuel's Talmid Rav Yehudah) called him a child (Gitin 11b). (NOTE: Tosfos did not discuss our Gemara, but we can similarly answer here that Rava spoke with the latter. - PF)

Dikdukei Soferim (in Hagahos in Oz v'Hadar edition): The text should say Rav Hamnuna, and not Huna, and so it says in a manuscript.

What is Chometin?

R. Chananel: It is sandy.

Rashi: It is salty and cleaved

What is the Kavla?

Rashi: It is the ankle.

Tosfos: It is the Shok. (NOTE: In a person, this is the shin, between the ankle and knee - Ohalos 1:8. - PF)

It may not go out Akud nor Ragul, but the hands (forelegs) may be tied. This is painful. We do not permit Shemirah that is painful!

Rav Elyashiv: Since this is a normal method of Shemirah, it is permitted in spite of the pain.

The Gemara assumes that only one hand and one leg of Yitzchak were tied. What is the source of this?

Maharsha: I know of no source. Rashi on Chumash says that his hands and feet were tied together! It seems that the Gemara learns from Yitzchak only that 'Akud' means tied.

Rav Elyashiv: Tamid 4:1 says that they were Oked the Tamid to recall the merit of Akeidas Yitzchak. Both hands and feet of the Tamid were tied together! It seems that our Gemara disagrees about how Yitzchak was tied.

Rashi on Chumash wrote that "[va'Yhi Li] Shor" can refer to many oxen. If so, why do we assume that R. Elazar ben Azaryah had only one cow?

Iyun Yakov #1: Only one who speaks about himself, it is proper to use the singular in place of plural, amidst humility. One who discusses someone else should speak precisely.

Iyun Yakov #2: One may use the singular in place of plural for the sake of brevity. If the Tana wanted to be concise, in place of Paraso he would have said Parah (it has one less letter), or Paros (also it has four letters, and it leaves no room to err).

Rav Elyashiv: Paraso implies his only cow. Even though he permits a strap on a cow (Beitzah 23a), he should have protested, for the Halachah follows Chachamim. The Yerushalmi says that he fasted so much over not protesting that his teeth turned black.

How could R. Elazar ben Azaryah separate Ma'aser Behemah every year? We do not separate after the Churban, due to Takalah (they cannot be offered; perhaps one will transgress benefit from Kodshim). Surely he separated after Bar Mitzvah. He was at most 14 or 15 at the time of the Churban, for after the Churban R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi for one or two years, and R. Gamliel for two or three years, and then R. Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed at the age of 18!

Tosfos #1: He separated some years after the Churban before they decreed not to.

Rav Elyashiv: Tosfos assumed that he did not separate Ma'aser before 13 years old. Presumably, this is not precise. A Mufla Samuch l'Ish (in the year before Bar Mitzvah), his vows take effect (if he knows to Whom we vow), and also his Ma'aser. Alternatively, 'every year' discusses when he was obligated to tithe (after Bar Mitzvah).

Tosfos #2: When he was a minor, an overseer separated on behalf of him.

Rav Elyashiv: In Gitin (52a), it says that an overseer tithes orphans' Peros only in order to feed them, but not to leave over [tithed Peros]. He can do a Mitzvah with their money only if needed for them to eat now. Surely R. Elazar's overseer did not need to tithe for orphans to eat 120,000 cattle each year! Further, there is no Isur to eat animals before tithing them! If there was an Isur, we would separate Ma'aser Behemah even nowadays! Why did Chachamim nullify it due to concern for Takalah? In any case, they should have decreed like they did to avoid Kedushas Bechor, to be Makneh the ear [of the mother] to a Goy (even though partners are obligated, partnership with a Goy exempts). The Taz (YD 1:17) says that the Mitzvah to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros is even if he does not want to eat. R. Akiva Eiger says that the Mitzvah is only if he wants to eat. If so, we can say that Gitin 52a applies only to tithing grain, which is a Mitzvah only if one wants to eat the Peros. Ma'aser Behemah is a Mitzvah in any case, so an overseer may do so for orphans. One may not delay Ma'aser Behemah for another year, due to Bal Te'acher. Sefas Emes says that the overseer gave the calves to fulfill Ma'aser Kesafim; this is a source to give Ma'aser Kesafim to Aniyim. (NOTE: He could have given money; it was easier to give calves, i.e. a 10th of the income (new animals born) than to calculate their value and sell property worth a 10th of it. - PF)

Tosfos citing R. Elchanan: He gave a tithe of his animals to the king.

It says that he should have protested against his neighbor, that her cow is doing Melachah on Shabbos. May we infer that women are commanded that their animals rest on Shabbos, even though this is an Ase [sheha'Zman Gerama]?

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. Akiva Eiger and Pri Megadim (OC 248) were unsure about this. The Ran (Perek 22) obligates women in all matters of Shabbos, like men. Our Gemara supports him. Ru'ach Chayim (Palaji, 305:2) asks why R. Elazar did not protest. He says that really, women are exempt. Chachamim were upset because people did not know that it was hers, and assumed that it was one of his cows, for it left his neighborhood. Pnei Yehoshua (Beitzah 30) obligates women, for even though Shevisas Behemto is an Aseh, it is fulfilled passively. Tzlach disagrees.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Turei Even (Roke'ach) brings from Ginas Veradim (OC 3:76) that rebuke applies only to Lavim, but not to Mitzvos Aseh. R. Elazar ben Azaryah should have protested due to Arvus, but not due to rebuke. Halichos Beisah brings that Dagul me'Revavah (OC 271) was unsure if, according to the Rosh (Berachos 20b), that Arvus (responsibility for others) does not apply to women, if men have Arvus for women. Tzlach (ibid.) and R. Akiva Eiger (Teshuvah 1:60) said that they do not. The neighbor's cow was called on R. Elazar's name not due to Arvus, rather, because he should have protested. This is the opposite of Turei Even!

Rav Elyashiv #1: Acharonim say, perhaps she was Mechamer (caused it to go in Reshus ha'Rabim, and thereby do Meleches Hotza'ah), which is a Lav. Women are surely commanded about this! However, the Mishnah said 'it went out', which implies by itself. How did she have a cow? A husband acquires his wife's property! Perhaps she was a widow. Even if she had a husband, if Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf, this is fine; it was considered hers. However, we hold that Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf; it is like her husband's! Why does she transgress if her animal works? It is unreasonable that she and her husband are both liable. Indeed, an owner and renter are both liable, but only mid'Rabanan. Rather, she is liable for Mechamer; many Rishonim say that it is even with another's animal.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rav Pe'alim (1:22) says that our Sugya did not mention Mechamer. Even if a woman is exempt from Shevisas Behemtah, her husband has Kinyan Peros on her animal, so she may not let it work, due to her husband.

Rav Elyashiv #2: Mid'Oraisa, a woman is exempt for Shevisas Behemtah, but mid'Rabanan she is liable. A support is OC 246:3. If one rented an animal to a Goy, and the Goy did not return it before Shabbos, he must make it Hefker. It did not say that he can be Makneh it to his wife!

What do we learn from the punishment of one who does not protest against his household?

Iyun Yakov: Midah Tovah (of reward) is greater than the Midah of punishment. One who protests is rewarded for bringing merit to the Rabim. Perhaps the Gemara mentioned these three categories to teach that if he protests against his household, he will merit to protest against his city, and afterwards, the entire world, for a Mitzvah leads to a Mitzvah. Conversely, if he does not protest against his household, this increases the breach in the entire city, and in the end, in the entire world.

Rav Elyashiv: The punishment is not merely for not protesting. Rather, he is punished for their transgression. Via not protesting, he shows that their Aveirah does not bother him. Therefore, he is punished for it. Protesting is apart from rebuke. Rebuke does not apply to a Mumar. Screaming 'Shabbos' is protest; it is not rebuke. If a Jew driving on Shabbos asks how to drive to the place Ploni, one must tell him 'one may not drive on Shabbos.' In Shevu'os (39a), it says about swearing falsely "Lo Yenake" - Hash-m will punish his family. Why is his family punished for his sin? They cover up for him. It is called that they are involved in the sin. The Gemara asks, also for other transgressions, others are punished - "v'Chashlu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will stumble (be punished for) the sin of his brother. Every Yisrael is responsible for every Yisrael! We answer that is only if they could have protested, but did not. The sinner gets his punishment, his family who covered up for him get a (lighter but) severe punishment, and others who did not protest get a light punishment, and Tzadikim are not punished at all. Here, those who did not protest are killed, and they are punished before the sinners themselves! Normally, there is a light punishment for not protesting, due to Arvus. There is also an obligation to protest due to Hash-m's honor. For this, if the destroyer is authorized [to kill many], he does not distinguish between Tzadik and Rasha. Just the contrary, "Tzofeh Rasha la'Tzadik u'Mevakesh Lahamiso." Hash-m saves Tzadikim with special merits. If he did not protest for Hash-m's honor, he lost this merit. Even though rebuke would not have helped, they did not know this. Every rebuke, it is a Safek if it will help! This is worse than one who intended to eat pork, and ate Kosher meat. He did not sin, just he intended to.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yosef Adler: Dagul me'Revavah (OC 271) was unsure if a man who prayed Ma'ariv on Shabbos can be Motzi his wife, who did not pray, in Kidush. He was already Yotzei mid'Oraisa. One who was Yotzei can be Motzi another due to Arvus (Rashi Rosh Hashanah 29a). According to the Rosh, Arvus does not apply to women. If men did not accept Arvus for them, how is he Motzi his wife? Since a man must protest against his household, and he is liable if he does not, surely he is an Arev for them!

Can one be liable for the entire world?

Rashi: If a king or Nasi could protest, and people fear him and obey his words, he is liable for all Yisraelim.

Rav Elyashiv (55a): One need not protest if he fears lest the sinner harm him, even monetarily. Perhaps Rashi said 'a king or Nasi', for they do not have this fear.

Chashukei Chemed (55a): Minchas Chinuch (239) says that apart from the Mitzvah of rebuke, also "Lo Sa'amod Al Dam Re'echa" applies. One must save one who is drowning in a river, lest his body perish. All the more so one must save one who is about to sin - his Nefesh and body will perish! Many Rishonim say that one must spend all his money to avoid transgressing a Lav. However, the Rema (YD 234:48) brings from Mahariyo (157) that in Sanhedrin 73, we need a verse to obligate hiring people to save another's life. This is only for his life, but not to save his property or to save him from sinning. I say that it is a great Mitzvah to stop a Yisrael from marrying a Nochris, for Kana'im Pog'im Bo. Pinchas risked his life for this. It is worth risking monetary loss for this!

What is the question 'if the Sarim sinned, why are the Chachamim punished?' Perhaps also the Chachamim sinned!

Maharsha (Mahadurah Basra): It is known that Chachamim are punished for not protesting against Amei ha'Aretz. However, if also Sarim sin, why are Chachamim punished? Protest will not help, for people will rely on the Sarim, for also they sin! We answer that they should have protested also against the Sarim, even if it is unsure if they would have accepted the rebuke. This is why afterwards, we bring that R. Zeira told R. Simon to rebuke, even if it is a Safek.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said Ziknei v'Sarei Amo, or Zekenav v'Sarav. Rather, Zekenim are Tzadikim proper to judge the nation, but the Sarim are improper. R. Chanina initially asked, what do we learn from the verse, i.e. why are they not called Sarei Amo? He also asked, if the Zekenim did not sin, why are they punished?

Rav Elyashiv: Earlier, it said "Sarayich Sorerim" (Yeshayah 1:23). If so, why does it say here also Zekenim, and they are listed even before Sarim?

Which Chachamim are punished?

Rashi: The Sanhedrin.