Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף ו, but what we will start towards the end of דף ה עמוד ב, twelve lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And the גמרא says, גופא, here is the גוף of the thing that we discussed before, we had mentioned earlier a few בלאט before, that אמר שמואל, שמואל said, שנים שדנו, if two people judged, דיניהם דין, their דין is considered a דין, their פסק is a פסק, אלא שנקרא בית דין חצוף, but it is called a בית דין of חוצפה. And as תוספות says, this doesn't only mean two, the same thing would be if one person judged, that according to שמואל the דין would be a דין, just that it would be called a חצוף. The reason the גמרא mentioned שנים is to tell us that even if two do it, still it is a חוצפה. But לפועל the same דין applies to one. And the גמרא says, יתיב רב נחמן וקאמר להא שמעתא, רב נחמן was sitting and was repeating this דין, איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן, said רבא asked a קושיא to רב נחמן, we learned later on in a משנה, it says, אפילו שנים מזכין ושנים מחייבין, even if out of the three people of the בית דין, two say that he is innocent, or two say that he is guilty, ואחד אומר איני יודע, and one, the third one, says I don't know, יוסיפו הדיינין, you add to the דיינים. If

two say one way and the other one says the other way, then we follow the majority, but if the third one says I don't know, then you have to add דיינים. But the question is, ואי סלקא דעתך, if it is true that two people who פסקן a דין, בדיעבד the דין is a דין, להוו כשנים שדנו, let it be like two people who פסקנד! If two say זכאי or two say חייב, why is it that you have to add another person, another דיין? Why don't we say leave it the way it is and let's follow what these two say? איי the third one says he doesn't know, so automatically he falls out, but בדיעבד if two people פסקן, it's also good, so let this be considered as if two people פסקנד. So he answered, שאני התם, there it's different, דמעיקרא אדעתא דתלתא יתבי, that לכתחילה when they sat down to פסקן they sat down as three, so they had in mind that this should be a דין תורה פסקנד by three, so therefore if one says I don't know, you must add another one in order to have three, because that's what they had in mind when they sat down. But הכא, here, when he said a דין that two people who פסקן, בדיעבד the דין is a דין, לאו אדעתא דתלתא יתיבי, they didn't sit down in the order in mind to have three people, לכתחילה they sat down with two, so then it is good. Then the

גמרא says, איתיביה, I will ask you a קושיא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, הדין בשלשה, when you פסקן a דין you must have three people, ופשרה בשנים, but if you're going to make a פשרה, which is an arbitration, and you're going to make a settlement, so then two people are enough. ויפה כח פשרה מכח הדין, and the פשרה, a settlement through arbitration, is stronger, has a stronger כח than a דין itself, ששנים שדנו, if two people פסקנד a דין, בעלי דינין יכולין לחזור בהן, the two בעלי דינים, the two people involved, can change their mind, they don't have to accept the פסק דין given by those two people who פסקנד. אבל שנים שעשו פשרה, but if two people made a פשרה, if two people made a settlement, אין בעלי דינין יכולין לחזור בהן, so then the two בעלי דינים cannot change their mind afterwards. So here we see that if two people פסקנד, the דין is not a דין, only by a settlement we say that if two people do it, then the settlement is a settlement, it must be accepted, but not by a דין, so that's a קושיא on שמואל who says that if two people פסקנד the דין is a דין. וכי תימא, איי you might say, פליגי רבנן עליה דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that the רבנן argue against רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, this is only the opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, but the רבנן argue and they would say that even by a דין, if two people פסקן, בדיעבד the דין is a דין. But you can't say that, because והאמר רבי אבהו, didn't רבי אבהו say, שנים שדנו לדברי הכל אין דיניהם דין, that if two people פסקן a דין, according to everybody the דין is not a דין, that even according to those that say that by a פשרה, by a settlement you do not have to have three, but when it comes to a דין, if you פסקן not through a settlement, but through a real דין, everyone agrees that you must have three and two is not enough. So here we see that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל's opinion is accepted by everybody, and the רבנן do not argue on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. גמרא says, "גברא אגברא קרמית? You're asking from one person to the other? Who said that the רבנן don't argue on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and everyone agrees that by a דין, if two people פסקנ'ד, the דין is not a דין? רב אבהו said that. So what kind of קשיא do you have from רב אבהו on שמואל? רב אבהו could hold that the רבנן agree with רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, but שמואל will hold that the רבנן argue on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. It's only his own opinion that if two people פסקנ'ד, the בעלי דינים could still change their mind because it's not a דין. But the חכמים, they argue on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and they would hold that if two people פסקנ'ד, the דין is a דין." But תוספות asks a קשיא, that what does he mean when he says that פשרה is stronger than דין? That by דין, if two people פסקנ'ד, the בעלי דינים still could change their mind; by פשרה, they cannot change their mind. לכאורה, by פשרה, the only reason they can't change their mind and they must accept the settlement is because they לכתחילה accepted it, because you can't just force a settlement upon them. If they agreed to make a settlement, so then after the people who are judging it come to a settlement, they must accept it, because לכתחילה they were מקבל upon themselves to make the settlement. If that is the case, so by a דין the same thing: if they would have accepted the two people to פסק'ן the דין, then also they would have to accept their פסק דין. The only reason why we say that if two people פסק'ן a דין they could change their mind, they don't have to accept it, is because they were not מקבל upon themselves to listen to them. But if they would have been מקבל upon themselves to listen to them, even by a דין they would have to. And by a פשרה the same: the only reason that they must listen to the פשרה is because they accepted upon themselves. So where do we see that פשרה is stronger than דין? In that case where they must accept the פשרה, a similar case by דין they would also have to accept. If they were מקבל upon themselves to listen to their דין, even if they're two, they would have to accept. So תוספות says what he means is, in a case, for instance, when they came to two people and they said to them, "You פסק'ן us as it is customary to פסק'ן a דין," or they said to them, "You make a פשרה, make a settlement with us as it is customary to make a פשרה." So in this case, in the case of a פשרה, since they said, "We accept upon ourselves that you should make a פשרה as it is the custom," so after they come with the פשרה, they must accept it. But if the same thing would happen by a דין, they don't have to accept it. Since they said, "I want you to פסק'ן as it is customary to פסק'ן," and since it is customary to פסק'ן with three, so then when the two come with the פסק דין, they don't have to listen. So this is the case where we see that דין is not as strong as פשרה. Then the גמרא continues: גופא, here is the גוף of the thing that we mentioned before. אמר רב אבהו, רב אבהו said, שנים שדנו דיני ממונות, if two people פסקנ'ד a monetary דין, דברי הכל, according to everybody, אין דיניהם דין, the דין is not a דין. Even those that hold that by פשרה two is enough, but by a דין, it is not enough. The גמרא says, איתיביה רבא לרב אבהו, רבא asked a קשיא to רב אבהו, we learned: דן את הדין, if one person פסקנ'ד a דין, and this person was not a מומחה, because a מומחה is different, but here we're talking in a case where he was not a מומחה, because at the end of this דין, it says clearly, אם היה מומחה, the דין is different, so obviously the beginning is not talking about a מומחה. So we're speaking about an individual who was not a מומחה, who פסקנ'ד a דין, וזיכה את החייב, and the one that really was supposed to be guilty, he made him innocent, וחייב את הזכאי, and the one that was supposed to be innocent, he made him guilty, or טימא את הטהור, something that was supposed to be טהור, he made it טמא, טיהר את הטמא, or something that was supposed to be טמא, he made it טהור, מה שעשה עשוי, what he did is done, the דין that he פסקנ'ד is a דין, ומשלם מביתו, but he has to pay from his house, from his own money, for the loss that he caused. So we see clearly that even though he is one, nevertheless, his דין is a דין. So how could רב אבהו say that everyone agrees that by a דין then you must have three, and if two did it it's not enough, certainly if one? The

גמרא answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, that here we're talking in a case דקבלוהו עלייהו, that they accepted upon him. When we say that even if one פסקנ'ד, who was not a מומחה, nevertheless, his דין is a דין, is if the בעלי דינים accepted him upon them. And therefore, since they accepted to do as he will פסק'ן, his פסק דין is valid. But the גמרא asks: אי הכי, so אמאי משלם מביתו? Why does he have to pay from his house? If they accepted upon themselves his פסק דין, then even if it's a mistake, he shouldn't have to pay the money, because they said that they're going to listen to what he says. The גמרא answers, דאמרו ליה, the case is when they said to him, "דיינסט אונז דין תורה." we accept you to פסקן to us, but according to the דין of the תורה. That, since he made a mistake, it is not the דין of the תורה, and therefore, he is responsible to pay. But nevertheless, the דין he פסקנד is a דין, because they, generally speaking, did accept him to be their דיין, their judge, and therefore, the דין is a דין. אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבא, רב ספרא said to רבא, דטעה במאי, what was his mistake? When we say if he made a mistake, he has to pay, what kind of mistake did he make? אילימא if you're going to say דטעה במשנה, that he made a mistake in a דין which is a clear, open משנה, and he פסקנד a דין against what the משנה says, והאמר רב ששת didn't רב ששת say, אמר רב אסי in the name of רב אסי, טעה במשנה חוזר, if a person פסקנס and makes a mistake in a clear דין of a משנה, the whole דין goes back. It's not the פשט the דין is a דין, but if there is any loss, he has to pay. לכתחילה the whole judgment is a mistake, and you have to redo the whole thing, because since it's such an open thing, it's not even considered a mistake that we should say it's something which is valid, but with a mistake. It's לכתחילה not valid. אלא therefore, we must say דטעה בשיקול הדעת, that his mistake was not in an open משנה, but in the judgment of his mind. He was supposed to judge it and compare it in a certain way to a certain דין, and he made a mistake in the way he judged the case. Now היכי דמי בשיקול הדעת, what do we mean he made a mistake in שיקול הדעת, in his estimation of his mind? אמר רב פפא so רב פפא said, כגון for instance, תרי תנאי there is a דין in which we have an argument between two תנאים, or תרי אמוראי or two אמוראים, דפליגי אהדדי that are arguing, ולא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר, we didn't learn clearly the הלכה not like one, nor like the other, but סוגיין דעלמא אליבא דחד מינייהו, the general סוגיא, the general trend of the דינים of the דיינים is like one of the two, but ואזל איהו he went, ועבד כאידך he did like the other, היינו שיקול הדעת. That is called a mistake in שיקול הדעת. And this is a case where he would have to pay, because the one that he was מזכה, that he said was innocent, you can't change now and tell him you pay the money, because he will say that, 'You פסקנד that I am right, I don't have to pay. And we don't find anywhere that the הלכה is like the other תנא, like the other אמורא, and since you פסקנד I was right, therefore, I don't have to pay.' So, they can't force him to pay. On the other hand, the one that lost the money could say, 'But after all, since the general trend is according to the other opinion, so I should be right, so why should I have lost the money?' So, they make the judge, the דיין himself, that he should pay for the mistake that he made. Then the גמרא continues, לימא כתנאי, let us say that there is a מחלוקת between תנאים, that this מחלוקת is between שמואל and רב אבהו, whether two people that פסקן a דין if it's בדיעבד a דין or not, is really a מחלוקת between תנאים. Because we learned ביצוע בשלשה דברי רבי מאיר, רבי מאיר holds that when you come to make a settlement, a פשרה, you have to have three people. וחכמים אומרים פשרה ביחיד, and the חכמים say that to make a פשרה is enough one person. סברוה so the תלמידים of the ישיבה thought דכולי עלמא מקשינן פשרה לדין, that everyone holds of this rule that we compare how many people we need to make a settlement to how many people we need for a דין, that the same amount of people we need for a דין we need for a פשרה. Everyone holds that. When we say everyone, we only refer to these two, רבי מאיר and the חכמים. It doesn't mean everyone all over, because one thing is for sure that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל definitely doesn't hold that, because we learned before that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said clearly, הדין בשלשה ופשרה בשנים, that for a דין you need three, and for a פשרה it's enough two. So, when the גמרא says here that לכתחילה they thought that everyone holds that a פשרה has the same דין as a דין, it definitely doesn't refer to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So, what we mean here is that רבי מאיר and the חכמים who argue whether you need three or one is enough, these two definitely hold that a פשרה is like a דין, the same amount we need for a דין we need for a פשרה. And what is their מחלוקת? מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי, don't you think the מחלוקת is in this, דמר סבר דין בשלשה, רבי מאיר holds that a דין needs three people, and therefore, since we everyone holds a פשרה is like a דין, so a פשרה also needs three people. That's why he said פשרה is ביצוע בשלשה. ומר סבר, and the חכמים hold דין בשנים, that a דין is enough two, or one. So, since we compare a פשרה to a דין, so just like by a דין one is enough, or two, so too by a פשרה one is enough. So, according to that, if this is true, the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is not really concerning how many people you need by a פשרה, but really how many people you need by דין, that according to רבי מאיר you need three, and according To רבנן two or one is enough. So it comes out that a מחלוקת between שמואל and רב אבהו really is a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. שמואל holds that two is enough or one is enough, and רב אבהו holds that everyone agrees that you must have three by a דין. And the גמרא says לא no, דכולי עלמא באמת everyone holds דין בשלשה. Could be that everyone holds that for a דין you need three. והכא בהא קא מיפלגי, here the מחלוקת is as follows: דמר סבר, one holds מקשינן פשרה לדין, that we do compare a פשרה to a דין. רבי מאיר holds that we compare the settlement to a דין. So just like by a דין you have to have three, by a settlement you also have to have three. ומר סבר, and the חכמים hold, לא מקשינן פשרה לדין, that we do not compare a פשרה to a דין, and therefore even though by a דין you have to have three, by a פשרה you do not have to have three. Now, what should be the סברא, why we should think that we should

compare פשרה to דין? So רש״י says, and he quotes from the גמרא on עמוד ב׳, where it brings the פסוק, ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, that דוד did משפט and צדקה. משפט means judgment, and צדקה means righteousness. Now how do these two fit? That means that he made a פשרה. A פשרה, when you make a settlement, you have both, it's judgment and righteousness. On one hand it's judgment, but it's also righteousness, because otherwise, if you go according to the דין, then if for one person it's good, for the other person it's not. But if you make a settlement, it's good for both. So we see that this פסוק is speaking about a settlement, and nevertheless, the פסוק says משפט וצדקה, it compares it to משפט. So that means that we should compare settlement, a פשרה, to משפט. That's the reason why the גמרא says we should מקשינן פשרה לדין, compare the settlement to the דין. But תוספות says that we cannot say that the גמרא סברא here is based on that פסוק, because later on we find a מחלוקת. The תנא קמא says, כשם שהדין בשלשה כך ביצוע בשלשה, that just like a דין has to have three people, so a פשרה must have three people too. So obviously that תנא holds that we compare פשרה to דין, that's why he says that just like דין needs three, פשרה also needs three. Now, later on in the same ברייתא, we find that רבי יהושע בן קרחה learns out from this פסוק ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, that it's a מצוה to make a פשרה. Now, since this is the opinion of רבי יהושע בן קרחה, it comes out from the ברייתא that the תנא קמא argued on רבי יהושע בן קרחה. He holds that it's not a מצוה to make a פשרה. Now, since he doesn't hold it's a מצוה to make a פשרה, obviously he doesn't דרשן the פסוק ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה. Because if he would דרשן that פסוק, he would also admit that it's a מצוה. Because if it's called צדקה, it's a מצוה to do צדקה. Since the תנא that we mentioned before that says that just like a דין is בשלשה, כך ביצוע בשלשה, does not hold it's a מצוה, obviously he doesn't דרשן the פסוק ויהי דוד עושה משפט. Now, according to רש״י, who says that the reason we compare פשרה to דין is based on this פסוק ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, but in that ברייתא later we see that the תנא קמא, who holds that we do compare פשרה to דין, nevertheless doesn't דרשן the פסוק ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה. So we see that it's not from this פסוק that we learn out to compare פשרה to דין, but we compare it with שכל, that since a דין must have three, so too a פשרה, but it's not based on this פסוק. And תוספות adds, we also can't say that it comes from the other פסוק where it says אמת ומשפט שלום, as the גמרא will bring later, for the same reason. Because if we would דרשן the פסוק, then we should hold it's a מצוה to make a פשרה. And since the תנא קמא doesn't hold it's a מצוה to make a פשרה, obviously he doesn't דרשן that פסוק. And nevertheless, that תנא holds that we compare פשרה to דין. So obviously, it's not based on these פסוקים. Another thing that's important to note here is that even if we hold מקשינן פשרה לדין, that we compare the settlement to a דין, it doesn't mean, תוספות says, that concerning all the דינים, a פשרה will have the same דין as a דין. It's only concerning the amount of people you have to have to judge it. But not concerning other דינים. For instance, by a דין, the דין is when you have three דיינים sit down, so then you פסקן according to the majority. If two out of the three go with one opinion, then you follow their opinion. But concerning a פשרה, the דין is not so, that you must have a unanimous opinion, they all must hold the same way. So it comes out that even if we hold that מקשינן פשרה לדין, it doesn't mean that concerning everything. It is only concerning the amount of people you have to judge this דין, to be the דיינים. Then the גמרא continues: לימא, let us say, תלתא תנאי בפשרה, that there are three תנאים concerning פשרה, three opinions among the תנאים of how many judges you must have by a settlement. דמר סבר בשלשה, רבי מאיר we mentioned before holds you must have three people. ומר סבר, and one holds בשנים, that is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that we brought in the previous ברייתא, where he says clearly, הדין בשלשה ופשרה בשנים. so he holds two people, ומר סבר, and the חכמים of the second ברייתא they hold ביחיד, that one is enough to make a פשרה. And the גמרא says, אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, so רב אחא בריה דרב איקא said, ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא, others say it was רב יימר בר שלמיא that said that, that באמת מאן דאמר תרי אפילו חד נמי, that the one that says two, which is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, really he holds that one is also enough, והאי דקאמר תרי, and the reason he says that you have to have two, כי היכי דלהוו עליה סהדי, in order that they should be witnesses, to be witnesses that this is the פשרה, the settlement they came to, so that's why you have to have

two. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, שמע מינה, we understand from here that פשרה אינה צריכה קניין, that you don't have to make a קניין when you are ready to make a פשרה. You don't have to make, do the act of acquisition in order to be משעבד yourself, to give yourself over to accept the פשרה. How does he know that? אי סלקא דעתך צריכה קניין, if you're going to say that when a person or the two, the בעלי דין, agree for a settlement, they must make a קניין, so then למאן דאמר צריכה תלתא, according to the one that holds that you need three people by a פשרה, למה לי, why do you need three? תסגי בתרי, should be enough two, ולקנו, when they make a קניין. Really, what is a פשרה, a settlement? That he agrees that even if he is not sure that he owes the money, he agrees to make a settlement and come to some agreement. That is as if he is מוחל his part. Now why do we have to have three people as a בית דין? Anytime a person gives up a certain right he has and he makes a קניין that he agrees to it, automatically that is valid. So here too, why should you have to have three people in the form of a בית דין? Why shouldn't two be enough? And these two will be like witnesses. And he will make a קניין and he will make a קניין. So then they both agree to give in even if it is not so, and that should be enough, because when the two דיינים will come up with a settlement and they agreed to follow the settlement, so they agreed to be מוחל, to give in, even if they are right. So that should be enough, why should you have to have three people? Now since we say that you have to have three people according to this opinion, obviously a פשרה doesn't need a קניין. So since there is no קניין made, so as far as the מחילה itself, the fact that they're giving in, that's not enough because they could later change their mind. As long as you don't make a קניין, you could change your mind. So if you have three people, then they cannot change their mind because it has a דין of a בית דין. So from this opinion that says that you have to have three people to the פשרה, that proves that by a פשרה you don't have to have a קניין, because if you would have to have a קניין, then you wouldn't need a בית דין at all. The קניין itself would make it valid that they're giving in to do as they will say. But the גמרא says, והלכתא פשרה צריכה קניין, and the הלכה is פשרה does need a קניין, and even if you have three people, nevertheless in order that that פשרה should be valid and you have to follow the פשרה, you must make a קניין. And here in the ראשונים we have a great discussion, starting from תוספות, whether we have a ראיה from this גמרא that מחילה צריכה קניין, that if a person is מוחל to somebody else a חוב, a loan, or whatever it should be, whether he has to make a קניין for his מחילה to be valid or not. And the whole discussion is, since in this גמרא we say that if he would make a קניין you wouldn't need three because you are מוחל, so automatically your קניין makes your מחילה valid, why do you need three? So it seems as if the גמרא is saying that for מחילה you have to have a קניין, and there's a whole discussion here whether we have a ראיה from this גמרא or there is no ראיה from this גמרא. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, כשם שהדין בשלשה כך ביצוע בשלשה, the תנא says that just like a דין needs three people, so does ביצוע, which means a פשרה, a settlement, also need three people. נגמר הדין, but after the דין was over, after the verdict was given, אי אתה רשאי לבצוע, then you are already not allowed to make a settlement. And

רש״י says, as we know that what is גמר דין, גמר דין means when the בית דין comes out with a verdict and the בית דין says איש פלוני אתה זכאי, you, person, are innocent, איש פלוני אתה חייב, you, person, you are guilty. So if they said that statement already, then you can't go back and make a settlement. This is the way רש״י learns פשט in the words of the גמרא, נגמר הדין אי אתה רשאי לבצוע. And תוספות says from the לשון of the גמרא סלקא משמע like that. נגמר הדין, when it says the דין was finished, this is actually what we usually mean. The דין is over when the בית דין says איש פלוני אתה זכאי, איש פלוני אתה חייב. But still תוספות asks what's the הוה אמינא in the גמרא that we could have made a settlement? If after the פסק דין was given already, certainly you cannot make a settlement. But the דוחק תוספות says we could have said That maybe the בית דין could say to them, we טאקע gave you the verdict, but maybe we made a mistake. So therefore, maybe you still want to make a settlement. And the חידוש of the תנא is that after the verdict was given, you cannot make a settlement. But still that פשט is hard, so therefore תוספות learns that here in the גמרא נגמר הדין doesn't mean actually that they gave the verdict, but it only means that in the mind of the דיינים they already had the verdict made up, that in their mind they already see that this person is right and this person is wrong, but they still didn't say איש פלוני אתה זכאי, איש פלוני אתה חייב. So here, since already in their mind it is clear that this person is right, they have no right to suggest a settlement, because we have to assume that the one that really would have come out זכאי, would have come out innocent according to the way they have in their mind, had he known that in their mind they already had made up that he is innocent, if he would know that, he definitely wouldn't agree to the settlement. So it's like a settlement with a mistake, בטעות. So therefore, the דין is that after they already know the דין, even though they didn't say it yet, you shouldn't, you're not allowed to make a settlement. But according to the רא״ש, this only applies after they already came out with the verdict. But nevertheless, תוספות says that is for sure that if the פסק דין is that one of them has to give a שבועה, then definitely you still could suggest a settlement, because in order to avoid a שבועה we always do everything we can, and therefore you're also allowed to suggest a settlement. Then the גמרא continues, רבי אלעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, רבי אלעזר, the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי, says, אסור לבצוע. You're not allowed to make a settlement. וכל הבוצע, and any דיין who does make a settlement, הרי זה חוטא. He is a sinner. It's an עבירה. וכל המברך את הבוצע, and anybody who praises the one that made a settlement, הרי זה מנאץ. So he's like cursing, it's like cursing ה׳. He's cursing instead of בענטשינג. ועל זה נאמר, that's what the פסוק means, בוצע ברך נאץ ה׳. If someone בענטשעס the בוצע, and here בוצע means a settlement, if someone בענטשעס, blesses the one that made a settlement, really he is נאץ ה׳, really he is cursing ה׳. אלא what should be? יקוב הדין את ההר. The דין should cut through the mountain, that you have to stick to the דין, and the way the דין is, that's the way you have to פסקן. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, כי המשפט לאלקים הוא. The משפט, the judgment is to ה׳, and therefore you must follow judgment, and whatever the דין is, that's how you go. וכן משה היה אומר, that's what משה used to say. He used to say יקוב הדין את ההר, let the דין cut through the mountain, and we have to follow the דין. אבל

אהרן, but his brother אהרן, he was different. אוהב שלום, he loved peace, ורודף שלום, he used to run after peace, ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו, he used to make peace between a man and his friend. שנאמר, the פסוק says, and this is a פסוק concerning אהרן, because in the same place in מלאכי the פסוק says, כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת, the lips of the כהן would guard the דעת. So we're talking about אהרן הכהן, so there it says, תורת אמת היתה בפיהו, the true תורה was in his mouth, ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו, no עולה, no crookedness was found in his lips, בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי, with peace and straightness he went with me, ורבים השיב מעון, and a lot he turned away from sins, from עבירות. So אהרן, what he did was, he tried to make peace. But as תוספות says, the reason why he was allowed to do it, even according to this מאן דאמר that you're not allowed to make a settlement, was because he wasn't the judge. The judge, the דיין, is not allowed to בוצע, he's supposed to stick to the משפט. But before you get to the judge, so then if a person wants to see that they make a settlement among themselves, that's very good, and that's what אהרן did. Since משה was the judge, so אהרן went to them before they went to משה the דיין, and he saw that they should make a settlement among themselves.

רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says that the פסוק that he quoted, from where he sees that if you praise a person who makes a settlement really you're cursing ה׳, the פסוק doesn't apply to that, the פסוק applies to something else. הרי שגזל סאה של חטים, if a person stole a סאה of wheat, וטחנה, and he ground it, ואפאה, and he baked it, והפריש ממנה חלה, after he baked it he took off חלה, the part that you take off which is holy and you give it to the כהן. כיצד מברך, how could he make a ברכה? If he makes a ברכה on that חלה, אין זה מברך, not חייב חלה till after you bake it. On the other hand, even those things that you have to take off חלה while it's dough, if you didn't do it בדיעבד you could take it off after you baked it, that's why he gives the example of taking off חלה after it was baked. רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, לא נאמר בוצע אלא כנגד יהודה, that when the פסוק says בוצע ברך נאץ ה׳, really it refers to יהודה, שנאמר, because it says in the תורה, ויאמר ויאמר יהודה אל אחיו, יהודה said to his brothers, מה בצע, what will we gain כי נהרוג את אחינו if we will kill our brother. It was when they threw יוסף into the pit, and then the group of ישמעאלים passed by. So יהודה said to his brothers, what will we gain if we kill him, let us sell him. So the תורה uses the לשון מה בצע, that יהודה said מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו. בצע really means money, but it means what money will we gain if we will kill our brother. So this פסוק, ובוצע ברך נאץ ה׳, which is from the same לשון as בצע, refers to יהודה. That the פסוק is saying, וכל המברך את יהודה, anybody who blesses יהודה, הרי זה מנאץ, he is cursing. ועל זה נאמר, and on this it says, ובוצע ברך נאץ ה׳, that if בוצע ברך, you bless the one that was בוצע, the one that said מה בצע, really you're cursing ה׳. And the reason why it is so is because since יהודה saw that his brothers are listening to him, because after he told them to sell יוסף, they listened to him and they sold יוסף, why didn't he tell them to take יוסף back to his father? So therefore, what יהודה did is considered an עבירה, and anybody who blesses יהודה is also doing an עבירה, is as if he's cursing ה׳. Then the גמרא says,

רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר, but רבי יהושע בן קרחה says, מצוה לבצוע, it's a מצוה to make a פשרה, to make a settlement. The first תנא we mentioned before didn't say it's a מצוה, he didn't say it's an עבירה, he just said that you have to have three people to make a settlement. After the דין is over, then you already cannot make a settlement. But till then, it's a רשות. But רבי יהושע בן קרחה says, מצוה לבצוע, it's a מצוה to make a settlement. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, אמת ומשפט שלום שפטו בשעריכם, truth and משפט, judgment, שלום and peace, should judge in your gates. So the question is asked, והלא במקום שיש משפט אין שלום. In a place where there is judgment, there is no peace, because when you judge, then automatically one person is חייב and one person is פטור, so there is no peace between them. ובמקום שיש שלום אין משפט, and in a place where there is peace, there is no משפט, there is no judgment. אלא, איזהו משפט שיש בו שלום? What kind of judgment is there that together with the judgment you have peace? הוי אומר זה ביצוע. That is ביצוע, that is making a settlement, making a פשרה. So since it says that this is a good thing, so therefore it's a מצוה to do it. וכן בדוד הוא אומר, we טאקע see it says by דוד, ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, that דוד did משפט and צדקה, judgment and righteousness. והלא כל מקום שיש משפט אין צדקה וצדקה אין משפט, לכאורה, any place you have judgment you don't have צדקה, and any place you have צדקה, you don't have judgment. אלא, איזהו משפט שיש בו צדקה? What is the judgment that has צדקה with it? הוי אומר זה ביצוע. That means a settlement, and therefore דוד did a did ביצוע, constantly tried to make settlements because the פסוק says he made משפט and צדקה. Then the גמרא says, ותנא קמא, how will this fit according to the תנא קמא? According to the first תנא, who doesn't hold it's a מצוה to make a פשרה, what does he do with this פסוק where it says that it's called משפט וצדקה? How else can he translate this פסוק? And if there is no other way to translate this פסוק, so obviously it means making a settlement, so then he should have hold that it's a מצוה to make a settlement. Since he doesn't hold it's a מצוה to make a settlement, obviously he has another פשט in this פסוק. What is the other פשט? So the גמרא says it means like this: דן את הדין, when you judge the דין, זיכה את הזכאי, and the one that's innocent you פסקן that he's innocent, וחייב את החייב, and the one that's guilty you פסקן that he's guilty, וראה, and you saw, שנתחייב עני ממון, that the poor man is obligated, מחויב, to pay money, so what did he do? ושילם לו מתוך ביתו, if you pay him from your own house, זה משפט וצדקה, that is called משפט and צדקה. משפט לזה, judgment for him, וצדקה לזה, and righteousness for him. משפט לזה, it's judgment for him שהחזיר לו ממון, that you returned him the money that belongs to him, but צדקה לזה, you did צדקה to the other one ששילם לו מתוך ביתו, that you paid him from your own house. If the judge takes his own money and pays the one that lost, that is called צדקה, you're doing him צדקה. So this is what the פסוק would mean, that you should do משפט and צדקה. וכן בדוד הוא אומר, and that's טאקע the פשט by דוד: ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה לכל עמו, that דוד did משפט and צדקה for the whole nation, it means משפט לזה, it was judgment for him שהחזיר לו את ממונו, that he returned him the money, וצדקה לזה ששילם לו מתוך ביתו, and it was צדקה to the other one that he paid him from his house. Then the גמרא says, קשיא ליה לרבי, Rabbi had a קשיא. האי לכל עמו? Here where it says that דוד did משפט וצדקה לכל עמו, to his whole nation, לעניים מיבעי ליה. It should have said to the poor people. He didn't do this to everybody. Only if he saw the one that lost the case was an עני, was a poor man, so he would pay him from his own money. So how could the פסוק say that he did משפט וצדקה לכל עמו, to his whole nation? אלא, what does it mean? אף על פי שלא שילם מתוך ביתו, רבה holds that even if he didn't pay him from his own house, still זהו משפט וצדקה. It's still called משפט וצדקה, even if one lost and he טאקע doesn't get his money back, still it is called משפט וצדקה. משפט לזה וצדקה לזה, משפט to one and צדקה to the other. משפט לזה, it is a משפט, a judgment to him, to the one that got the money, שהחזיר לו ממונו, that he had his money returned to him, וצדקה לזה, and צדקה to the other one who lost the money, שהוציא גזילה מתחת ידו, he took the גזילה away from his hand. Because if he wouldn't have given the money, he would have been holding the money unrightfully. By him פסקענינג that he has to give up the money, he's taking away the money that he wasn't holding rightfully from him, so he's doing him a favor. So that's why it's called that he's doing doing צדקה to him. רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר, רבי שמעון בן מנסיא says, שנים שבאו לפניך לדין, two people come to you for a דין תורה, עד שלא תשמע דבריהם, till you heard their טענות, their words, או אפילו, even, משתשמע דבריהם, you already heard what they have to say, but ואי אתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה, you still don't know to which side the דין bends, you don't have the idea yet of who is right, then אתה רשאי לומר להם, you're allowed to tell them, צאו, go out, ובצעו, and make some kind of settlement. אבל משתשמע דבריהם, after you already heard their words, heard their טענות, ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה, and you already know in your mind to which side the דין is bending, you seem to understand which one is right, אי אתה רשאי לומר להם, you're not allowed to tell them, צאו ובצעו, go out and make a פשרה, make a settlement. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, פוטר מים ראשית מדון ולפני התגלע הריב נטוש, which means that the beginning of a strife is one that lets out the water, and before the quarrel breaks out, leave it. So the way he explained it here, it means that ראשית מדון, in the beginning of the argument, then פוטר מים, then you could פוטר it. Before you get into the discussion of the argument, then you could drop it. Also לפני התגלע הריב נטוש, קודם שנתגלע הריב, before the quarrel, the argument breaks out, אתה יכול לנטשו, you could leave go of it. But משנתגלע הריב, when the argument breaks out already, then אי אתה יכול לנטשו, then you can't leave it. And that's what he said, that before you heard their arguments and know who is right in your mind, then you're still allowed to tell them, go out and and make a settlement. But after you already heard their arguments, and in your mind you know who is right, so then you're not allowed to drop it, you must פסק'ן the דין. וריש לקיש אמר, or according to another גירסא, where it says on the side of the גמרא, רבי יהושע בן לקיש, not רבי שמעון בן לקיש, but רבי יהושע בן לקיש, or another גירסא is רבי יהודה בן לקיש. He said, שנים שבאו לדין, if two people come to a דין, אחד רך ואחד קשה, one is soft and one is hard, עד שלא תשמע דבריהם, till you hear their words, או משתשמע דבריהם ואי אתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה, or even after you heard their arguments, but you still don't know to which side the דין is bending, אתה רשאי לומר להם, you could tell them, אין אני נזקק לכם, I don't want to get involved in this. Why? שמא יתחייב חזק, maybe the hard one, the strong one will be guilty, ונמצא חזק רודפו. So then this guilty person who is strong will constantly make him trouble. So therefore you could get away from it before you heard their arguments, or at least before you know who's right. But משתשמע דבריהם ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה, but after you heard their words and you know to which side the דין is נוטה, אי אתה יכול לומר להם אין אני נזקק לכם, you cannot say, I don't want to get involved in this. שנאמר, the פסוק says, לא תגורו מפני איש, do not be afraid of any man. Since you get involved already, now you can't say, I'm afraid. Now you must continue with the דין תורה. רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר, רבי יהושע בן קרחה says, מניין, how do we know, לתלמיד שיושב לפני רבו, a תלמיד is sitting in front of his רבי, וראה זכות לעני וחובה לעשיר, and he sees a זכות for the benefit of the poor man and something against the rich man. The דין תורה is not by him. He just is sitting on the side and he sees a דין תורה in front of his רבי, and he sees a סברא that he has in his mind that will be for the benefit of the poor man and against the rich man, and his רבי didn't think of that סברא, and he sees that his רבי is going to פסק'ן the דין to the different direction. מניין, how do we know שלא ישתוק, that he shouldn't be quiet? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, לא תגורו מפני איש. And here he explains the word לא תגורו from the meaning of gathering: do not gather your words, do not hold your words back in front of every anybody. If you have words that will help somebody, you must say it. רב חנין אומר, רב חנין says, and this a continuation to what we learned before, לא תכניס דבריך מפני איש, that what does it mean לא תגורו מפני איש, to not gather, hold in your words in front of anybody. And the מהרש״ל is טאקע גורס that the words supposed to be in the גמרא: ואמר רב חנין, and רב חנין said. This is a continuation to before. And in the תוספתא, it's בכלל not mentioned רב חנין's name. It says לכתחילה רבי יהושע בן קרחה said, that if you see the זכות for the עני and the חובה for the עשיר, how do you know he shouldn't be quiet? שנאמר: לא תגורו מפני איש, לא תכניס דבריך מפני איש. It goes straight together, that you should not gather, hold your words back in front of anybody. And also, ויהיו עדים יודעים את מי הם מעידין. The עדים should know whom they're testifying for, because according to their

testimony, that's how they're going to פסקן. So they're going to cause השם to see that the money is brought back to its rightful owner. So they are testifying really for השם. ולפני מי הם מעידין, and they should know in front of whom are they standing. ומי עתיד ליפרע מהן, and who is going to punish them if they are lying? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני השם, that the two men that they are arguing, that the argument is by them, that they should stand in front of השם. And the גמרא in מסכת שבועות דף ל׳ explains that this פסוק is referring to the witnesses. And also, ויהיו הדיינים יודעים את מי הם דנין, the דיינים, the judges, should also know whom they're judging, ולפני מי הם דנין, and in front of who are they judging, ומי עתיד ליפרע מהן, and who's going to punish them if they are not judging it correctly? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, אלקים נצב בעדת קל, השם is standing in the community of השם, that refers to a דין תורה, that השם is there. So therefore, whatever they're doing is concerning השם. וכן ביהושפט נאמר, it also says by יהושפט: ויאמר אל השופטים, he said to the judges, ראו, you should see, מה אתם עושים, what you're doing, כי לא לאדם תשפטו, you are not judging a person, כי להשם, just השם. שמא יאמר הדיין, if so, the judge might say, מה לי בצער הזה, why do I need this trouble, why do I need this pain, why should I get involved in פסקנ'ינג a דין? I might not פסקן it correctly, and then I will be punished by השם. So

why should I get involved in this לכתחילה? תלמוד לומר, so therefore the פסוק says, עמכם בדבר משפט, and I am with you in the משפט. This is also from יהושפט, right? He said that, with you in the משפט. That means, אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות. The דיין, the judge, only has what his eyes see. In other words, what he was saying is, עמכם, with you, the משפט, when it comes to the משפט, you have to judge what you have. If you judge based on the information you have and the investigation you did and the things that you know, so then you cannot be at fault even if it's wrong, because you did as the דין expects you to do. So therefore, you have nothing to be afraid of as long as you follow the טענות and the information, etc. that you have. Then the גמרא says, היכא דמי גמר דין? What's פשט גמר דין? We said before that after the גמר דין, when the דין is over, so then the תנא קמא also says that you are not allowed to make a פשרה, make a settlement. What does it mean גמר דין? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה said in the name of רב, that איש פלוני אתה חייב, that they say, you, person, are guilty, איש פלוני אתה זכאי, and you are innocent. אמר רב, רב said, הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה. הלכה is like רבי יהושע בן קרחה, who said that it's a מצוה to make a settlement. But the גמרא asks, איני? Is it not so? והא רב הונא תלמידיה דרב הוה, that רב הונא was a תלמיד of רב. כי הוו אתו לקמיה דרב הונא, when people used to come for a דין תורה to רב הונא, אמר להו, he used to say to them, אי דינא בעיתו, אי פשרה בעיתו, what do you want? Do you want I should פסקן according to the דין, or do you want me to try to make a settlement? Now,

since רב said הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה, so רב holds it's a מצוה to make a settlement. Since רב הונא was a תלמיד of רב, so definitely he did according to the opinion of רב. So then what should have been? When they used to come to a דין תורה, he should have said, "I will make a settlement." Why did he ask them whether they want a דין or a settlement? So the גמרא says, מאי מצוה נמי דקאמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה? What did רבי יהושע בן קרחה mean when he said it's a מצוה to make a settlement? He didn't mean that you don't have to ask them. He meant מצוה למימר להו, it's a מצוה to say to them, אי דינא בעיתו, אי פשרה בעיתו, do you want a דין, do you want a settlement? In other words, it's a מצוה to suggest to them to make a settlement. And that's actually what he did. But then the גמרא asks, היינו תנא קמא! Then it's the same opinion as תנא קמא! The first תנא, who didn't say it's a מצוה to make a settlement, on the other hand, he didn't say it's an איסור to make a settlement. He just said after גמר דין you're not allowed, but before גמר דין you're allowed. So according to the first תנא, it's a רשות. You could make a settlement if you want, and you don't have to if you don't want. So לכאורה, it's the same thing as רבי יהושע בן קרחה. Before we thought that when רבי יהושע בן קרחה said it's a מצוה to make a settlement, he meant that if they come to a דין תורה, you have to say to them, "I will make a settlement." But now that we're saying it means you have to ask them if they want, you do, if not, not, so it's really a רשות, you don't really have to. So it's the same opinion as תנא קמא. What is the מחלוקת? And the גמרא answers: איכא בינייהו מצוה. The difference in the מחלוקת is whether it's a מצוה. רבי יהושע בן קרחה סבר, רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds, מצוה, it's a מצוה to mention to them that there is a possibility of a פשרה. In other words, you must suggest to them that there is such a thing as a settlement and ask them if they want. תנא קמא סבר רשות, תנא קמא says it's a רשות, you don't have to. If you want, you can mention, but you don't have to. You could לכתחילה only פסקן על פי דין, על פי תורה if you want. But then the גמרא

asks: היינו דרבי שמעון בן מנסיא? Isn't this the same opinion as רבי שמעון בן מנסיא? We brought before the statement of רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, he said that if two people come to you for a דין, so before you hear their words, or even after you hear their words, and you still don't know להיכן דין נוטה, you're allowed to say to them, "Go out and make a פשרה, go out and make a settlement." Afterwards, if you already know where the דין is נוטה, you're not allowed to say that. So it comes out that according to רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, you don't have to mention to them that there is a possibility of making a settlement, it just says that you're allowed to make a settlement if you want. Now, we said that according to the תנא קמא, it means that if you want, you can make a settlement, but you don't have to make a settlement. So it comes out that the תנא קמא and רבי שמעון בן מנסיא are really saying the same thing. So the גמרא says: איכא בינייהו, there is a difference, משתשמע דבריהם ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה, that in the case where you already heard their arguments and you already know to which side the דין is נוטה, so אי אתה רשאי לומר להם צאו ובצעו. You're not allowed to tell them, "Go out and make a פשרה." According to רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, after that point, you're not allowed to make a פשרה. But according to the תנא קמא who says that after גמר דין you're not allowed to make a פשרה, so it comes out, up to גמר דין, you're still allowed to make a פשרה. In other words, even after you already know להיכן הדין נוטה, you're still allowed to make a פשרה according to תנא קמא. Then

the גמרא says: ופליגא דרבי תנחום בר חנילאי, that all those that דרשנד in the גמרא before the פסוק of ובוצע ברך נאץ ה׳ the way they did, they all argue on what רבי תנחום בר חנילאי said. Because he דרשנד the פסוק different. דאמר רבי תנחום בר חנילאי, that רבי תנחום בר חנילאי said, לא נאמר מקרא זה אלא כנגד מעשה העגל, that this פסוק was only said concerning the act of the עגל, when they made the עגל. שנאמר, because the פסוק says: וירא אהרן, אהרן saw, ויבן מזבח לפניו, and he built a מזבח in front of him, in front of the עגל. So we דרשן, מה ראה? What did he see? אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי בנימין בר יפת said in the name of רבי אלעזר, ראה, he saw, חור, that חור that was his nephew, he was the son of מרים, שזבוח לפניו, that he was געשחטן, he was killed in front of it. חור tried to stop them from making the עגל, and they killed him. So אמר, he said, אי לא שמיענא להו, if I will not listen to them—they wanted him to make the עגל—so he said to himself, אהרן, "If I will not listen to them and I will not make the עגל, השתא עבדו לי כי דעבדו בחור, so they will do to me as they did to חור. They will kill me. ומקיים בי, so they will be מקים through me the פסוק where it says, אם יהרג במקדש ה׳ כהן ונביא, that if in the מקדש ה׳ will be killed a כהן and a נביא, so then ולא הויא להו תקנתא לעולם, they will never have a תקנה, they will never be able to fix this." As actually happened later, that they killed זכריה בן יהוידע, who was a כהן and a נביא, and therefore the בית המקדש was destroyed. So that would happen too, they would kill אהרן, he was a כהן, he was also a נביא, so then there would be no תקנה, they wouldn't have the משכן, that would be even worse. מוטב, it's better, דליעבדו לעגל, let them worship the עגל, which is only an עבירה of עבודה זרה, אפשר דהויא להו תקנתא בתשובה. Then, there might be a תקנה, they might fix it up through תשובה. So that's how he דרשנס the פסוק: וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח לפניו, that he טייטשס מזבח from the word זבח, and ויבן, not from the word building, but ויבן from the word בינה, understanding. That when אהרן saw what they did to חור, ויבן, he understood, מזבוח לפניו, from the one that was killed in front of him, he understood what he should do. He understood that it's better he should make the עגל, than he should not listen to them. And that's the פשט in the פסוק: ובוצע ברך נאץ ה׳, that אהרן made a בוצע, אהרן made a פשרה. He made like a חשבון between himself, and he came out with a היתר that it's better for him to make the עגל than not to make the עגל. And תוספות even adds that he also דרש's the end of the פסוק, because end of the פסוק it says, ורבים השיב מעון, that means that what he did was was in order that the many people should be able to return from the עבירה. As we said before, that if he wouldn't have made the עגל, then they would have done something that there would be never a תקנה. So he did something, made the עגל, that they should have a תקנה, they should be able to do תשובה. Then the גמרא says,

והני תנאי, פוטר מים ראשית מדון מאי דרשי ביה? The other תנאים that don't use this פסוק, פוטר מים ראשית מדון, like רב שמעון בן מנסיא, what do they use the פסוק for? רב שמעון בן מנסיא, he used the פסוק to tell us that only in the beginning, before you know להיכן הדין נוטה, that's when you're allowed to make a פשרה. Afterwards you're not. But those that don't say it that way, those that don't hold that this פסוק goes for that, what do they do with this פסוק? The גמרא says, כדרב המנונא. They דרש'ן the פסוק like רב המנונא said. דאמר רב המנונא, רב המנונא said, אין תחילת דינו של אדם נידון אלא על דברי תורה, that when a person goes to עולם הבא, and he is judged by the בית דין של מעלה, the first judgment is concerning דברי תורה, שנאמר, that the פסוק says, פוטר מים ראשית מדון. That ראשית מדון, the beginning of the דין, is for פוטר מים. מים, water, means תורה, as it says that אין מים אלא תורה. Water is תורה. They quote the פסוק, הוי כל צמא לכו למים. פוטר מים means he פטר'd himself from the מים, from the תורה. That means he didn't learn תורה. So what we say is פוטר מים, for not learning תורה, ראשית מדון, that is the beginning of the דין. This is the first thing that they judge the person about when he comes in עולם הבא למעלה to the בית דין של מעלה. But תוספות asks that לכאורה this contradicts what the גמרא says in שבת. There the גמרא says that the first thing they ask a person is נשאת ונתת באמונה? Did you do your business with אמונה? And then, קבעת עתים לתורה? You set up time to learn תורה. And here it seems as if the first thing that they judge the person is concerning דברי תורה. And תוספות answers that over there we're talking about a person who learned תורה, but he didn't set aside enough time to learn. So there, the first thing they ask him is about his משא ומתן, his business, and then they go to the תורה. Here we're talking about a person who didn't learn at all. So if he didn't learn at all, the first thing they ask him is, פוטר מים, why didn't you learn the תורה? Another פשט תוספות says that לכתחילה the first thing they ask him is טאקע as the גמרא says in שבת concerning his business, whether he did his business with אמונה. But when they punish him, when he gets his דין, then he gets his דין first on דברי תורה. And that's why he דרש's the פסוק, that תחילת גילוי דינו במה שנענש מדברי תורה, that the first revelation, the first punishment on the דין that he had is concerning the דברי תורה. But באמת it could be said that both גמרא's really mean the same thing, because we know that when it comes to learn תורה, there is always a הקדמה before you learn תורה. Before you start learning you have to have the proper יראת שמים. As the גמרא טאקע says in שבת over there, that ראשית חכמה יראת ה', that the first thing is יראת ה', and the גמרא there says that יראת ה' היא אוצרו, that if a person has יראת שמים before he starts learning, then his learning is a good thing. If he doesn't have יראת שמים, then his learning is not that good. So it comes out that when we talk about learning תורה, we automatically already talk about him having the proper יראת שמים, the proper approach to the learning תורה. As it is known that the reason why the תורה starts with a ב, not with an א, is to tell us that when you come to learn the תורה, that's already the ב, that the second step. The first step before you actually learn is the ענין of יראת שמים, the אמונה that you have in ה', the אמונה that you have in the תורה. So you could say that נשאת ונתת באמונה, when they ask him, did you do your business with אמונה, and then they say קבעת עתים לתורה, did you set aside time to learn תורה, these are not two separate things. It goes together, because before they ask him about learning תורה, they ask him about the הקדמה to learn תורה. Did you do everything with אמונה? Do you have the proper אמונה, so then when you sat down to learn תורה your תורה was proper? So here, the גמרא just says the general idea. The general thing is that the first thing that they judge the person is concerning learning. Over there they go into more details, and within the details, the learning itself comes as a second step after the אמונה, because in order to learn properly you must have the אמונה, and therefore there it says first they ask him נשאת ונתת באמונה, and then they mention the learning of תורה. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רב הונא, רב הונא said, האי תיגרא, that an argument, דמיא לצינורא דבידקא דמיא, it is like the pipe of a flow of water, כיון דרווח רווח. It gets wider, it gets even wider and you can't stop it. If the river overflows, and it starts going through small areas into the field, so if you stop it right away, you'll stop it. But if you don't stop it, and you let it go, it'll go and go without a stop and it will overflow everything. And the same with an argument. If you stop the argument in the beginning, then it stopped, but if you don't Stop it in the beginning and it could go on and on without an end. And he דרש'נד this from the פסוק, ראשית מ- פוטר מים ראשית מדון, it means that the ראשית מדון, the beginning of an argument, is similar to פוטר מים, is when you open up the water. פוטר comes from the word פטר רחם, which means opening, that when you open up water, it could continue without an end. So too, when you start an argument, it could go out, on without an end. Then the גמרא says, אביי קשישא, the older אביי, and the reason they called him אביי קשישא, we shouldn't confuse him with the famous אביי that always used to argue with רבא, but this is a different אביי, so they called him אביי קשישא. אמר, he said, דמי לגודא דגמלא, that an argument is similar to pieces of wood from a bridge. כיון דקם קם, when it stands and it's established, it's established. לכתחילה, when you have the pieces of wood from the bridge, so then it is shaky, but after you walk on it a lot, and the time passes, it gets set in and it gets settled and it gets hard and that's how it stays. The same thing with an argument, לכתחילה, it's not so strong, but if you continue and go on and on, it'll get settled, it'll stay, and the argument will go on and on. And רש"י says that this is just a saying by itself, and he doesn't דרש'ן it from a פסוק. But תוספות says that he does דרש'ן it from the same פסוק, פוטר מים ראשית מדון. That פוטר מים, this refers to the wood from the bridge, which stops the person from the water, that he shouldn't fall into the water. That's called פוטר מים. ראשית מדון is the beginning of an argument, that when you start an argument, it's similar to when you build the wood on the bridge. That לכתחילה, it's not so strong, but after a while, it gets strong, and that's how it stays. So too with an argument, if you don't stop it right away, it'll go on and on, and it won't stop.