Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa lists all the cases of a Hedyot purchasing from Hekdesh, the first of which is 'Moshcho be'Manah ve'Lo Hispik li'Fedoso ad she'Amad be'Masayim'. When the Tana says 'li'Fedoso', he means - to pay for it.

(b) He pays two hundred Zuz ...

1. ... in this case - because, as we learned in our Mishnah, 'Reshus ha'Gavohah be'Kesef'.
2. ... in the reverse case, where at the time of the Meshichah the article was worth two hundred Zuz, and it dropped to a Manah before he managed to pay - because the Reshus of Hekdesh should not be less stringent than that of Hedyot, where Meshichah acquires (In other words, we always go le'Chumra regarding Kinyanim, and whichever Kinyan is to Hekdesh's advantage, takes effect).

(c) If he redeemed the article for two hundred Zuz, but by the time he made the Meshichah, it had dropped to a Manah - he also pays two hundred Zuz for it (because 'Reshus ha'Gavohah be'Kesef').

(d) However, in the reverse case, where he redeemed the article for a Manah and the price rose to two hundred Zuz before he managed to make a Meshichah, he pays only a Manah - because in such a case, Hekdesh is indeed no different than Hedyot, who cannot retract without receiving a 'Mi she'Para' (a curse).

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah states 'Kol Mitzvos ha'Ben al ha'Av, Anashim Chayavin, ve'Nashim Peturos', he cannot be referring to Mitzvos of a son towards his father - because we have learned in a Beraisa, women are obligated to respect their parents just like men.

(b) The Tana does indeed comment on the Mitzvos of a son towards his father in the next case, which he refers to as 'Kol Mitzvos ha'Av al ha'Ben', and he concludes 'Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim Chayavin'.

(c) A woman is exempt - from Mitzvos Asei that are time-related.

(d) And she is also exempt from the three Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh - cutting the Pei'os, destroying the beard, and (if she is a Kohenes) rendering herself self Tamei for as dead person, all of which are permitted to her.

(a) We know that a woman is obligated to respect her parents - from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Imo ve'Aviv *Tira'u*" (from the fact that it is written in the plural).

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the three obligations that a father has towards his son, besides the Mitzvos of Milah and Pidyon ha'Ben - are teaching him Torah, finding him a wife and teaching him a trade.

(c) 'Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan), Af Lehasito ba'Mayim'. Chazal have obligated a father to teach his son to swim - because he might find himself in a situation where he is traveling by boat, and the boat sinks.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says that a father who does not teach his son a trade - it is as if he was teaching him robbery, because, seeing as he has no other means of livelihood, he will have to resort to highway robbery (or some similar occupation) in order to live.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Vayamal Avraham es Yitzchok B'no" - that a father is obligated to circumcise his son.
2. ... "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar" - (from the use of the plural) that when there is no father to perform the Mitzvah, then Beis-Din (as representatives of the community) become obligated to perform it.
3. ... "Ka'asher Tzivah *Oso* Elokim" - that his father is obligated but not his mother.

(b) If neither the father nor Beis-Din circumcised him, then he becomes obligated to circumcise himself when he grows up. The difference between their obligation and his is - that his obligation carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis (immediately, according to some Rishonim; when he dies, according to others), whereas their obligation is a regular Asei.

(c) We know that this set of Halachos was not confined to Avraham Avinu, but applies to all generations from the Lashon "Tzivah", and from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael - that every Lashon "Tzav" in the Torah is a Lashon of encouragement and applies to all generations.

(d) He learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Tzav es Yehoshua ve'Chazkeihu ve'Amtzei'hu" - that "Tzav" is a Lashon of encouragement.
2. ... "Min ha'Yom Asher Tzivah Hashem va'Hal'ah le'Doroseichem" - that it applies to all generations.

(a) We learn that a father is obligated to redeem his firstborn son from the Pasuk "Kol Bechor Banecha Tifdeh", and from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Ach *Padoh Tifdeh* es Bechor ha'Adam" - that where the father did not redeem his son, then the son becomes obligated to redeem himself when he grows up.
2. ... "Tifdeh" "Tipadeh" (from the fact that "Tifdeh" is written without a 'Yud') - that whoever is not obligated to redeem himself (i.e. a woman) is not obligated to redeem others (i.e. her son).
3. ... "Tipadeh" "Tifdeh" - that whoever is not obligated to be redeemed by his father (i.e. as daughter), is not obligated to redeem himself.

(b) And we know that a father is not obligated to redeem his daughter - from the Pasuk "es Bechor Banecha Tifdeh", from which we Darshen "Banecha", 've'Lo Benosecha'.

6)

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if a man is faced with the Mitzvah of redeeming himself and his son, then *he* takes precedence. Rebbi Yehudah says - that his son takes precedence, seeing as redeeming his son is basically *his* mitzvah, whereas *his* redemption was basically incumbent upon his father.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah qualifies this Machlokes. In his opinion - even Rebbi Yehudah concedes that, if he only have five Sela'im and no more, the father's redemption takes precedence (because a Mitzvah that pertains to oneself always takes precedence over a Mitzvah that pertains to someone else).

(c) He therefore establishes the Machlokes when there are also Meshubadim (i.e. fields that the father sold before the Pidyon ha'Ben of his son fell due). The Chachamim hold that 'Milveh di'Chesiv ba'Torah La'av ki'Chesuvah bi'Sh'tar Damya', and Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Milveh di'Chesiv ba'Torah ki'Chesuvah bi'Sh'tar Damya'.

(d) Consequently, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan, precedence is given to himself - since there is no Meshubadim, and we have already learned that, when there only five Sela'im, his own redemption comes first.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, precedence is now given to his son - for whom the Kohen takes the B'nei Chorin, thereby enabling him (or another Kohen) to now redeem the father as well, from the Meshubadim (which are Meshubad for the father's redemption, but not for the son's).

(a) If someone is confronted with the Mitzvah of redeeming his son and going to Yerushalayim for Yom-Tov (together with his Olas Re'iyah), and he can only afford one of them, the Tana Kama of another Beraisa obligates him to give precedence to the former. Rebbi Yehudah says - that he should first go to Yerushalayim - to perform the Mitzvah that has a time-limit, whereas Pidyon ha'Ben can be performed later.

(b) The Rabbanan counter this - by quoting the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Kol Bechor Banecha Tifdeh, ve'Lo Yera'u Panai Reikam", clearly giving precedence to Pidyon ha'Ben (over appearing before Hashem with the Olas Re'iyah).

(c) We learn from the word "Kol" - that if a man conceives five sons who are all firstborn of their mothers, then each one needs to be redeemed.

(d) This is not obvious at all, despite the Pasuk which refers to Bechor as "Peter Rechem" - because we would otherwise have learned from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Bechor" "Bechor" from inheritance, that Bechor goes after the father too (and that only a firstborn to both his father and his mother needs to be redeemed.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Limadtem Osam es Beneichem" - that a father is obligated to learn Torah with his son.
2. ... "u'Lemadtem Osam u'Shemartem La'asosam" - that (even) if his father failed to teach him, then he is obligated to teach himself when he grows up.
3. ... "ve'Limadtem" 'u'Lemadtem' (from the fact that the Torah omits a 'Yud') - that a daughter, who is not obligated to be taught by her father, is not obligated to learn herself either, and that since she is not obligated to learn herself, she is not obligated to teach her son.

(b) And we know that a father is not obligated to teach his daughter - from the Pasuk "ve'Limadtem Osam es Beneichem", 've'Lo Benoseichem'.

(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that where both the father and the son wish to learn, and there is only sufficient sustenance for one, the father takes precedence. Rebbi Yehudah says - that if the son is keener, knows more and has a better memory, then he should rather go and his father should look after the estate.

(a) When Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ya'akov sent his son Rav Ya'akov to Abaye's Yeshivah to learn and he returned for Bein ha'Zemanim - his father tested him and found him deficient. So, on the basis that he was a bigger Lamdan than his son, he instructed him to remain at home to tend to the estate, whilst he went to Yeshivah to learn.

(b) Abaye instructed the Talmidim not to invite Rav Acha bar Ya'akov - because he knew him to be a great Tzadik, and he would perhaps save them from the havoc that the fearful demon who plagued their Beis-Hamedrash wraught (even when there were two people, and even during the daytime).

(c) That night - the demon threatened Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, taking on the appearance of a serpent with seven heads. Each time Rav Acha, immersed in prayer, bowed down, one of the heads fell off.

(d) Rav Acha, attributing his escape to a pure miracle (rather than to his own righteousness) commented that, if not for the miracle, Abaye might have been held responsible for a terrible tragedy.

(a) The Sugya discusses the order of priorities between learning Torah and marriage. The Tana of the Beraisa gives precedence to Torah study - unless one has difficulty in controlling his thoughts.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel gives precedence to marriage. Rebbi Yochanan seemingly objects to Shmuel's ruling on the grounds - that a person cannot possibly concentrate on his learning when he carries the yoke of Parnasah on his shoulders.

(c) We conclude however, that they do not argue, because 'Ha Lan, ve'Ha Lehu' - meaning that Shmuel was talking to the B'nei Bavel, who used to travel to Eretz Yisrael to study Mishnayos. And, because they were away from home, they did not have the yoke of Parnasah on their shoulders and could comfortably get married first. Whereas Rebbi Yochanan was speaking to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who studied Torah at home. They were better off learning first and marrying afterwards (see also Tosfos DH 'Ha Lan').

(a) When Rav Chisda boasted to him about Rav Hamnuna's greatness - he replied that when he came to hand, he should send him to him (presumably because he wanted to set eyes on such a great Torah-scholar).

(b) Rav Hamnuna did not cover his head with a Sudar - because he was not yet married.

(c) When Rav Hamnuna told Rav Huna that he was not yet married - he turned his back on him and told him not to see him again until he had a wife.

(d) Rav Huna follows his own reasoning. He says that someone who reaches the age of twenty and is not yet married - will constantly live with immoral thoughts.

(a) Rava corroborates this with a statement from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says that if someone reaches the age of twenty and does not marry - Hashem declares 'Tipach Atzmosav' ('Let his bones swell!') see Agados Maharsha.

(b) Rav Chisda attributed his superiority over his colleagues to the fact - that he married at sixteen.

(c) What he meant was - that he was better able to concentrate on his learning (rather than on other things), placing him ahead of his colleagues who, because they married only at eighteen, had to grapple with this problem.

(d) He said that, had he married at fourteen - he would have been able to challenge the Yetzer ha'Ra and win.