The switch from להבא to לעתיד לבא is interesting, but the Rosh downplays it
See the Rosh on כאילו מקריב עליו. His idea that a neder shel mitzvah doesn’t require she’eilah may explain why on Taanis 10b we don’t require she’eilah for the fast that is interrupted by rain.
In the middle of the page: It seems clear to me that this should say לשעבר הוי וליתסר, and the word “לא” does not belong – and so I have seen in the Yaavetz.
See Tosafos in Rosh HaShanah 9a ואי on the issue of how we count Year 50 in the shemitah/yovel cycle.
Why don’t we ask the question as Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Meir? See Tosafos Eruvin 99a on מוחלפת השיטה
This is a great daf on the issue of honoring those who study Torah, demanding honor for those who study Torah, and the issue of this-worldy reward for Torah study:
See R’ Akiva Eiger’s reference to Bava Kama 59b, on the man who was jailed for mourning the Beis haMikdash, and the Maharsha’s explanation there of how the man could get himself released by identifying himself as a Talmid Chacham.
The Rosh Yeshiva zt”l in Kerem b’Yavneh explained that they jailed people for mourning the Beis haMikdash because mourning implies a demand for the mourned entity to be returned – and unless one is a gavra rabba, doing something to bring the Beis haMikdash back, how dare he publicly mourn and act publicly as though he wanted it back?
See the second part of the Ran אי הכי, where he explains the difference between a talmid chacham claiming his due as a talmid chacham, and a talmid chacham demanding additional benefit
See the Rosh on ולא קרדום, who specifically mentions the issue of learning-for-pay as problematic
See the Ran vs. the Rosh explaining the terms לפתוח and לברך regarding the honors of the kohen.
See the Rosh on מנדה בלו; it’s hard to understand why this rule would apply for all generations, if the original use was specifically for the anshei kenesses hagedolah! However, the Maharsha cites Tosafos from the beginning of Bava Basra that the exemption was really for all those who are involved in מלאכת שמים.
Regarding the Ran on והלך about the king’s partnership in privately held animals, see a similar point in the first perek in Pesachim regarding maaser beheimah and the king’s partnership with animal-owners.
On the bei nura issue, note the difference btween the stances of Ran and Rosh.
Note the Rosh’s final word on this amud – this ראשונה appears to be unique to him.