1)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a dish for washing one's feet which holds between two Lugin and nine Kabin. There are four Lugin (each comprising six egg-volumes) in a Kav.

(b)On that day, says the Tana, they concluded that such a dish that cracked is nevertheless Tamei Medras. By on that day, he means - on the day R. Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed Nasi.

(c)They arrived at that conclusion - by taking a head-count and following the majority.

(d)In order to lose its status as a vessel for washing one's feet - the dish would have had to crack close to the base so that not sufficient water remained to wash one foot.

(e)It nevertheless remains subject to Tum'as Medras - because they tended to sit on it whilst washing their feet (see Tos. Yom-Tov & Tiferes Yisrael).

2)

(a)According to R. Akiva - the cracked dish is not subject to Tum'as Medras ...

(b)... because since it was made as a washing-dish, it has now become a washing-dish that can no longer be used (see Tiferes Yisrael).

(c)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

3)

(a)On that day they ruled that - all Korbanos that are Shechted she'Lo Lish'man are Kasher, even though the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.

(b)she'Lo Lishman means that - the Shochet had in mind a different Korban than the one that it actually was.

(c)The two exceptions to the rule are - Korban Pesach and Korban Chatas ...

(d)... the former, in its time (before or after Erev Pesach afternoon [see Tiferes Yisrael]), the latter, any time.

4)

(a)With regard to ...

1. ... the first half of the ruling, the significance of the fact that the Korbanos are Kasher is - that the Kohen may proceed to perform the rest of the Avodah (Li'shemah [see Tiferes Yisrael]).

2. ... the second half of the ruling, we learn that the owner is not Yotzei his Neder from the fact that the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Aseisa, Ka'asher Nadarta la'Hashem Elokecha Nedavah" changes from Neder to Nedavah - since it implies that sometimes a Neder (a Korban that one undertook to bring) remains a Neder, whereas sometimes, it is brought as a Nedavah.

(b)The second half of the above ruling - does not apply - to Korb'nos Tzibur.

(c)We learn each of the two exceptions (Pesach and Chatas) from two respective Pesukim. From the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Yechal'lu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael", we learn - that if one Shechts a Chatas as Chulin, it remains Kasher (Kodshim Mechel'lin Kodshim, ve'Ein Chulin Mechal'lin Kodshim).

(d)The ruling in the Seifa is confined to a Pesach in its time - because a Pesach before or after its time becomes a Shelamim.

5)

(a)R. Eliezer adds to the list of exceptions - the Korban Asham.

(b)R. Shimon ben Azai quoting the Sanhedrin (see Tiferes Yisrael), repeats the principle, but adds the word 'she'Kol ha'Zevachim ha'Ne'echalin ... ' - which, by implication, includes the Korban Olah in the list of exceptions.

(c)The Chachamim however - disagree with him (in spite of the fact that he quoted the Sanhedrin).

6)

(a)On that same day, they discussed the status of Amon and Mo'av in the Sh'mitah - with reference to the section which Yisrael did not capture via Sichon and Og.

(b)They cannot have been talking about the section of Amon and Mo'av that became permitted through Sichon and Og - because that is considered part of Eretz Yisrael ...

(c)... and Shevi'is will apply there even if the Olei Bavel did not capture it, as the Mishnah in Shevi'is explicitly teaches us.

(d)R. Tarfon decreed Ma'aser Ani there (in the former [during the Sh'mitah year, see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Amon' & 'Ma'aser Sheini']). R. Elazar ben Azaryah decreed - Ma'aser Sheini.

7)

(a)R. Yishmael insisted that R. Elazar ben Azaryah, (and not R. Tarfon) prove his opinion - because he was the one who was being Machmir.

(b)He referred to Ma'aser Sheini as a Chumra - because it is Kadosh (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)When R. Elazar ben Azaryah replied that it was R. Tarfon who had initiated a change, and not he, he meant - that he (R. Elazar ben Azaryah), had merely followed the normal pattern of Ma'aser Sheini after the year of Ma'aser Ani, which R. Yishmael had not.

(d)R. Elazar ben Azaryah refered to both R. Yishmael and R. Tarfon as - his brother.

8)

(a)R. Tarfon responded by comparing Amon and Mo'av to Egypt (where Chazal initiated Ma'aser Ani in the Sh'mitah), which R. Elazar ben Azaryah countered - by comparing it to Bavel (where they initiated Ma'aser Sheini).

(b)R. Yishmael justified his comparison of Amon to Egypt (rather than to Bavel) - in that Amon and Mo'av like Egypt, are close to Eretz Yisrael, and initiating Ma'aser Ani in the Sh'mitah would give the poor something to rely on, should food become scarce, whereas Bavel is far away.

(c)To which R. Elazar ben Azaryah replied that - by initiating Ma'aser Ani rather than Ma'aser Sheini, they would cause the people in Eretz Yisrael to treat Ma'aser Sheini lightly (a monetary advantage for the poor, against a spiritual loss for the people in Eretz Yisrael [Tiferes Yisrael]).

9)

(a)R. Elazar ben Azaryah based his statement on the Pasuk in Malachi "ha'Yikba Adam Elokim - (Will a man steal from Hash-m) ... ha'Ma'aser ve'ha'Terumah?" (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)Based on the first half of the Pasuk, "Ma'aser" (in the second half) must mean - Ma'aser Sheini.

(c)R. Yehoshua refuted R. Elazar's Kashya on R. Yishmael, by basing the former's opinion on a different reason, namely that - Amon & Mo'av, like Egypt, was a new decree, whereas Bavel was an old one.

(d)By new - he meant that it was initiated by the elders who lived after Ezra, and by old - that the Nevi'im before Churban Beis-Hamikdash already initiated it based on a prophecy ...

(e)... and one cannot learn a Takanas Chachamim from a prophecy.

10)

(a)The Chachamim of that period ultimately concluded - that the Chachamim actually obligated Ma'aser Ani in Amon and Mo'av in the Sh'mitah (and not Ma'aser Sheini).

(b)When R. Yossi ben Durmaskis came to visit R. Eliezer (in Lud) and he asked him what Chidush had been said that day in the Beis-ha'Medrash - R. Eliezer replied by citing the above Halachah, at which ...

(c)... the former burst into tears from emotion (see Tiferes Yisrael).

11)

(a)When R. Yossi ben Durmaskis quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim "Sod Hash-m li'Yere'av, u'Beriso le'Hodi'am", he meant that - when the Chachamim arrived at their decision, they arrived at the truth by Divine inspiration.

(b)He then instructed R. Eliezer to tell the Chachamim - that they need not shed the slightest doubt on their decision, since traditionally, the fact that Amon & Mo'av take Ma'aser Ani in the Sh'mitah is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(c)The name that he cited in the chain of otherwise un-named Chachamim, from whom he actually heard this ruling was - R. Yochanan ben Zakai (R. Eliezer's own Rebbe).

(d)One can comment on R. Yossi ben Durmaskis' statement that - it must be La'av Davka (not really the case), seeing as the ruling in question is only mi'de'Rabbanan, as we explained. In the Tosefta however, it appears that it is Davka.

12)

(a)On that same day, Yehudah Ger Amoni appeared before the assembly of Chachamim - to find out whether he was eligible to marry into the Kahal (a Kasher Jewish woman) or not.

(b)Rabban Gamliel - disqualified him from coming into the Kahal, based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yavo Amoni u'Mo'avi bi'Kehal Hash-m" (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)R. Yehoshua disagreed with Rabban Gamliel however - based on a Pasuk in Yeshayah, which describes how Sancheriv used to move nations from place to place, so that no nation remained intact.

(d)He implemented his strategy - by moving them one town at a time.

13)

(a)Rabban Gamliel countered R. Yehoshua, based on the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "ve'Acharei-Chein Ashiv es Sh'vus b'nei Amon" - a clear proof that they were destined to return, a prophecy that we can assume had been fulfilled.

(b)To which R. Yehoshua replied that - one cannot make such an assumption, any more than one can assume that Yisrael have already returned, following the promise that they will.

(c)The Chachamim finally - permitted Yehudah Ger Amoni to marry into the Kahal ...

(d)... based a. on R. Yehoshua's reasoning, and b. on the fact that the majority of nations are permitted, we assume that any prospective Ger has come from one of the majority (Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parush).

14)

(a)The Mishnah rules that the Targum in Ezra & Daniel - (the Arama'ic sections that appear regularly there) are Metamei the hands ...

(b)... and the same applies to Aramaic words that appear in other Sefarim, such as "ki'Dena Teimra L'hon" in Seifer Yirmiyah.

(c)A Seifer (or part of a Seifer) that one translated from Targum into Lashon Ivris (Lashon ha'Kodesh, see Tos. Yom-Tov), or vice-versa - is not.

15)

(a)A Seifer that is written in K'sav Ivri - the script that was originally used on the other side of the River P'ras [Eiver means the other side]) is not Metamei the hands.

(b)We know that, in the era of the Kings of Yisrael, our ancestors used this script in their secular dealings - from coins that were excavated from that period.

(c)The Kutim (Samaritans) however - used it even in their holy writings.

16)

(a)Our Sefarim are written in K'sav Ashuris - which is the script that was used in the Luchos.

(b)It is called by that name - because it is the most praiseworthy (Me'ushar) of all scripts (see Tiferes Yisrael).

(c)The other two conditions that are required for a Seifer to be Kasher are - 1. that it is written on the skin of a Kasher animal (see Tos. Yom-To, Mishnah Achronah & other commentaries on the Mishnah) and 2. that it written with ink.

17)

(a)The Mishnah cites the Tzedokim - disciples of Tzadok and Baytus [some of them were called Baytusim] who denied Torah she'be'al Peh), who complained about the Perushim (the Chachamim).

(b)Based on the ruling that Sefarim are Metamei the hands, they objected - to the fact that the Chachamim did not extend the decree to the Sifrei Hamiram (the Sefarim written by the Minim [the heretics who swapped (Heimiru) the truth for falsehood]).

18)

(a)Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (anticipating the Tzedokim's response) added to their list - the fact that the Chachamim did not declare Tamei the bones of a donkey, like they did those of a Kohen Gadol.

(b)The Tzedokim responded that - this distinction was based on love; to prevent a person from manufacturing Tarvados (spoons) from his father's bones (as a memento), something that he will not do with the bones of his donkey.

(c)Raban Yochanan ben Zakai retorted that - by the same token, the Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on Kisvei Kodesh (so that people should not manufacture with them mats to cover their animals, due to their great value, something ythat they will not do with the Sefarim of Minim, which are not valuable).

(d)As a matter of fact, the Tzedokim's reasoning was incorrect, and so was that of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 've'Harei Omrim' & 'she'Lo Ya'aseh'), who only gave that reason to placate the Tzedokim. The real reason that that they decreed Tum'ah on Sifrei Kodesh is - to prevent them from being eaten by mice (which occurred when they placed them next to Terumah).

19)

(a)The Tzedokim also objected to the Perushim's ruling (in Machshirin) rendering Nitzok Tahor - When one pours a liquid from a Tahor vessel into a Tamei one, the liquid that remains in the top vessel remains Tahor (because Nitzok Eino Chibur).

(b)The Perushim countered - by expressing their surprise at the Tzedokim, who declared Tahor a stream of water that flowed from a grave-yard ...

(c)... which, like Nitzok, also touches Tum'ah at one end, yet remains Tahor (Tiferes Yisrael).

(d)The latter ruling is in fact correct - based on the Pasuk in Shemini "Mikveh Mayim Yih'yeh Tahor".

20)

(a)The Tzedokim's next complaint concerned the difference between a person's Eved and Shifchah Cana'anim who damaged - for whom he is Patur from paying, and his ox which damaged - for which he is Chayav.

(b)The Tzedokim's objection was based on the fact that - whereas the owner is not obligated to teach his ox Mitzvos, he is obligated to teach his Eved Cana'ani, so if he is Chayav for the former, why is he Patur from the latter?

(c)To which the Perushim answered that, unlike the former - the latter have Da'as (the ability to reason). That being the case, if the owner was liable for their damages, whenever the owner angered them, they would take revenge by simply setting fire to a neighbor's haystack, forcing their master to pay.

(d)That is indeed the genuine answer (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

21)

(a)The final complaint was that of a Tzedoki Galili. He was called by that name - because he lived in the Galil.

(b)His complaint concerned the wording of a Get (see Tos. Yom-Tov). The name of...

1. ... Nochri kings appeared in the date (year so-and-so of King so-and-so's reign).

2. ... Moshe Rabeinu appeared on it at the end, where one writes k'Das Moshe ve'Yisrael (like one does on a Sh'tar Kidushin).

(c)His objection was - how they could possibly write a Nochri king on the same page as Moshe Rabeinu (see Mishnah Achronah)?

22)

(a)In reply, the Perushim - asked how the Tzedokim could possibly insert the Pasuk in Sh'mos "Vayomer Paroh 'Mi Hash-m asher Eshma be'Kolo" in their Sifrei Torah, seeing as, not only were they placing a Nochri king on the same page as Hash-m ...

(b)... but even worse - they gave it precedence by placing it first ...

(c)... a proof that placing an insignificant person on the same page as an important one in this way - is considered neither an insult to the latter nor an honor to the former (Tos. Yom-Tov).

23)

(a)After Paroh had been smitten, he announced - "Hash-m ha'Tzadik ... ".

(b)The Tana inserts that here - on order to conclude the Masechta on a positive note (rather than on the negative one that preceded it).