Question: Like whom does he hold? Neither like Acherim nor like Rebbi Yehudah; Since Acherim only calls a Bur someone who has learnt Mishnah but not T'nach. Whereas Rebbi Yehudah does not consider him ('Kara ve'Shanah ve'Lo Shimesh Talmidei-Chachamim' ) even an Am ha'Aretz.

Source: Since in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 33a) he Darshens "Shim'u D'var Hash-m ha'Charedim el Devaro ... " "ha'Charedim el Devaro" refers to the Talmidei-Chachamim; "Acheichem", to those who learn T'nach; "Son'eichem", to those who learn Mishnah; and "Menadeichem", to the Amei ha'Aretz'.

Conclusion: So we see, that those who learn only Mishnah or T'nach are not included in the Amei ha'Aretz?

Question: The Ri asks from the Gemaros in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 61a) and in Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 47b) where Rebbi Meir defines an Am haAretz as 'Anyone who does not eat his Chulin be'Taharah'?

Answer: And he explains that there are many kinds of A ha'Aretz; There are some whose testimony one does not accept, as the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim, Daf 49b) 'Six things are said about an Am ha'Aretz: That one does not accept testimony from him ... '.

Answer (cont.): And also in 'Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah, Daf 22a) 'Like whom do we accept testimony from an Am ha'Aretz nowadays? Like Rebbi Yossi'.

Answer (cont.): And there others who are eligible to testify, but who are suspect on Taharos and on Ma'asros, or concerning Bensching Mezuman or concerning Sh'mitah ...

Answer (cont.): And other cases where one may only purchase from an expert, as the Gemara explains in the second Perek of Maseches Avodah-Zarah (Daf 39b).

Ishah Perushah #1: The Yerushalmi, discussing an 'Ishah Perushah', explains that she is one who sits and mocks the words of Torah, by citing the Pasuk "And she (Leah) said 'You (Ya'akov) will come to me!' And he lay with her that night", and claiming that she is more modest than Leah, who claimed Tashmish verbally.

Ishah Perushah #1 (cont.): Rebbi Avuhu said that only Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu knew that, in reality, Le'ah only thought the words (that the Torah portrays verbally), and that her sole objective was to mother the tribes.

Other Cases: They added to the list 'Besultsa Tzaimanis' - one who fasts and loses her virginity and a mischievous widow, such as Chaglah (a known sorceress), who would visit women who were about to give birth and pretend to pray for them, but who in fact, using witchcraft, would prevent her from giving birth.

A Precocious Child #1: Rebbi Chilkiyah in the name of Rebbi Symon explains that it refers to a great Torah scholar, who is beyond his years, and who despises those who are greater than him.

A Precocious Child #2: According to Rebbi Yossi, it refers to a nine-year old who resembles a twelve-yeat old, who commits adultery with one the Arayos in the Torah, and they are sentenced to death because of him, whilst he is Patur.

Metzaymah #1: Tosfos Rebbe explains 'Metzaymah Ovedes Besulehah' to mean that she loses her virginity, when through constantly fasting, her signs of virginity fall out.

Metzaymah #2: His uncle, the Ram explains that she makes herself out to be pious and Davens constantly ...

Support: Which our Gemara refers to as 'Tzalyanis' - as if she indulged in fasts all the time, in order for her prayers to be answered. And she only does this to fool the people, in order that they should not examine her too closely, and then she commits adultery and loses her virginity.

Clarification: This means forty years from the time that he began to learn, and not from the time that he was born.

Source: Like the Gemara in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 5b) which, commenting on the Pasuk "And Hash-m did not give you a heart to understand until this day" - extrapolates that 'It takes a person forty years to fully understand his Rebbe'.

Source (concl.): And the Pasuk there is speaking forty years after Matan Torah, when they began to learn Torah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if he is equal to the Gadol of the city in wisdom, then he is permitted to Pasken.

Question: The Ri queries this however, from the Gemara in Perek ha'Ro'eh (Daf 63a) where Abaye said that in a town where there is a man one should not be a man. And on the question that that is obvious, the Gemara answers 'When they are equal!' So we see that where they are equal one should not be quick to Pasken.

Explanation #2: Therefore we need to explain as follows 'But Didn't Rabah Pasken' - even though he was not eligible to Pasken, since as he had not reached the age of Hora'ah (seeing as his entire life-span was only forty years)?

Explanation #2 (cont.): They were equal': When the Gemara says one is not permitted until the age of forty, that speaks where one is equal in knowledge to the Gadol of the town, and where the latter is eligible to Pasken.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, where there is a Chacham like him who is eligible to Pasken, whilst he is not, he should not Pasken in the presence of the Chacham.

Explanation #2 (concl.): But if one is the Gadol ha'Ir in Chochmah, then, even if one is not eligible to Pasken, one is permitted to do so. And Rabah was the Gadol ha'Ir in knowledge.

Explanation #3: The Ri however, explains that the case of Perek ha'Ro'eh speaks where a man arrives in a town where there is a Chacham, and it is he who should not Pasken even if they are equal ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): But if he is a resident in the town like the Chacham, and he is his equal in knowledge, then he is permitted to Pasken, like Rashi.

Explanation #4: Whereas Rabeinu Chananel explains there that in a place where there is an appointee who is in charge of overseeing to community affairs, one should not into the leadership of the town, even where they are equal.

Conclusion: According to him, it transpires that the Gemara is not talking about Paskening at all.

Yerushalmi: In Perek ha'Ro'eh states: "Do it out of love; Do it out of fear!' Do it out of love - so that if you come to hate, you will know that you love Him, and a lover does not hate. Do it out of fear - so that if you come to rebel, you know that you fear Him, and one who fears does not rebel!'

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'rushim): There are seven P'roshim: 'P'rosh Shichmi', 'P'rosh min ha'Nechiyah' ... .

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'rushim [cont.]): 'P'rosh Shichmi' - that he carries the Mitzvos on his shoulders (for show - See R. Yitzchak Aizak Chaver for explanation of all the cases of the Yerushalmi).

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'rushim [cont.]): 'P'rosh Nikfi' - 'Lend me money and I will give Tzadakah!'.

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'roshim [cont.]): 'P'rosh Kiza'i - He performs a sin and then a Mitzvah, to negate the sin.

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'roshim [cont.]): 'Shall I everything that I own in order to perform a Mitzvah?'

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'roshim [cont.]): 'P'rosh Eida Chovasi ve'E'esenah' - Tell me what I am obligated to do and I will do it!'

Yerushalmi (the Seven P'roshim [cont.]): 'P'rosh Yir'ah' - like Iyov; P'rosh Ahavah' - like Avraham, as the Navi writes (in Yeshayah, 41) "The seed of Avraham My beloved".

Conclusion: The most precious of all is someone who abstains out of love, like Avraham.

Question #1: We learned in the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 7a) that 'Whoever studies Torah she'Lo li'Shemah, it becomes for him a poison'?

Question #2: And in Perek Hayah Korei, in Maseches B'rachos (Daf 17a) it says that 'Whoever studies Torah she'Lo li'Shemah would have been better off had he not been created'?

Answer: 'One who studies she'Lo li'Shemah' (that is mentioned here) speaks where he does so out of fear of suffering, like the case cited in the Gemara, and for the love of reward, where he does not have in mind to fulfil the will of his Creator who commanded him to do it, but for his own benefit.

Source #1: As the Gemara, commenting on the Pasuk in Tehilim "be'Mitzvosav Chafetz Me'od" says in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah - 'and not bi'Sechar Mitzvosav' (for the reward that one receives).

Source #2: And this is what we learned in the Mishnah (in Avos, 1:3) 'Do not behave like slaves who serve their master in order receive a reward'.

Source #3: Like the case that is cited in Perek Eglah Arufah (later, on Daf 47a), and also in Nazir, Perek Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir (Daf 23b) and in the last Perek of Horiyos (Daf 10b) 'A person should always study Torah ... '. since as a reward for the forty-two Korbanos that Balak brought, he merited to have Rus as an offspring'.

Source #3 (cont.): He too did what h did for his own personal benefit, bringing the Korbanos in order to get what he wanted as a reward, and not for the Sake of Hash-m.

Support: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 4a) 'Someone who gives a Sela for Tzedakah in order that his son should live is a complete Tzadik.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the 'she'Lo li'Shemah in Ta'anis and In B'rachos is studying Torah neither out of fear nor out of love, only to add one sin on another (See Tosfos B'rachos, 17. DH ha'Osek'), with the result that his Shegagos become Zedonos.

Answer (concl.): Since, even though he knows that he transgresses, he does not restrain himself from indulging in all his desires.

Proof: As the Gemara explains there (B'rachos, 17a) 'The purpose of wisdom is Teshuvah and good deeds ...

Proof (cont.): That a person should not learn Torah, Mishnah and Gemara, even whilst he rebels against his father and his mother and against those who greater than him

Source: As the Pasuk says (in Tehilim) "The fear of G-d is the beginning of wisdom, a good understanding to all those who do them". 'It does not say to learn them, but "to do them" - to those who do them li'Shemah!'.

Question: Why does the Mishnah not include where he or she died, which as we learned in the first Perek (Daf 6b) is burned?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that that speaks Davka - after one has declared the Kometz Kodesh, as we learned in a Beraisa earlier, whereas here it speaks exclusively about things that are burned after they have been sanctified in a K'li (Shareis).

Refutation: Because the obligation to burn it will apply there even if it has been sanctified in a K'li, and it is only because the Seifa says that if the Kometz has been brought, it (the Shirayim) may be eaten, that it mentions 'Kidesh ha'Kometz in the Reisha.

Conclusion: Alternatively, it is teaching us a Chidush, namely, that even though it has been sanctified and is closer to being sacrificed than where it has been sanctified in a K'li, it must nevertheless be burned.

Question: The Ri asks why the Minchah is burned, seeing as he was intimate with her on the journey, it is prior to the sanctification ...

Question (cont.): And since the water is not destined to examine her - as we Darshen from the Pasuk "And the man will be free from sin", 'It is only when the man is free from sin (that the water examines her).

Question (cont.): Why is it not retroactively apparent that when the Minchah was sanctified, it was sanctified in error, as the Gemara says with regard to 'Witnesses who testify that she is guilty'?

Question (concl.): Because, since she does stand to be examined, and she is not fit to bring her Minchah, it was not fit to be placed inside a K'li, and K'lei Shareis only sanctify what is fit to go in them?

Answer: It is only with regard to where witnesses came ... that one can apply this S'vara, because the Minchah comes to clarify her sin, and when there are witnesses, the sin is already clarified, and requires no further clarification.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where he was intimate with her on the journey, where clarification is still required, even though the water will not examine her, when he initially sanctified the Minchah, it did indeed, become sanctified, seeing as the sin was not clarified.

Precedent: And it can be compared to the case of 'Women who spin in the moonlight talked about her earlier', where, despite the fact that the water does not examine her, her Minchah is sanctified.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Mishnah fails to mention the Minchah of an Arusah a Shomeres Yavam or of an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol ...

Answer: Is because since their P'sul is known in advance, and that they will therefore not be examined, they are not brought to the Beis-ha'Mikdash to drink in the first place.