1)

(a)Rava was concerned why Abaye received a Divine greeting every Erev Shabbos, whereas he received it only every Erev Yom Kippur. It was (not because Abaye was on a higher level than Rav but) - because it was sufficient that he protected the people of his town (Mechoza - who, on the whole, were not righteous - see Ya'avetz) from punishment.

(b)Rav Berokah Chuza'a often frequented the market in Bei Lefet. When he asked Eliyahu (who visited him often) whether there was anyone currently in the market who was a 'Ben Olam ha'Ba' - he replied in the negative.

2)

(a)Later, Eliyahu pointed out a man and informed Rava that he was a Ben Olam ha'Ba - despite the fact that he wore black shoes (contrary to the Jewish custom of that time), and did not wear Tzitzis.

(b)He ...

1. ... wore black shoes and did not wear Tzitzis - because he would frequent the Nochrim in order to find out about their evil decrees and inform the Chachamim (who would pray for them to be nullified)

2. ... failed to respond to Rav Berokah Chuza'a call, and then, when he asked him what he had done to deserve to be a Ben Olam ha'Ba, he told him to come back the next day - because a decree was imminent, and he wanted to be in on it, so as to pass on the information to the Chachamim.

(c)That man was by profession - a prison warden.

(d)His great reward was due to the fact that ...

1. ... he would regularly place his bed between the men and the women captives (in order to prevent them from sinning, and he would make a point of protecting Jewish women from being raped by the prison owners.

2. ... once, when he saw that the Nochri owners of the prison had set their eyes on a Jewish girl who was betrothed - he placed some red wine on the hem of her dress and told them that she was a Nidah (from whom, in those days, even Nochrim would keep their distance).

3)

(a)Later still, Eliyahu found two more people in the market of Bei Lefet who were Bnei Olam ha'Ba - they were jesters.

(b)According to the first Lashon, they used to cheer up anyone who was despondent. According to the second Lashon - whenever they saw two people who had fallen out, they would make peace between them.

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, one blows Shofar immediately for any one of five things: Shidafon, Yerakon, Arbeh and Chasil - and for wild animals.

(b)If one blows for even the tiniest area of Shidafon and Yerakon, the Tana of our Mishnah specifies an oven-full - either because for that Shi'ur, one even fasts too (see Rashash), or because that happened to be the case where Chazal decreed, not because it had any significance. Note: According to the second answer, it is not clear why the Sugya on 22b discusses the Shi'ur of an oven-full. Moreover, according to our text (that cites Rebbi Akiva as the one who says that one blows even for the smallest amount of Shidafon and Yerakon), why can we not establish the Tana of our Mishnah (which gives the Shi'ur as being an oven-full) like the Chachamim?!

(c)The minimum amount of locusts that must be seen in Eretz Yisrael in order to blow the Shofar - is one (though it is not clear why there should be a distinction between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz in this regard).

5)

(a)Wild animals are only considered a plague under certain circumstances. Before they can be termed a plague - they must be seen in town and only during the day.

(b)We reconcile the statement in the Beraisa which considers a wild animal a plague only when it actually chases a human being (but not when it stands still), with the statement later in the same Beraisa, which only considers a wild animal not to be a plague when it runs away from humans (but not when it stands still, in which case, it is) - by establishing the former when there is marsh-land (its natural habitat) next to the field where it is seen (in which case, it is more brazen - so it cannot be considered a plague), and the latter, when there is no marsh-land.

(c)If a wild animal kills two people, it is considered a plague - when it eats one of them but not the other (and certainly when it eats neither of them), but not when it eats them both (because then it is a sign that it is hungry).

(d)Rav Papa reconciles this with what we said earlier that it is called a plague even if it only runs after someone (even if it does not succeed in killing him) - by establishing that in the case of a field, but in marshland, where it is more bold and takes chances, it is only considered a plague if it actually kills someone without eating him.

6)

(a)The Tana also states that if a wild animal goes up to the roof and snatches a baby from his cot, that too, is considered a plague. That would be obvious, says Rav Papa, if the wild animal entered a house - but we are speaking here not about a house, but about a baby asleep in a cot in a bird-trapper's hut, which is only a casual building; so it is not so obvious at all that this is considered a plague.

7)

(a)We have practical proof that one blows the Shofar even for an army that is not at war with us - from Yoshiyah ha'Melech, who tried to stop Par'oh Nechei from passing through Eretz Yisrael peacefully, and look what a terrible calamity resulted from there!

(b)Yoshiyah ha'Melech tried to prevent Par'oh Nechei from passing through Eretz Yisrael on his way to fight Sancheriv - on the basis of the Pasuk in Bechukosai "v'Cherev Lo Sa'avor b'Artzechem" (which cannot be referring to a factual war, because the Torah has already written there "v'Nasati Shalom ba'Aretz").

(c)He thought that he would succeed - because, on the one hand, Par'oh Nechei was coming in the name of idolatry (as Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains), and on the other, he believed that Yisrael were worthy of the Berachos mentioned in that Parashah.

(d)His mistake lay in the fact - that the people only pretended to go along with his abhorrence of idolatry; in secret however, they continued to worship idols.

(e)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan attributes Yoshiyah's harsh punishment to the fact - that he failed to consult Yirmeyahu ha'Navi.

8)

(a)When Yoshiyahu told his servants to move him away "Ki Hochleisi Me'od", says Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, he meant - that his body was full of holes like a sieve (see Rashash).

(b)Yirmeyahu ha'Navi bent down to listen to his final words - because he suspected that, perhaps (Chas v'Shalom), he was questioning Hash-m's Divine justice.

(c)In fact, his final words were - "Tzadik Hu Hash-m, Ki Pihu Marisi".

(d)Yirmeyahu subsequently composed in his honor the Pasuk - "Ru'ach Apeinu Meshi'ach Hash-m Nilkad bi'Shechisosam ... ".

9)

(a)Our Mishnah records that they fixed a fast because of an area of Shidafon the size of an oven-full in Ashkelon. It is unclear whether this refers to an oven-full of produce - which (for practical reasons) can only mean literally an oven-full, or an oven-full of bread - which can mean a row of bread stuck to the oven (obviously a lot less than an oven-full of produce).

(b)We resolve this She'eilah on the basis of a Beraisa, which says 'ki'Melo Pi Tanur' - which can only refer to bread (as we just explained)

(c)It is still not clear however, whether this means a row of breads surrounding the opening of the oven, or a row from the floor up to the opening (which is normally on top) of the oven.

10)

(a)Wolves swallowed two babies whole and later ejected them from their bodies. The Chachamim ruled that the flesh was Tahor - because, having remained inside the wolves' stomach the Shi'ur of digestion, it is considered digested, in which case, it has lost its identity as flesh; but that the bones were Tamei - because bones do not digested so quickly.

11)

(a)The Tana Kama permits a Yachid to fast for a siege, a river overflows its banks, a ship sinking at sea and for someone who is being chased by Nochrim, by robbers or by an evil spirit. Rebbi Yosi learns from the Pasuk "Vayehi ha'Adam l'Nefesh Chayah" - that someone who is unable to bear fasting, is not permitted to fast.

(b)The reason for Rebbi Yosi's ruling is - because, due to the fasts, he will be too weak to earn a livelihood. Consequently, he will need to come on to other people's assistance, which might just not be forthcoming (which in turn, will lead to a life-threatening situation).

(c)Shimon ha'Teimani permits crying out because of pestilence on Shabbos. 'v'Lo Hodu Lo Chachamim' - may refer to Shabbos (but during the week they agree that one may); or they may mean that one does not cry for pestilence at all (not even during the week).

(d)Rebbi Akiva is quoted in a Beraisa as saying - that one does not cry out for pestilence at all (even during the week), seeing as it is a decree. Note, that the Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who permits it during the week), is a third opinion.

12)

(a)We interpret the Pasuk in Malachi "Havi'u es Kol ha'Ma'aser ... Ad Bli Dai" - to mean 'until your lips wither from saying 'enough'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns from there - that one does not pray for a good thing to stop, however much it is (because, if praying to stop would be permitted, why would their lips wither from saying 'enough'!).

(c)This does not however, apply to Bavel - where, on account of its depth, too much rain will weaken the foundations of the houses and cause them to topple. Consequently, one may pray for excessive rain to stop.

(d)The men of the Mishmar would say to the men of the Ma'amad on a very rainy year - that when they Daven on a Ta'anis, they should remember their brothers in Bavel, and pray that their houses should not turn into their graveyards.

13)

(a)When Rebbi Eliezer said that one may pray for the rain to stop from the moment a person can stand on 'Keren Ofel' and wet his feet in the water - he meant that praying for the rain to stop is totally prohibited, since Keren Ofel is far too high for the rain to ever reach it.

(b)This Beraisa is not a contradiction with the Beraisa which says that it is from the moment a person can stand on 'Keren Ofel' and wet his hands in the water - because, once a person is able to dip his feet in water, he can also bend down and dip in his hands too.

(c)Rabah bar bar Chanah said - that he had seen Keren Ofel, and that it was so high that a merchant riding a camel appeared to someone who stood on top and looked down, as if he was looking at a worm (or at a nit).