Opinion #1: We do not have this text, as it is apparent in Yevamos (45b) that the father of Rav Mari was a convert.

Proof: This is as the Gemara says in Yevamos (45b) that Rav allowed Rav Mari bar Rachel to marry anyone, and he appointed him as a caretaker in Babylon. The Gemara says that since his mother was Jewish, he fulfills the Pasuk, "from amongst your brothers."

Implied Question: One cannot say that Rava, the father of Rav Mari, was also a convert. (Why not? Why can't this be the proper text?)

Answer #1: If so it should call him "Rava Giyura" as the Gemara normally calls Issur - "Issur Giyura."

Answer #2: Additionally, the Gemara in Bava Basra (149a) implies that the father of Rav Mari bar Rachel was Issur Giyura. This is as the Gemara (ibid.) states that Issur Giyura had twelve thousand Zuz deposited at the house of Rava. His son, Rav Mari, was conceived when he was still a Nochri and born after he had converted. Even though the Gemara there does not have the text, "Rav Mari bar Rachel" it seems that this is indeed who it was.

Observation: If we ay that Rav Mari bar Rachel was indeed Issur Giyura's son, it must be that Issur Giyura had relations with Rachel, the daughter of Mar Shmuel, before he converted. This is as the Gemara (ibid.) states that the conception was when he was still a Nochri.

Observation (cont.): Rachel was the daughter of Mar Shmuel, as stated in many places, "Rav Mari bar Rachel bas Mar Shmuel." We say in Kesuvos (23a) that the daughters of Mar Shmuel were captured. Perhaps this is when he had relations with her.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the daughters of Shmuel came to Rebbi Chanina and said, "I was captured but I remained pure." (How could Rachel have said this?)

Answer: Not all of the daughters of Shmuel made this claim.

Question: However, this is difficult. If Rav Mari the son of Issur Giyura is the subject of the Gemara in Yevamos (ibid.), how did Issur live so long? It must be that he lived from the days of Rav until the days of Rava!

Proof: Rav Yehudah was the student of Rav, and we say in Kidushin (72b) that on the day that Rav Yehudah died Rava was born. Even Rav Mari, his son, was already a great Torah scholar during the days of Rav, as is apparent from the fact that Rav appointed him as a caretaker in Babylon. How can it be that Rav Mari lived such an extremely long life?

Opinion #2: It appears that Rabeinu Chananel is correct, that the text in Yevamos should read that Rav Ashi (not Rav) permitted Rav Mari bar Rachel to marry anyone (and Rav Ashi appointed him etc.).

Opinion (cont.): This is despite the fact that on the day that Rava died Rav Ashi was born, as it is possible that Rav Mari was young when Rava was alive. During the days of Rav Ashi, Rav Mari had already become a great Torah scholar and an elder, and therefore Rav Ashi appointed him as a caretaker in Babylon.

Proof: It certainly appears Rabeinu Chananel is correct, as there are many Sefarim that have the text in our Gemara discussing "And some say" by asking, "Didn't Rav Ashi allow Rav Mari bar Rachel to marry?" Those Sefarim have the text that the answer to this is, "There are two Rav Maris." This was an explanation that was written in to the Sefarim.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Why does this matter? He should still receive lashes for the negative prohibition, "Lo Saseh Kol Melachah!"

Question (cont.): Since it is coming to warn that people should not have burdens carried by their animals and this is not punished by death, even though it is also a negative prohibition regarding desecration of Shabbos punishable by death, he should still receive lashes (as this is also intended to be included in the prohibition).

Question (cont.): This is as we find in Bava Kama (74b) that Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Eliezer argue regarding witnesses that testified a person had killed someone, and two witnesses had contradicted them. Later, two witnesses turned the original witnesses into Eidim Zomimim. One of them says the original witnesses are killed, while one says they are not killed.

Question (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) says that we can prove that Rebbi Eliezer says that the first pair is not killed, as Rebbi Eliezer says that witnesses who testified a person had killed someone and that were then contradicted receive lashes. If Rebbi Eliezer would say that if they become Zomimim they are killed, why should they receive lashes when contradicted? This would be a Lav she'Niten l'Azharas Misas Beis Bin! Rather, it must be that Rebbi Eliezer holds that they are not killed.

Question (cont.): This implies that since they are not killed when they are originally contradicted they receive lashes, even though normally the negative prohibition of "Lo Saneh" is a warning against their originally becoming Zomimim (i.e. when testifying regarding murder) that is punished by death.

Question #2: The Ri has another difficulty. All of the negative prohibitions that are warnings punished by death by Beis Din should make one liable to receive lashes if the person was warned that he will receive lashes and not death. This is because the negative prohibition in this case was not used for death (but rather for lashes).

Answer: The Ri understands that the prohibition of Lo Saneh is different, as the Torah indicated that lashes can be administered because of it.

Proof: This is as we find regarding witnesses who testify that a certain Kohen is actually the son of a divorcee (and therefore a Chalal), as we derive in Makos (2b) from the Pasuk, "And they will find the evildoer guilty, and he will receive lashes." Since the Torah effectively states that Lo Saneh is punishable by lashes, even though it is also stated to warn regarding cases where one is punished by death, we should establish it is also referring to any case where one is not punished by death.

Observation: For this reason we can better understand the Gemara's question regarding a Mishnah in Makos (4a). The Mishnah states that if two witnesses testify that a person owes another person two hundred Zuz and they are found to be Zomimim, they both receive lashes and pay. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. The Chachamim say that whoever pays does not receive lashes. The Gemara asks, this is understandable according to the Rabbanan, as the Pasuk says, "Kdei Rishaso" -- "the amount of his sin" which teaches that one is only liable to receive one punishment, not two punishment.

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this. Why should we say that the reason of the Rabbanan is because of "Kdei Rishaso?" We should simply say that the Rabbanan understand "Lo Saneh" is a warning for Eidim Zomimim when they are not punished by lashes, as is apparent from the Mishnah there (4a) that discusses witnesses who testify regarding a person who is liable to receive lashes! (While Rebbi Meir there says that they are liable to receive two sets of lashes, one for getting what they planned to do and one for "Lo Saneh," the Rabbanan say they only receive what they planned to do, indicating they do not say one receives lashes strictly due to Lo Saneh!)

Question #2: The Ri has another difficulty. How can we say according to the Rabbanan that Lo Saneh comes to warn regarding Eidim Zomimim and not lashes? The Rabbanan admit regarding Eidim Zomimim who originally testified that a person was liable to go to Galus (Ir Miklat because he accidentally killed someone) or that a Kohen was the son of a divorcee that the Eidim receive lashes! (How can we say they do not hold "Lo Saneh" is for lashes?)

Answer: According to what we have explained, this is now understandable. In a case where one cannot be killed or receive lashes because of "ka'Asher Zamam" he receives lashes because of "Lo Saneh," since the Pasuk of "Lo Saneh" is not needed to serve as an Azharah for "ka'Asher Zamam." This is why Eidim Zomimim receive lashes when they testified about a Kohen that he is the son of a divorcee or that he must go to Galus.

Answer (cont.): It is also understandable why the Gemara established that the Rabbanan's reasoning was "Kdei Rishaso." If he would not receive lashes because of "Kdei Rishaso," he would receive lashes due to "Lo Saneh" even according to the Rabbanan.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Rabbanan hold that "Lo Saneh" is a warning for "ka'Asher Zamam," as witnesses would not be punished for "ka'Asher Zamam" unless they were warned (from "Lo Saneh"). This makes "Lo Saneh" like a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din that is only for death and not for lashes. (How, then, can the Rabbanan say that "Lo Saneh" can make someone receive lashes?)

Answer: This is specifically when one is liable to receive lashes due to "ka'Asher Zamam," for example in a case where they testify that a person is liable to receive lashes. However, when they are only liable to pay money due to "ka'Asher Zamam" and not to receive any other punishment, "Lo Saneh" is not needed as an Azharah for "ka'Asher Zamam." In that situation, the Rabbanan would have admitted that one would receive lashes due to "Lo Saneh," just as is the case regarding Eidim Zomimim who testify because of a son of a divorcee and Galus, if it were not for Kdei Rishaso.

Question: According to what we have explained, that if the Pasuk would not have effectively stated regarding lashes that there is a prohibition of "Lo Saneh," implied from the Pesukim, "And they will acquit the righteous one etc." we would not say it can be used for lashes since it is a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din, there is a question.

Question (cont.): Ula derives in the beginning of Makos (2b) that Eidim Zomimim receive lashes from the Pesukim, "And they will acquit the righteous one etc." The Gemara asks, why isn't this derived from "Lo Saneh?" The Gemara answers that this is a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh. Why doesn't the Gemara answer that it is because it is a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din?

Answer #1: He (the Ri) answers that the Gemara's answer in Makos (ibid.) is only according to the Rabbanan. According to Rebbi Meir, there are indeed two negative prohibitions. One serves as an Azharah for "ka'Asher Zamam" where the Zomimim deserve death or lashes. The other serves to punish with lashes.

Answer #1 (cont.): This is why it is better to say that the reason is because it is a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh, in order to say an answer that it is true both according to the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Makos (4a). This is despite the fact that the reasoning of Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh is unlike Rebbi Yehudah (who holds that one does receive lashes for a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh). According to what the Ri has explained, the Pesukim of "And they will acquit etc." are necessary for lashes even according to the opinion that one can receive lashes for a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh.

Answer #2: Additionally, the Ri would normally answer that since Lo Saneh is said in a general manner, it is referring to many cases. This is why Zomimim who testified that a Kohen is a son of a divorcee or that he a person is liable to go to Galus can receive lashes from this Pasuk as if it was written about such a testimony. It is as if it said in the Pasuk, "One cannot testify falsely regarding monetary matters, saying a Kohen is the son of a divorcee, and that a person is liable to go to Galus." If this is what the Pasuk would say, it cannot be a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din for "ka'Asher Zamam" (as just as there is ka'Asher Zamam by Galus as the witnesses do not go to Galus, so too the Pasuk must not be serving as an Azharah for the other topics as well - Maharsha). This is why it would be understandable that one would receive lashes for it (if it were not a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh).

Answer #2 (cont.): Similarly, regarding our question, even though it is not fitting for lashes to be administered for a Lav that is an Azharah for death by Beis Din even in a case where the witnesses will not be killed, in this case we should be able to give lashes as long as the case is not punishable by death. This is because "Lo Saneh" is written about death and money together in a general fashion, and it can lead to lashes. Therefore, in a case regarding death where for some reason death is not going to be administered, it should be able to be used for lashes.

Answer #2 (cont.): According to this reasoning the Gemara could not have answered in Makos (2b) that we do not derive from Lo Saneh because it is a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din. Since it was given to warn regarding death it can be used for lashes, since it was written in a fashion in a way where it was not only regarding death but regarding other cases as well, as I have explained.

Observation: According to this version, the derivation of "And they will acquit etc" is only according to the opinion that one does not receive lashes for a Lav she'Ain Bo Maseh, as stated in Makos (2b).

Question: However, this is difficult, as in all of the Talmud the prohibition against Shabbos desecration is considered a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din. Why should this be? It is also prohibiting the negative prohibition against having an animal carry a load for which Isi states (Shabbos 6b) that one is not liable to receive lashes!

Answer #1: Since the Pasuk states, "Whoever does Melachah will be put to death," the implication is that in general Shabbos desecration is punished by death. This is why the prohibition regarding Melachah does not sound like it is also referring to Isi's position regarding having animals carry a load. However, the negative prohibition regarding not testifying falsely implies regarding anything, even things that are not punished by death or lashes.

Answer #2: Additionally, the negative prohibition against having an animal carry a load is literally, "Do not do any Melachah, you and your animal etc." The word "you" implies that it is referring to all prohibitions of Shabbos, not just having an animal carry a load, as stated here.

Answer #3: Alternatively, since the Pasuk says, "you should not do" and not "they should not do" (referring to animals).

Implied Question: A similar observation can be made regarding carrying as well. Carrying is also derived in Eruvin (17b) from the Pasuk, "A person etc." that also discusses Techumin, for which one does not receive lashes even if he was not warned that he will be killed. (Why should one receive death for carrying on Shabbos, based on what we stated above?)

Answer: The real derivation regarding Shabbos is from the Pasuk, "And the people stopped bringing (i.e. carrying)" (and there the Pasuk describes this as a Melachah - Maharsha).

Opinion: The first answer above (i) seems to the Ri to be the main answer.

Observation: This was explained earlier (43a).

Observation: In Sukah (22b), there are two ways to explain the Mishnah regarding someone who makes his Sukah on the top of a tree.

Explanation #1: One explanation is that if a person makes his Sukah on the top of a tree, for example if the Sechach of the Sukah is on the tree and the tree supports it in a way that he cannot go on the Sechach without using the tree, as they used to put their vessels on the Sechach.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one can explain that that the roof (i.e. the entire Sukah, see Tosfos in Sukah DH "Shetayim") is resting on the tree as he built it very high up in a way that the bottom of the Sukah is on top of the tree. Whenever he is walking in the Sukah, he is using the tree.

Explanation: There are two bags, one on the right side of the donkey and one on the left side. At the head of each of these bags is a strap, and these two straps are tied together. The knot formed by the straps is lying opposite the back of the donkey, and the bags weigh down on each side. One cannot undo the knot unless he picks up the bags somewhat. This causes the two bags two to be supported by the midsection of the donkey, thereby deemed using the sides of the animal.