16b anava lo lishma

What does anava lo lishma mean?
Tosfos says it means out of gaava. What does that mean? The chok nasan explains by limiting the whole issue to a personal tochacha -- when a person does something bad to you and need to give tochacha back to the person, i.e. that you are personally involved. This matches perfectly with the story later on with Rav Huna and Rav Chiya bar Rav. The anava is then easily understood that he says he should not give tochacha for his kavod. But its lo lishma since your real motivation is not to cause him anger. (seems to work perfectly in language of tosfos)
The gemara does not limit the tochacha explicitly which is why Rashi does not learn like this and understands that a person claims to be an anav, most likely building on the earlier gemara -- i am not qualified to give tochacha since he will say to me "טול קורה מבין עיניך" but the real motivation is to not get on his bad side.
Maharsha says the question is -- is it preferable to give tochacha even if it leads to embarassment or hold back to prevent embarassment and to this the story later on answers -- better to hold back and not embarass. This works well with the conclusion of the earlier gemara that no one today can give tochacha properly.

(Erchin 16b) עד היכן תוכחה

The Rambam paskens like Rav that עד הכאה. The סמ"ג however paskens like R' Yochanan and asks on the Rambam why he didn't pasken like R' Yochanan.

The Kesef Mishna has an interesting answer. The Gemara says כתנאי and בן עזאי says עד כדי נזיפה like R' Yochanan. It was clear to the Rambam that we don't pasken like בן עזאי and therefore we can ignore R' Yochanan so he was left with a machlokes Rav and Shmuel and he paskened like Rav.

What does Rav mean when he says עד הכאה? The Rambam interprets it literally however, the בה"ל in Siman תר"ח quotes the Chinuch (רל"ט) that it is only עד שישהיה קרוב להכותו.

Facts about the אבנט (Erchin 16a)

Todays amud mentioned the אבנט. Here are some not so well known facts.

What is the אבנט מכפר for? - Our Gemara says that the the אבנט is מכפר for הרהור הלב (meaning avoda zara where you are חייב for thought). However, the Yerushalmi has another interpretation that it is מכפר on someone who is not straight. The reason being that the אבנט was not wrapped straight but rather at an angle so that it didn't make such a big lump in the front and back.

How long was the אבנט? As was mentioned in the shiur, the אבנט was 32 amas long. In fact, the Chumash does not give a length for the אבנט. The 32 amas comes from the Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:3). Since an אמה is between 18 and 24 inches long this makes the אבנט a whopping 48-64 feet long.

Where was it worn on the body? - I always thought that the אבנט was a belt. However, as was pointed out in shiur the אבנט was really worn higher then the waist. This is learned out in the Gemara זבחים י"ט from a pasuk in נביא. The Gemara there states that he wore it right below the heart where the elbows meet the body (if you hold your elbows against your body).

How many times did the Kohen wrap it around? - As we saw above the אבנט was very long. As was pointed out in shiur, the Shita Mekubetzes on our Gemara states that he wrapped it around 32 times כנגד לב. However it is difficult to see how this works out in מציאות. The average waist/chest is at least 36 inches (3 feet). 64 / 3 = 21.3 and therefore I don't see how it would be possible to wrap it 32 times, it isn't long enough. Tosafos (15b) states that he wrapped it around ב (twice) כנגד לב. That is very difficult as after wrapping 2 times the Kohen would still have over 40 feet of אבנט left. What would he do with it? This would seem to be a misprint and probably should read לב instead of ב like the Shita Mekubetzes.

Not speaking loshon hora

The חשק שלמה asks the following question: what does the gemara mean by saying -- what should we do to prevent lashon hara -- its an aveira! so use your bechira chofshis and then you won't sin! To answer this he quotes from the shut בית שמואל in a drush on parshas metzora:
The gemara in בבא בתרא says that lashon hara is an aveira that a person cannot be saved from daily.
Maharsha there asks -- if we cannot be saved from it, why punish us?
To answer this (in a different direction than maharsha there), he suggests that it is correct we have no real ability to be saved from it unless we use the solutions presented in the gemara, to involve yourself in learning or to be mashpil yourself to save yourself from this aveira. And the punishment for lashon hara is for not using this remedy. This is the reason why this specific aveira has a takana suggested for it.

What if a Yisrael does the עבודה of a לוי? (Erchin 11) II

The Minchas Chinuch is based on the Rambam who doesn't write that a Yisrael who does the avoda of a Levi is chayav.

However, the Rambam and Minchas Chinuch seems to be against the Gemara. The Gemara says אילימא זר ממש, it is already written, and Rashi comments that here would be a חיוב מיתה by the עבודת הלויים as well for a זר ממש.

The Brisker Rav answers that the Rambam is against the Gemara but the Rambam paskened like the Sifri Zuta and the chiyuv misa for a Yisrael doing avodas haleviim was only a הוראת שעה.

What if a Yisrael does the עבודה of a לוי? (Erchin 11)

The Gemara states that a Levi who does someone else's job (sings instead of guarding the doors or vice versa) is either חייב מיתה or at least עובר a לאו. Also, a כהן who does a Levi's עבודה is עובר a לאו. However, interestingly enough the Minchas Chinuch points out that if a Yisrael does the עבודה of a לוי he is not חייב at all. For some reason there is no איסור for a Yisrael to do the עבודה of a לוי.

Why don't we say Hallel on שביעי של פסח? (Erchin 10b)

Our gemara explains why, it doesn't have a different Korban Musaf. However, the Medrash (quoted l'halacha) has a different reason, that since the מצרים drowned we don't say Shira. In fact, the Maharsha in Sanhedrin (39b) asks why do we need the reason of our Gemara, the reason of the medrash is better (עיי"ש).

We can certainly ask why did the medrash give a different reason then the Gemara and why do the Poksim quote the medrash?

The answer could be based on the end of the sugya. The Gemara asks why do we say Hallel on Chanukka (it doesn't fit the criteria outlined above) and the gemara answers because a נס happened. Based on this we could say as follows. You don't say Hallel on the seventh day of Pesach מטעם יו"ט because of the Gemara's reason that it is not חלוק בקרבנות, however, we should say hallel because of the נס of קריעת ים סוף. By the hallel of a נס the seventh day of Pesach should seemingly qualify (it is no worse then Chanuka). Therefore we need the reason of the medrash which is a reason why we don't say hallel on the נס on the seventh day of Pesach.

Shevarim - Terua בנשימה אחת?(Erchin 10a)

The Rishonim have a major מחלוקת how you blow it, בנשימה אחת or שתי נשימות?
The Machlokes is based on a Gemara in Succah(53b) and our Gemara. The Gemara discusses the תקיעות in the מקדש. R' Yehuda holds that תקיעה תרועה תקיעה is 1 מצוה and therefore אין בין תקיעה לתרועה ולא כלום.

The Ritva, Ramban and others learn as follows. They read the Gemara literally that according to R' Yehuda there is absolutely no הפסק between the 3 קולות because they are 1 mitzva. Therefore they say even though we don't paskin like R' Yehuda, his din applies to שברים תרועה. Everyone agrees that שברים תרועה is 1 mitzva and therefore you cannot be מפסיק and שברים תרועה is בנשימה אחת.

Rashi and Tosafos in Succah learn that אין בין תקיעה לתרועה ולא כלום means you can't be מפסיק more then a נשימה. However, since these are separate קולות you are מפסיק a נשימה between them, which means that they hold שברים תרועה is בשתי נשימות.

There also is a מחלוקת what does בנשימה אחת and שתי נשימות mean. The Mishna Berura writes that נשימה אחת is if you were מפסיק less then a נשימה. The חזו"א disagrees and says that נשימה אחת is no הפסק whatsoever (and this is what the Rishonim seem to say). By שתי נשימות you have a similar dispute. The חזו"א holds that it means a הפסק but not an actual breath and may others (Shulchan Aruch Harav, מקראי קדש, etc.) hold you should specifically take a breath.