1)

(a)According to Rav Bibi, the Tana's reason for prohibiting reading from lists is because one may come to erase some of the names or items from the list. Abaye maintains that it is - because one may come to read business documents or letters which are of no consequence.

(b)Initially, we suggest that the two opinions will differ in a case where the list is written on a high wall that is beyond reach - in which case Rav Bibi will permit it (since he will certainly not come to erase it).

(c)But we reject this answer for two reasons; one of them, because why should Rav Bibi not concede that it is Asur because of Sh'tarei Hedyotos (like Abaye). The other - because in such a case we would apply the principle 'Lo P'lug' (to forbid across the board, even in cases where the reason for the Takanah does not apply), like we find with regard to the decree not to read by the light of an oil-lamp on Shabbos (that we discussed in the first Perek), where Rabah forbade it even if the lamp was two floors up.

2)

(a)So we try to establish the Machlokes by writing that is written on a low wall, in which case Abaye will permit it - because nobody will confuse a Sh'tar with a wall.

(b)We reject ...

1. ... this suggestion, too however - on the grounds that he ought nevertheless to forbid it because one might come to erase names (like Rav Bibi).

2. ... the suggestion that Rav Bibi and Abaye are arguing over a case where the list is carved on a tableau or a ledger and cannot be erased - on the grounds that Rav Bibi ought still to forbid it in case one comes to read Sh'tarei Hedyotos (like Abaye).

(c)We query this refutation like we did the previous one - by arguing that nobody will confuse a tableau with a wall.

(d)But we counter this query from a Beraisa - which permits counting seating arrangements (who will sit nearer the top table and who, further away) and portions that are 'written' on the wall but forbids those that are written on a tableau or a ledger.

(e)This must be speaking about writing that is carved and not written - because otherwise, why would writing on a wall be permitted any more than writing that is written on a tablet?

3)

(a)We finally establish the Machlokes - by reverting (though not completely [see Tosfos DH 'le'Olam') to the first answer, that our Mishnah is speaking (i.e. they are arguing) about a case where the writing is written high up on a wall ...

(b)... from where Rav Bibi will permit reading, because a. one will not come to erase it, and b. he holds that people will not confuse a wall with a tableau ...

(c)... and c. he does not hold like Rabah, who forbids reading from an oil-lamp on Shabbos even if it is two floors up, which is a Machlokes Tana'im, and he rules like the Tana who does decree, as we shall now see.

4)

(a)

1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa permits verbally counting one's guests and portions - provided he does not read it from a written list.

2. Rebbi Acha permits even counting from a written list - that has been written on a wall.

(b)The writing must have been written high up - because otherwise, why would he not be concerned that one may come to erase it?

(c)This goes to prove - that Rav Acha does not hold of Rabah's decree, in which case Rabah's ruling is a Machlokes Tana'im.

5)

6)

(a)To counter the Kashya that he will remember even if the mirror is not fixed to the wall, we establish the case like Rav Nachman Amar Rav Aba bar Avuhah - who issued a statement in a case where the mirror was made of metal ...

(b)... saying - that Chazal forbade looking in such a mirror on Shabbos, in case one discovers excessive hair that needs cutting, and proceeds to do so before he has a chance to remember that it is Chabbos.

(c)The basis of the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Meir is now - whether we forbid looking even in a mirror that is fixed to the wall (because of 'Lo P'lug [the Chachamim, which is synonymous with the opinion of Rabah]), or not (Rebbi Meir).

7)

8)

(a)From our Mishnah, which permits someone to draw lots with his family - we can extrapolate that with regard to groups who are fussy, this is forbidden.

(b)And we ascribe this to a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who says - 'B'nei Chaburah ha'Makpidin Zeh al Zeh Ovrin (be'Yom-Tov) Mishum Midah ... Mishkal ... Minyan ... Lovin u'Por'in be'Yom-Tov ... u'ke'Divrei Hillel, Af Mishum Ribis'.

(c)When he says ...

9)

(a)We reconcile the above statement with the Tana's ruling permitting the same thing regarding one's own family (despite the Isur of Ribis, with another statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who permits lending one's family money on interest, to teach them the bitter taste of Ribis (when they have to pay it).

(b)This does not involve Ribis - because whatever one's wife and children (who eat at his table) own, really belongs to him anyway.

(c)We amend the statement 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yiskaven La'asos Manah Gedolah Keneged Ketanah' - to 'Afilu Manah Gedolah ... '.

(d)As far as partners , who are not close relatives, is concerned, however - Rav forbids drawing lots even during the week, because of Kuvya (relying on chance ['Asmachta']) ...

(e)... and since 'Asmachta is not Koneh', the winner of the lottery does not really acquire his winnings, in which case his holding in to it is an act of theft (see Tosfos DH 'Mai Ta'ama').

10)

11)

(a)Rebbi Ya'akov the son of Shmuel's daughter stated - that somebody who causes another Jew to get punished on his account, is not allowed to enter the vicinity of the Shechinah.

(b)We try to learn this from the Pasuk in Melachim, where Hash-m asked for a volunteer to entice Achav to go to war to Ramos Gilad, where he was destined to be killed. The spirit that volunteered was - that of Navos (whom Achav had had killed, for his vine-yard).

(c)We suggest the Pasuk there "Tzei va'Asei Kein" as Rebbi Yakov's source, since "Tzei" meant - that he was to leave Hash-m's presence.

(d)We refute this proof however, since it is possible that he was not being ejected from Hash-m's presence for succeeding in having Achav punished but - because he lied to Achav (by informing him, via the medium of his false prophets, that he would survive).

12)

(a)So we turn to the Pasuk "Sh'sei Gam Ata ve'ha'Arel" - which we think refers to Tzidkiyah and Nevuchadnetzar (respectively) ...

(b)... in which case - the former is being given to drink from the same cup of punishment as the latter, who is being punished on account of him.

(c)We refute this proof however - seeing as the entire Pasuk in fact, refers to Nevuchadnetzar (meaning that he was being ordered to go to Gehinom together with those whom he shamed, and be shamed).

(d)Secondly, we conclude, Tzidkiyahu could not be blamed for being the cause of Nevuchadnetzar's disgrace, because of a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - who explains that Nevuchadnetzar's Orlah grew to the length of three hundred Amos when he tried to abuse the Tzadik Tzidkiyahu, like he did all the other Nochri kings. And for this Tzidkiyahu could hardly be blamed.

13)

(a)We finally learn Rebbi Ya'akov B'rah de'Bas Shmuel's ruling from the Pasuk "Gam Anosh la'Tzadik Lo Tov" - which teaches us - that a person who causes a Tzadik to be punished is called 'not good' (but 'evil'), in conjunction with the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yagurcha Ra") - from which we learn that he is ejected from the vicinity of the Shechinah.

(b)According to Rabah bar Rav Huna, the Pasuk "Eich Nafalta mi'Shamayim ... Cholesh Al Goyim" - refers to the lots that Nevuchadnetzar used to draw - to determine the order in which the kings would be forced to 'serve him'.

(c)We learn from - that 'Cholesh' in our Mishnah means to draw lots.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan interprets the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol Malchei Goyim Shachvu be'Chavod, Ish be'Veiso" to mean - that when Nevuchadnetzar died, they were no longer subject to his perversions.

2. ... there "Nachah, Shaktah Kol ha'Aretz, Pitzchu Rinah" - that now they were all able to laugh, something that was not possible as long as he was alive.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan - forbids standing in Nevuchadnetzar's house ...

(b)... because the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah that the demons are obligated to dance there, and if man were to reside there, the demons would be forced to leave.

(c)We already cited Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, that Nevuchadnetzar's Orlah stretched to a length of three hundred Amos, when he tried to force Tzidkiyahu to indulge in Mishkav Zachur. This is hinted in the Pasuk "Shesei Gam Ata, ve'ha'Arel" - since the numerical value of Arel is in fact three hundred.

(d)In addition - he was duly shamed Midah ke'Neged Midah for his revolting behavior - when his Orlah encircled the entire group of kings in whose midst he was sitting.

15)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, when the inhabitants of Gehinom heard that Nevuchadnetzar was coming to join them - they were uncertain whether he was coming to rule over them once again, or whether he was about to suffer with them.

(b)The Bas Kol warned Nevuchadnetzar - not to think that he would have it any better than the other Resha'im in Gehinom, but that he would suffer just like them.

16)

(a)When Yeshayah eulogized Nevuchadnetzar with the words "Eich Shavas Noges, Shavsah Madheivah", he meant that the King who used to say 'Medod ve'Havei' (count out silver and gold and bring it [the acronym of "Madheivah"]) had now gone to his final resting-place where he would not need any more money. "Madheivah" might also be the acronym of - 'Me'od Me'od Havei be'LoMidah' (bring lots and lots of money, without measure).

(b)Nevuchadnetzar boasted that Hash-m had given him supreme dominion over all the animals - after he had lived among them for seven years, and had returned to humanity.

(c)Nevuchadnetzar set about proving his supreme dominion over the animals - by riding on a lion and using a snake as his reigns.