Question #1: How can the Beraisa say that the Pasuk compares a Mitzvah to a lamp in that just as a lamp only protects for a short time, so too, does a Mitzvah protect for a short time ...

Question #1 (cont.): Since from the Yeitzer ha'Ra it does not protect at all, whereas from punishment it protects forever?

Question #2: And why does it also compare Torah to a light in that it protects forever ...

Question #2 (cont.): Inasmuch as from punishment, a Mitzvah protects forever, too, and as for protection against the the Yeitzer ha'Ra, it only protects for a short time?

Question: How can he be saved from all of them, seeing as he is only saved from the Yeitzer ha'Ra at the time that he is studying Torah?

Answer: Generally a Talmid Chacham's full-time occupation is Torah, which he studies and thinks about all the time. In fact, he does not walk four Amos without thinking about Torah.

Question: But did the Gemara not say earlier that according to both Rav Yosef and Rava, a Mitzvah protects a person from punishment even when he is not studying it ...

Question (cont.): And that when it says that 'A sin negates a Mitzvah', it does not mean that it prevents him from being protected against suffering, only from receiving reward for it in the World to Come, as Rashi explains?

Yerushalmi: ben Azai does not hold like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who Darshens in Chagigah (Daf 3.[on the Pasuk]) "Hakheil es ha'Am, ha'Anashim, ve'ha'Nashim ve ha'Taf" - 'The come to learn, the women, to listen ... '.

Clarification: The Mitzvah for the women to listen refers to knowing how to perform the Mitzvah, and not that they should know that a merit will give them extra time.

Illustration: An aristocratic woman asked Rebbi Eliezer why did they perform one sin by the Golden Calf, yet they died three different deaths?

Illustration (cont.): When he said to her 'The wisdom of a woman is confined to spinning wool, his son Hurk'nus commented 'In order to avoid giving her an answer from the Torah, you caused me an annual loss of three hundred Kur of Ma'aser!.

Illustration (concl.): To which Rebbi Eliezer replied 'Rather let the words of Torah burn, but don't teach words of Torah to women!'

Clarification #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that a women would rather that her husband be a donkey-driver, who will be with her every Shabbos to provide her with her marital dues, even though he only gives her one Kav of wheat ...

Clarification #1 (cont.): Than he should be a camel-driver who travels further afield and is with her only once every thirty days, even though he gives her his wage packet of nine Kabin ...

Clarification #1 (concl.): Because she prefers intimacy every week and one Kav, than nine Kavin and separation of thirty days.

Clarification #2: Tosfos' Rebbe quoting Rav Hai Gaon explains with the Gemara in Kesuvos 'Someone who arranges to feed his wife via a third person should not give her less than two Kabin of wheat from Shabbos to Shabbos, as is evident there in Perek Af-al-Pi (on Daf 64b), and he maintains her marital rights.

Clarification #2 (cont.): Whereas in the event that he rebels against her 'He adds to her Kesubah three Dinrim per week' (Ibid. 63a), and the regular price of wheat is four Sa'in per Sela (which equals four Dinrim).

Clarification #2 (cont.): It transpires that one Sa'ah is worth a Dinar, and three Sa'in (eighteen Kabin), three Dinrim.

Clarification #2 (concl.): So we see that the Chachamim assessed a woman's wishes to have intimacy and two Kabin, rather than eighteen Kabin and that her husband separates from her - and two Kabin is one ninth of eighteen Kabin.

Yerushalmi: 'If someone sees a child drowning in the river, and he decides to remove his Tefilin before jumping into the water to save him. Meanwhile, the baby drowns'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi refers to the case of Rebbi Avahu, that of Rebbi Yochanan and someone who derives a widow of her sustenance as 'Makos Perushim'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Furthermore, the Gemara there has the text 'A certain Talmid of Rebbi Bun had a hundred and ninety-nine Zuz, and Rebbi was accustomed to give him Ma'aser Ani once every three years.

Yerushalmi (cont.): On one occasion his Talmidim gave him an Ayin ha'Ra and lent him money. And when Rebbi came and wanted to give him Ma'aser Ani, as he was accustomed to doing, he said to him 'Rebbe, I have the full Shi'ur!'

Yerushalmi (cont.): At which Rebbi commented 'This man has been stricken with Makas Perushim!'

Yerushalmi (concl.): So he hinted to his Talmidim, who took him down to the tavern where they took off one grain. Then he (Rebbi) gave him Ma'aser Ani as he was accustomed to.

Mishnah, Pe'ah: We learned in the Mishnah in the last Perek of Pe'ah (Mishnah 9) that 'Someone who possesses fifty Zuz with which he is doing business, he may not take Ma'aser.

Gemara: On which the Gemara comments that 'Fifty which is in circulation is better than two hundred that is not!'

Clarification: It seems that it is specifically with regard to the sustenance of the daughters that the Gemara says 'What they sold is sold', but as far as the sustenance of a wife is concerned, seeing as her husband is Meshu'bad to her in his lifetime, the property remains in the husband's domain, and they cannot sell it.

Proof: Like the Gemara says in Perek ha'Nosei (Kesuvos, Daf 103a.) 'Yesomim who sold the abode of the Almanah, have achieved nothing'.

Implied Question: And what the Gemara brings from Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Yesomim who went and sold Nechasim Mu'atim'?

Answer #1: There the property is not Meshu'bad to her during her husband's lifetime.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is the same house in which she lived during her husband's lifetime, whereas regarding Mezonos, each day she requires Mezonos, and one cannot compare the Mezonos of a woman and her abode.

Clarification: In actual fact, even if they sold even Ne`chasim Meruibin we would say 'What they sold they sold!', since metalt'lin are not Meshu'bad for Mezonos.

Proof: And the Gemara also says in Perek Metzi'as ha'Ishah (Ibid. Daf 69a) 'Whether they sold it or gave it as a security. One cannot claim it for Mezonos'.

Implied Question: And the reason that it says 'Nechasim Mu'atin ...

Answer: Is the normal thing to do, because one does not generally sell property due to a lack of sustenance there where there is a lot of property.

Clarification: Tosfos's Rebbe explains that Rebbi Yochanan argues with the Gemara's conclusion in 'Daynei Gezeiros', the last Perek in Kesuvos (Daf 109a) which quoting Rebbi Yitzchak ben Ila'i in the name of Chizkiyah, states that 'Wherever Raban Gamliel agrees with Admon, the Halachah is like him'.

Clarification (cont.): And Admon says there in the Mishnah (Daf 108b) and in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 139b) 'Is it because I am a male that I should lose out?' And Raban Gamliel there concurs with Admon.

Refutation: Tosfos does not understand what pushed him (his Rebbe) to explain Raban Gamliel according to Admon more than according to the Rabbanan (See Maharsha).

Clarification: The Rashbam explains in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 137a) that it is because he caused him to contravene the words of the owner, and he is called 'Arum' because his words were effective, and he is a sinner on something that is not his.

Clarification (cont.): The seller himself however (i.e. the first one) is not called a 'Rasha', even though Lechatchilah he was forbidden to do so, since his sin is not so severe, seeing as the owner gave him the rights over the object itself and over the Peiros to do with as he pleased.

Question: Tosfos queries the Rashbam however, from Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy (Kesuvos, Daf 95b) where Abaye says that, in a case of 'Nechasai lach ve'Acharayich li'Peloni', and the woman gets married, the husband is a purchaser, and 'Acharecha' therefore receives nothing in face of the husband.

Question (cont.): And on the Kashya 'How can Abaye say that, seeing as Abaye himself defines a Rasha Arum' as someone who gives bad advice to sell ... '? ...

Question (concl.): The Gemara answers that Abaye did not say that she is permitted to get married, but that she got married. So we see that the Gemara compares the seller himself to the one who gives advice?

Answer: It is possible however to explain that since the one who gives advice is called a Rasha, the seller is forbidden Lechatchilah, even though he is not called a Rasha.

Support: As the Tana says there 'The first one is only permitted to eat the Peiros'.

Question: Since Abaye said 'This is a person who gives bad advice to sell ... like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel', we see that Abaye holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

. Proof: And likewise Abaye specifically said in Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy (Ibid) that a husband is a purchaser, and 'Acharecha' receives nothing in the face of a purchaser.

Proof (cont.): And in 'Yesh Nochlin' too (Bava Basra, Daf 137a) he attributes the ruling to the fact that he holds 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami'.

Question (cont.): Whereas at the end of Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 48b), Abaye says 'We take on that a husband requires authorization to sell his wife's property, because, even though the Peiros belong to him, the Guf requires authorization. This implies that he holds Kinyan Peiros La'av ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami'?

Answer: It is exclusively by 'Acharecha' that Abaye holds 'Kinyan Peiros is like Kinyan ha'Guf, since the Gemara states that even according to Resh Lakish who says that it is not like a Kinyan ha'Guf, 'Acharecha' is different.

Clarification: The Rashbam explains that 'Acharecha' implies that he is giving the Guf and the Peiros to the first recipient, since he explicitly says that 'after you so-and-so will inherit'.

Clarification (cont.): And also he rules there like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. And this is what he says: 'Generally, we hold that 'Kinyan Peiros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf', as the Gemara explicitly rules in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 36b).

Proof #1: And this is the correct explanation, if we are to avoid a contradiction between two Halachos - as on the one hand, we rule like Resh Lakish, in Perek ha'Choletz, whilst on the other, in the case of 'Acharecha' we will shortly rule like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

Proof #1 (cont.): And Resh Lakish does not argue with this.

Proof #2: And from Abaye too, one can extrapolate that this is how we rule, as he says ''Who is a Rasha Arum ... '.

Proof #3: And similarly further on where in the case of 'That woman who had a date-palm in the field belonging to Rav Bibi, and where he went and gave it to his son, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel', and the Gemara continues that 'even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel only said his Din ... '.

Proof #3 (cont.): From there too, we can learn that the Halachah is like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Conclusion: Therefore, we are forced to say that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel concurs with (the ruling of) Resh Lakish, and he reason there is because 'Acharecha' is different. And this reconciles the two contradictory rulings.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe asks why the Gemara does not also reckon the case in 'Eilu hein ha'Nisrafin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 76b), where Rav Kahana in the name of Rebbi Akiva defines a poor man and a Rasha Arum as someone who delays marrying off his daughter until she is a Bogeres?

Answer: The Gemara does not contend with a poor man and a Rasha'.