________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
MEGILAH 6 - Dedicated in memory of Irene Edelstein, by Josh R. Danziger
of Cliffside Park, New Jersey.
NOW AVAILABLE!
THE NEWEST HARDCOVER EDITION OF "INSIGHTS TO THE DAF"
Maseches Ta'anis and Maseches Megilah in one volume (300 pp.)!
To order, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
MEGILAH 6
1)
(a) Rebbi Yochanan claimed that when he was young, he made a
collection of statements which the sages of the time condoned. In his
opinion, they called ...
1. ... Teverya, 'Chamas' - because of Chamei (the hot-springs of) Teverya.
2. ... Tzipori, 'Rakas' - because it was high-up on a mountain like
'Raksa d'Nahara' (a river-bank).
3. ... Ginosar, 'Kineres' - because its fruit was as sweet as a Kinor
(the tone of a harp).
(b) Rava refuted Rebbi Yochanan's theory outright - because there is
nobody who holds that Rakas is not Teverya.
(c) When a Talmid-Chacham would die in Bavel, they would eulogize him
in Teverya (which was then both a main center of Torah-learning and a
major burial-site) with the words 'He was great in Sheshach and he
had a good name in Rakas'. And when the coffin would arrive in
Teverya, they would speak of 'Ohavei Seridim' (those who love Jews
[or Talmidei-Chachamim]) going to greet the 'Harugei Omek'. The
better-known name of ...
1. ... 'Sheshach' - was Bavel (in the Gematriya of 'Atbash',
'Sheshach' is the equivalent of 'Bavel'). of
2. ... 'Rakas' - was Teverya.
3. ... 'Omek' - was Bavel, too.
(d) When Rebbi Zeira died, they said in his Hesped (eulogy) 'Eretz
Shinar Harah, Eretz Tzvi Gidlah Shashu'eha' - which teaches us that
although Rebbi Zeira was born in Bavel, he moved to Eretz Yisrael and
developed there.
2)
(a) So Rava rearranges the list. Chamas refers to the hot-springs of
G'rar. They called Teverya, 'Rakas' - because even the 'Reikanin'
she'Bah' (those of its inhabitants who were the most empty of
Mitzvos) were full of Mitzvos like pomegranates.
(b) According to Rebbi Yirmeyahu, its real name was Rakas, and one of
the possible reasons for the name 'Teverya' is because it is situated
in the middle of the land (from the word 'Tabur' - navel); the other
is - because 'Tovah Re'iyasah' (it was pleasant to look at, because
of its many gardens and orchards).
(c) Rebbi Ze'ira explains that they called Kitron 'Tzipori' - because
it was situated on top of a mountain (like a bird).
(d) Based on the fact that Kitron belonged to Zevulun and that
Zevulun complained to Hashem about their territory, we query whether
it really was Tzipori (as will explained shortly). Zevulun's
complained - that whereas their brother Naftali received fields and
vineyards, they received only hills and mountains.
3)
(a) Based on the Pasuk in v'Zos ha'Berachah "Amim Har Yikra'u",
Hashem replied to Zevulun - that all the tribes would need them,
because the precious Chilazon fish (which provided the Techeles for
Tzitzis) was to be found.
(b) The Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef learns the Chilazon from the Pasuk
there "u'Sefunei", from ...
1. ... "Temunei", he learns - the special blessing of tunny (fish),
and from ...
2. ... "Chol" - that of white glass.
(c) When ...
1. ... Zevulun asked Hashem 'Mi Modi'eini al Zos' - they meant 'Who
will inform them if strangers fish in their waters and walk off with
the Chilazon without paying their fishing dues?'
2. ... Hashem replied "Sham Yizbechu Zivchei Tzedek" - He meant that,
just as He rejects theft in the realm of Korbanos, so too, will He
reject theft with regard to this issue, and that consequently, anyone
who steals the Chilazon fish without paying their dues, will not
manufacture it successfully.
(d) The entire area of 'Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Devash' of the whole of
Eretz Yisrael was twenty-two Parsah by six Parsah. Of that - sixteen
by sixteen Mil was situated in Tzipori (an area of 256 sq. Mil - more
than one eighth of the total of 2112 sq. Mil. [twenty-two by six
Parsah] of the whole of Eretz Yisrael). In that case, if Kitron was
really Tzipori, why did Zevulun complain (seeing as they received way
above the average)?!
(e) We prove from the Pasuk "v'Naftali al Meromei Sadeh" - that (in
spite of the 'Zavas Chalav u'Devash'), Zevulun wanted fields(and not
mountains).
4)
(a) The Navi Tzefanyah writes "v'Ekron Tei'aker". Another name for
Ekron - is Caesaria (Note, that there was more than one Caesaria).
(b) Ekron and Achidas Migdal Shir (or Tzor) - are one and the same.
Originally, it was called Ekron, and it caused Yisrael much trouble
in the time of the Chashmona'im. When the latter overcame them, they
changed its name to Achidas Migdal Shir (or Tzor).
(c) Tzor was the capital of Edom. According to the Navi Zecharyah ...
1. ... the various locations of idol-worship there - will be destroyed.
2. ... its Shuls and Batei Medrash - will be dedicated to the service
of Hashem.
3. ... 'theatres' and 'circuses' (meeting-places) - will one day be
taken over by the leaders of Yisrael, who will teach Torah in them.
(d) Another name for Leshem (of Dan) - is Pamayas (alias Banias).
5)
(a) Caesaria was a metropolis of kings. Some say they reared kings
there. According to others - they picked the kings from its inhabitants.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Imal'ah ha'Charavah" - that
Caesaria and Yerushalayim can never enjoy the same status
simultaneously. When one of them is up, the other is down (in fact,
one rises at the expense of the other).
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns it - from the Pasuk in Toldos
"u'Le'om mi'Le'om Ye'ematz".
(d) Yitzchak asked Hashem to favor Esav, since even a Rasha, must
have some good in him. He eventually admitted however, that Esav was
not worthy of seeing G-d's greatness - when Hashem informed him that
he would destroy Eretz Yisrael.
6)
(a) Yakov seemed to know Esav's true character better than his
father. When he implored Hashem "Al Titen Hashem Ma'avayei Rasha,
Zemamo Al Tafek ... !" ...
1. ... he meant - that Hashem should not remove the metal nose-ring
(that keeps a wild camel under control).
2. ... he was referring - to Germamya of Edom (Germany [Ya'avetz]).
(b) There were three hundred and sixty five crown-makers in Germamya
of Edom - and the same number of dukes in Edom.
(c) The relationship between them - was not very friendly, because
each day they would fight with each other, and the former would kill
one of the latter and try to appoint a king (it is unclear as to
which one of them this applies).
6b--------------------------------------6b
7)
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak says that if someone says ...
1. ... 'I toiled but did not succeed' - do not believe him.
2. ... 'I did not toil but succeeded' - do not believe him either.
(b) He is believed - if he says that he toiled and succeeded.
(c) The above does not apply to success or failure in business -
because that depends entirely on the Divine assistance that one
receives (and not on the amount of personal effort.
(d) Neither does it apply to learning Torah - when it is a matter of
remembering what one has learned (as opposed to understanding it)
which likewise depends on the Divine assistance that one merits.
8)
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Al Tischar ba'Mere'im" - that one is ill-advised to start up
with a Rasha who is currently successful.
2. ... "Yachilu Derachav b'Chol Eis" - that moreover, he will
continue to succeed.
3. ... "Marom Mishpatecha Minegdo" - that he will also win his case
against you in the Heavenly court.
4. ... "Kol Tzorerav Yafi'ach Bahem" - that he will defeat his
enemies with ease.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, learns from the
Pasuk "Ozvei Torah Yehalelu Rasha, v'Shomrei Torah Yisgaru Bam" -
that a Tzadik should start up with the Rasha (which seems to
contradict Rav Yitzchak's statement).
(c) Rebbi Dusta'i bar Masun in a Beraisa (who appears to have an
independent opinion in the matter) explains the Pasuk "Al Tischar
ba'Mere'im" to mean - that one should not compete with a Rasha or be
jealous of him (in this way, it will not clash with the Pasuk "Ozvei
Torah ... ").
(d) Initially, we answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yitzchak by
differentiating between personal issues (where one is well-advised
not to start with a Rasha) and spiritual ones (rebuking him), which a
Tzadik may do with impunity.
(e) Alternatively, we answer it by differentiating between ...
1. ... a complete Tzadik, who may start with a successful Rasha, and
an incomplete Tzadik, who should not.
2. ... a Rasha who is enjoying current success, with whom one should
not start, and one who is not, with whom even an incomplete Tzadik may start.
9)
(a) Ula equates Italy of the Greek Empire with the large city of Rome. It ...
1. ... was - three hundred by three hundred Parsah, and it ...
2. ... contained three hundred and sixty five market-places, and ...
3. ... its bird-market (the smallest of all the markets) measured
- sixteen Mil by sixteen Mil.
(b) The Emperor would dine in one of the market-places every day. In
order to receive a prize from the Emperor - one either had to have
been born there or to live there.
(c) The purpose of the five hundred windows in the three thousand
bath-houses - was to let out the smoke.
(d) The sea blocked one side of Rome, mountains and hills, another. The ...
1. ... third side was blocked - by an iron wall, and the ...
2. ... fourth - by small stones.
10)
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the only two things that
one will not be Yotzei if one already performed them in Adar Rishon
and the Chachamim then declare a leap-year - are reading the Megilah
and Matanos la'Evyonim.
(b) We infer from our Mishnah that Adar Rishon and Adar Sheni have
the same status - as regards Leining the four Parshiyos.
(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that all Mitzvos that apply in
Adar Sheni, apply in Adar Rishon, except for that of reading the
Megilah. He argues with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who says in the
name of Rebbi Yosi, that someone who read the Megilah in Adar Rishon
must read it again in Adar Sheni) - with regard to the four
Parshiyos, which, in his opinion, need not be re-read in Adar Sheni
if it was read in Adar Rishon, but which must, according to Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel.
11)
(a) It is obvious that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi
Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi (in the previous Beraisa), who says that one
does not need to read the Megilah again in Adar Sheni. Neither does
it appear to be ...
1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - who requires the Megilah that
was read in Adar Rishon to be re-read in Adar Sheni, but not it
seems, the Mitzvah of Matanos la'Evyonim (which can apparently be
performed in either Adar).
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - who includes the four Parshiyos in
the things that can only be performed in Adar Sheni.
(b) We reconcile our Mishnah with the Tana Kama - by pointing out
that Matanos la'Evyonim and reading the Megilah always have the same
Din (as we already learned). Consequently, having informed us that
the Megilah must be read in Adar Sheni, it is not necessary to
mention Matanos la'Evyonim.
(c) We reconcile it with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel too, by amending
the wording in our Mishnah to read 'Ein Bein *Arba'ah-Asar*
she'b'Adar Rishon l'Arba'ah-Asar she'b'Adar Sheni Ela Mikra Megilah
u'Matanos' (in which case, we are not concerned with the four
Parshiyos at all) - to preclude the prohibition of Hesped and
Ta'anis, which apply in Adar Rishon as well as in Adar Sheni.
(d) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - like Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel.
12)
(a) Both Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi (who holds that the Megilah is
read in Adar Rishon) and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who says that it
is read in Adar Sheni) learn their respective opinions from the Pasuk
in Esther "b'Chol Shanah v'Shanah", which, according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi, means - like every year, the Adar
which follows Shevat.
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, means - like every year, the Adar
which is closest to Nisan.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi declines to learn like Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel, because his reason is based on the principle - 'Ein
Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos' (One never postpones a Mitzvah that falls due).
(c) According to Rav Tavi, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the
Sevara of 'Mismach Ge'ulah li'Ge'ulah' takes precedence over the
principle of 'Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos'. This means - that it is
more logical to place one Ge'ulah (that of Purim) next to another
(that of the Exodus from Egypt).
(d) Rebbi Elazar gives the source for Raban Shimon ben Gamliel as the
Pasuk in Esther - "l'Kayem es Igeres ha'Purim ha'Zos *ha'Shenis*"
(meaning in the second Adar).
13)
(a) Having written "ha'Shenis" (according to Rebbi Elazar), the Pasuk
nevertheless needed to add "b'Chol Shanah v'Shanah" - because we
would otherwise have explained "ha'Shenis" to mean that in a leap
year, one reads the Megilah twice.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi (in whose opinion one reads the
Megilah in Adar Rishon) explains the Pasuk "ha'Shenis" like Rav
Shmuel bar Yehudah, who says - that first they fixed Purim in
Shushan, and then in the rest of the world.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
MEGILAH 7
1)
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah cites Esther as having requested of the
Chachamim 'Kav'uni la'Doros!', by which - she meant that they should
commemorate her by fixing the annual reading of the Megilah as an obligation.
(b) When they initially declined, on the grounds that doing so would
only incite the hatred of the Nochrim - she replied that the entire
incident was anyway recorded in the annals of Medes and Persia, and
that reading annually it would make no difference.
(c) According to Rav, Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi
Chaviva, she also requested 'Kisvuni l'Doros (to include Megilas
Esther among the holy writings). Whenever this set of names appears
in Seder Mo'ed - we amend Rebbi Yochanan to Rebbi Yonasan.
(d) And when in answer to her request, the Chachamim quoted the Pasuk
in Mishlei "ha'Lo Kasavti Lecha Shalishim", they meant - that Shlomo
ha'Melech indicated in this Pasuk that the battle with Amalek is to
be hinted in Tanach only three times and no more; and this it already
has: in Beshalach, in Ki Setzei and in Shmuel. Consequently, there is
no room in Tanach for Megilas Esther.
2)
(a) The Chachamim relented however, on account of the Pasuk in
Beshalach "Ke'sov Zos Zikaron ba'Sefer", which they interpret like
this - "Kesov Zos" ... what is written in the Torah, counting all the
occasions that Amalek is mentioned in the Torah as one (presumably
because "Zos" refers to Torah, like we find "v'Zos ha'Torah");
"Zikaron" ... what is written in Shmuel, "ba'Sefer" ... Megilas Esther.
(b) The above explanation is also the opinion of Rebbi Elazar
ha'Muda'i. Rebbi Yehoshua explains the Pasuk simply - "Kesov Zos" ...
what is written here in Beshalach; "Zikaron" ... what is written in
Ki Setzei; "ba'Sefer" ... in Shmuel.
(c) We can infer from Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement, that
Esther does not render one's hands Tamei - that it was not written
with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(d) And we reconcile this with another statement of his, where he
says that Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh - by explaining his
first statement (that Esther was not said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) to
mean that she was not granted permission to write it down in the form
of a Sefer, only orally (although the content of the Megilah was
still said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh).
3)
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, Koheles does not render the hands Tamei,
and there is a Machlokes by Shir ha'Shirim; according to Rebbi Yosi,
there is a Machlokes by Koheles, Shir ha'Shirim definitely does
render the hands Tamei. Rebbi Shimon says that ...
1. ... Koheles - is from the leniencies of Beis Shamai (that it does
not render the hands Tamei) and the stringencies of Beis Hillel (that it does).
2. ... Rus, Shir ha'Shirim and Esther - render the hands Tamei.
(b) Shmuel (who just said that Esther does not render the hands
Tamei) does not hold like Rebbi Shimon and the Tana'im who appear to
agree with him. He holds like Rebbi Yehoshua - whom we saw earlier
maintains that Esther does not render the hands Tamei.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya maintains that Koheles does not render
the hands Tamei - because he says, it is based purely on the wisdom
of Shlomo ha'Malech, and was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(d) It appears from the Pasuk in Melachim "Vayedaber Sheloshes Alafim
Mashal (which are not recorded) that those parables that are
(including Koheles) were said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. We finally prove
it from the Pasuk - "Al Tosef Al Devarav", implying that it was
written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
4)
(a) The Tana'im bring a number of proofs that Esther was said with
Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Some say from "va'Yomer Haman b'Libo" (Rebbi
Eliezer), others from "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chen b'Einei Kol
Ro'ehah" (Rebbi Akiva) ... from "va'Yivada ha'Davar l'Mordechai"
(Rebbi Meir) ... and from "uva'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" (Rebbi Yosi
ben Durmaskis). Shmuel brings a proof - from the Pasuk in Esther
"Kiymu v'Kiblu ha'Yehudim", which he explains to mean that 'Kiymu
Lema'alah Mah she'Kiblu Lematah', something which no-one could
possibly have known without Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(b) According to Rava, there is a flaw in each Tana's proof. The flaw
in the proof from ...
1. ... "Vayomer Haman b'Libo" - is that everybody knew that Haman was
the most esteemed man in the king's eyes, in which case it is obvious
from his words that that is what he was thinking.
2. ... "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chen b'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" - is that
Esther found favor with everybody, because she appeared to them like
a woman from their own country (like Rebbi Elazar says), and perhaps
she simply overheard people telling each other that she was from their country.
3. ... "va'Yivada ha'Davar l'Mordechai" - is that for all we know,
Mordechai actually overheard them plotting to kill the king (as the
Gemara will explain later in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).
4. ... "uva'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" - is that Mordechai may well
have been informed of this fact through messengers sent to him
expressly to supply him with this information.
(c) When Rava quoted a mantra that 'one sharp pepper is better than
baskets-full of melons' - he meant that sometimes a sharp Amora
(Shmuel, in our case) is smarter than many Tana'im.
5)
(a) The Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef extraplolates from the words ...
1. ... "u'Mishlo'ach Manos Ish l'Re'eihu" - that the Mitzvah of
'Shelach Manos' consists of two gifts to one friend.
2. ... "u'Matanos la'Evyonim" - that the Mitzvah of Matanos
la'Evyonim consists of two gifts to two needy people (one gift to
each). Note, that 'Manos' also implies ready-to-eat food, whereas
Matanos means any kind of gift.
(b) When Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a sent Rebbi Oshaya the thigh of a third
calf and a flask of wine, the latter commented - that he had
fulfilled the Mitzvah of Shelach Manos.
(c) When Rabah gave Abaye Shelach Manos which included a sack of
dates to take to Mari bar Mar, the latter commented - that when a
farmer becomes a king, he continues to place a basket around his
neck, like he did when he was a farmer. Likewise Rabah, who had now
become the Rosh Yeshiva, nevertheless continued to send Shelach Manos
like an ordinary person.
(d) And when Mari sent him back with a sack of ginger and a cupful of
long peppers - he passed the comment that Rabah would complain that
he had sent him sweet things, whereas in return he received sharp ones.
7b--------------------------------------7b
6)
(a) Abaye related how, on one occasion, he once left Rabah's house
satisfied, yet, when, in Mari bar Mar's house and they brought him
sixty different kinds of sweet dishes - he not only ate them all, but
he wanted to chew the dishes as well.
(b) To prove his point - he quoted the mantra that there is always
room for sweet things.
(c) Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin were both very poor. They
managed to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shelach Manos on Purim - by
exchanging their Purim Se'udos.
7)
(a) One is obligated to become drunk on Purim - to the point that one
is unable to distinguish the difference between 'Arur Haman' and
'Baruch Mordechai'.
(b) One Purim, when Rabah and Rebbi Zeira fulfilled this Mitzvah -
Rabah Shechted Rebbi Zeira. On the following day, he Davened and
brought him back to life.
(c) When, on the following year, Rabah suggested that they eat their
Purim Se'udah together again - Rebbi Zeira replied that miracles do
not occur every day.
8)
(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk in Esther "Yemei Mishteh v'Simchah" -
that someone who eats the Purim Se'udah by night is not Yotzei.
(b) When Ameimar assumed that the Rabanan were late for the Derashah
one Purim because they were busy with the Purim Se'udah - Rav Ashi
suggested that they could have eaten it on the previous night (after
the reading of the Megilah).
(c) Ameimar corrected him - by quoting Rava (whom we just cited), who
requires the Purim Se'udah to be eaten by day.
(d) Rav Ashi asked Ameimar to repeat what he just said - forty times
(until he felt that he had it 'in his pocket').
9)
(a) According to our Mishnah, the only difference between what is
permitted and what is forbidden on Shabbos and on Yom Tov is 'Ochel
Nefesh'. The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because,
in addition to Ochel Nefesh, he permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on
Yom Tov, although it is forbidden on Shabbos.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu" 'v'Lo
Machshirav'. Rebbi Yehudah learns his concession from - "Hu Levado
Ye'aseh Lachem"; "Lachem" 'l'Chol Tzorcheichem' (a Pasuk in the same Parashah).
(c)
1. ... the Tana Kama learns from "Lachem" - "Lachem" 'v'Lo l'Akum';
"Lachem" 'v'Lo li'Kelavim'.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Hu" - that Machshirin which he
could have prepared before Yom Tov are precluded from the above concession.
(d) An example of a Melachah that could not have been performed on
Erev Yom Tov is - smoothening a knife that only became jagged on Yom Tov.
10)
(a) The only difference between the Melachos of Shabbos and those of
Yom Kippur listed by our Mishnah is - that whereas the former is
punishable at the hands of Beis-Din (Sekilah), the latter is
punishable only at the hands of Hashem (Kares).
(b) The author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah
who holds that Shabbos and Yom Kippur have the same Din as regards
'Tashlumin' - meaning that someone who set fire to someone's haystack
(for example) on Yom-Kippur, is Patur from paying (because he
receives the stricter punishment), in the same way as he would have
been Patur had he done so on Shabbos.
(c) The Rabanan say - that it is only on Shabbos (when the stricter
punishment is Miysas Beis-Din) that one is Patur from the lesser
punishment (of Beis-Din), but not on Yom-Kippur, when the stricter
punishment is only Kares (at the Hands of Hashem).
11)
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Makos that, according to Rebbi
Chananya ben Gamliel, all Chayvei Kares who receive Malkus, are
absolved from Kares. Rebbi Yochanan commented - that according to the
Rabanan, who disagree with Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, he remains Chayav Kares.
(b) Rava tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from our Mishnah -
which differentiates between Shabbos, which is punishable by
Beis-Din, and Yom Kippur, which is punishable by Hashem. Now if our
Tana would hold like Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, then Yom Kippur too,
would be punishable by Beis-Din (i.e. Malkus).
(c) Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) refutes Rava's proof however, by
establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak - who says that someone
who is Chayav Kares is not subject to Malkus at all.
(d) Rav Ashi considers that unnecessary. He refutes Rava's proof even
if the author does not hold like Rebbi Yitzchak - because, he
explains, when the Tana says that Yom-Kippur is punishable at the
Hands of Hashem (and not by Beis-Din), he is referring to the initial
punishment, no matter that he can also receive Malkus.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
MEGILAH 8
1)
(a) The only two differences listed by our Mishnah between someone
who is a Mudar Hana'ah and one who is Mudar only regarding food, are
that the latter is permitted to enter the Madir's property, and that
he may borrow from him vessels that are not used for food. Even the
latter are forbidden however - if they are vessels that are normally
hired (because whatever gains the user a Perutah, enables him to buy
food with his gains).
(b) Rava establish our Mishnah which permits the latter to enter the
Madir's property, as Rebbi Eliezer - because he is the Tana who
forbids a Mudar Hana'ah even such minor benefits that people tend to forego.
(c) The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer - would permit a Mudar Hana'ah to
enter the Madir's property, since most people are not fussy about
such trivial benefits.
2)
(a) The only difference between a Neder and a Nedavah, says our
Mishnah, is that one is responsible for the former but not for the
latter. The definition of ...
1. ... a Neder (in this context) - is, for example, when a person
says 'Harei Alai' ('I am obligated to bring a Korban') following
which, he designates a specific animal to fulfill his promise.
2. ... a Nedavah - is when he designates a specific animal as a
Korban by declaring 'Harei Zu Hekdesh' ('This animal is Hekdesh').
(b) When the Tana says that one is not responsible for a Nedavah - he
means that, should it die or get lost or stolen, he is not
responsible to re-place it.
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns this distinction from the Pasuk "v'Nirtzah Lo
l'Chaper *Alav*" - implying that he has taken the responsibility on
his shoulders.
3)
(a) The Mishnah gives the distinction between a Zav who sees twice
and one who sees three times as being that the latter must bring a
Korban. Their Din is the same however - regarding 1. Tum'as Mishkav
(lying on something that is made to lie on); 2. Tum'as Moshav
(sitting on something that is made to sit on, both of which make an
Av ha'Tum'ah), and 3. the need to count seven clean days.
(b) Rebbi Sima'i learns from the fact that the Torah declares Tamei a
Zav who has two sightings Tamei, as well as one who has three - that
even though he only needs to bring a Korban after the third sighting,
he already becomes Tamei after two (as we explained).
(c) It would be illogical to say that the Torah mentions 'two' for
Tum'ah (and not a Korban), and 'three' for a Korban (but not Tum'ah)
- because, having become Tamei after the second sighting, how can the
Tum'ah disappear after the third?!
4)
(a) We refute the suggestion that maybe two is for a Korban only, and
three comes to add Tum'ah, due the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Chiper Alav
ha'Kohen *mi'Zovo*" - which suggests that only in some cases does a
Zav bring a Korban, and not always.
(b) We cannot learn from the Pasuk that someone who sees twice brings
a Korban, but not someone who sees three times - because, like we
said before, having become Chayav to bring a Korban after seeing
twice, how can the obligation disappear after seeing a third time?!
(c) The Torah needs to write "mi'Zovo", in spite of Rebbi Sima'i
(that the Torah declares Tamei both a Zav who had two sightings and
one who had three), to dispense with the Kashya in a. And even though
we have "mi'Zovo", we still need Rebbi Sima'i - because without his
Derashah, we would not know how many sightings a Zav needs to have to
become first Tamei, and then to bring a Korban.
5)
(a) Now that we Darshen the prefix 'Mi', we (initially) learn from
the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Chi Yit'har Ish *mi*'Zovo" - "mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo
mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o', meaning that a man who is both a Zav and a
Metzora may count his seven clean days immediately, and then, as soon
as he is cured from his Tzara'as, he may Tovel for both Tum'os
simultaneously, without having to count another seven clean days.
(b) That Tevilah is effective as regards the Tum'os of a Zav
(Mishkav, Moshav and Heset). It is not effective - with regard to a
Metzora eating Kodshim (for which he must wait another seven days) or
for the ceremony which will allow him to return to his wife, which
still requires a second Tevilah.
(c) And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "*mi*'Zovo
v'Safar" - to say that even a partial Zav (one who saw only twice)
must also count seven clean days.
(d) We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he
renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav - because we have a
precedent to the contrary, in a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom (a woman who
saw once or twice during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah),
who also renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav, yet she does not
require seven clean days.
8b--------------------------------------8b
6)
(a) We just learned that "mi'Zovo v'Safar" comes to include a Zav who
saw twice in the Din of seven clean days. Rav Papa queried this
Derashah from the previous one ("v'Chi Yit'har ha'Zav mi'Zovo"), from
which we learned to exclude ("mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo mi'Zovo umi'Nega'o').
Rava replied that - it is not possible to interpret this Pasuk to
include; because to exclude a Zav who saw twice from the Din of seven
clean days, does not require a Pasuk (seeing as, even the 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Mishkav and Moshav, which might have included him, is
ineffective, in face of the Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, as we just explained).
(b) In fact, now that we need the word "mi'Zovo" for the latter
Derashah, we can no longer use it for the former.
(c) We learn the Din of "mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo mi'Zovo umi'Nega'o', not from
"mi'Zovo", but from the same Pasuk "v'Chi Yit'har *ha'Zav* mi'Zovo",
which is also superfluous (since the Torah could have written "v'Chi
Yit'har mi'Zovo".
7)
(a) The two distinctions cited by our Mishnah between ...
1. ... a Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat - are Peri'ah and
Perimah (the prohibition of cutting the hair and tearing one's
clothes for a close relative, respectively), which pertain to the
latter, but not to the former.
2. ... a Metzora who becomes Tahor after being a Musgar and one who
became Tahor after being a Muchlat - are Tiglachas v'Tziparim
(shaving off all the hair and bringing a Korban consisting of two
birds, respectively), which pertain to the latter but not to the former.
(b) A Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat the same - as regards
being sent out of the camp (any walled town), and the stringent laws
of Tum'ah that pertain to a Metzora.
(c) Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Huna
that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to Peri'ah and Perimah from the
Pasuk in Tazri'a "v'Chibes Begadav *v'Taher*" - implying that there
is something from which he was already Tahor before (since the Torah
did not write "v'Yit'har").
(d) Rava queries this Derashah from the same Pasuk which appears in
Metzora with regard to a Zav - because if "v'Taher" implies what we
just said it does, how will we explain it by a Zav (from what can he
possibly be Tahor retroactively)?!
8)
(a) We learn from "v'Chibes Begadav *v'Taher*" (by Zav) - that, from
the moment he Tovels on the seventh day, he is not Metamei b'Heset
(to render Tamei earthenware vessels which he moved indirectly) from
that moment until he sees again (even though, if he does have another
sighting on the same day, he negates the seven clean days
retroactively in every other regard but this one).
(b) Correspondingly, we will learn from the Pasuk "v'Chibes Begadav
v'Taher" (by a Metzora Musgar) - that once he has Toveled, he will
not render Tamei any vessels that are in the house that he enters
between the Tevilah and the spreading of the Tzara'as (even though,
if the Tzora'as does subsequently spread, it renders him Tamei retroactively).
(c) Rava ultimately learns that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to
Peri'ah u'Perimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "veha'Tzaru'a Asher *Bo*
ha'Nega" - implying that Peri'ah u'Perimah are confined to a Metzora
Muchlat, whose Tzara'as depends upon his personal situation (as long
as it is there, he is a Metzora; as long as it is not, he is not),
but not to a Musgar, whose Tzara'as depends upon time.
(d) Nevertheless, a Metzora Musgar is sent out of the camp, despite
the fact that the Torah specifically writes "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega
*Bo* Yitma" - because, on the other hand, the Torah writes "Kol" to
include him (as to why the Torah needs to write both "Bo" and "Kol",
see Sefas Emes).
9)
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Yatza el mi'Chutz
la'Machanah v'Hinei *Nirpa* Nega ha'Tzara'as min ha'Tzaru'a" - that
it is only a Metzora Muchlat (whose Tzara'as depends upon whether he
is cured or not) who has to shave off all his hair and bring two
birds, but not a Musgar (whose Tzara'as depends upon time).
(b) These the only two differences between the Taharah of a Metzora
Muchlat and that of a Musgar - on the day that he becomes cured. On
the eighth day, a Muchlat also has to bring an Asham and a Log of oil
(which a Musgar does not), but our Sugya is not concerned with this.
10)
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the only difference
between the writing of Sefarim (Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim) and that
of Tefilin and Mezuzos - is that Sefarim may be written in any
language, whereas Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that also Sefarim may only be
written in ancient Greek.
(c) Sefarim on the one hand, and Tefilin and Mezuzos on the other,
share the same Din - with regard to stitching them together with
sinews and to rendering the hands Tamei.
(d) We extrapolate this from the Lashon 'Ein Bein ...' used by the
Tana Kama of our Mishnah, implying that in all other regards, the
three are the same.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
MEGILAH 9
1)
(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana requires a Sefer to be written in Ashuris
(the script used in our Sifrei Torah), on a scroll and with ink. Rava
tries to reconcile this with the Tana of our Mishnah, who permits a
Sefer in any language - by establishing our Mishnah when at least the
script is Ashuris, and the Beraisa, when even the script is foreign too.
(b) Abaye refutes Rava's answer however, on the basis of the Reisha
of the Beraisa which invalidates what should be written in Lashon
ha'Kodesh if it is written in Arama'ic, and vice-versa. Now if, as
Rava suggested, the Beraisa is speaking when it is written in a
foreign script - then even Mikra which is written Mikra, and Targum,
Targum would be Pasul too. So why does the Tana say 'Mikra she'Kasvo
Targum ... ?'
(c) Neither can we answer the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, who is more stringent than
the Tana Kama - because the Beraisa forbids Sefarim to be written in
any language, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes that Greek is
permitted.
2)
(a) We then try to establish the Beraisa by Tefilin and Mezuzos. We
learn that Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh -
from "*v'Hayu* ha'Devarim ha'Eileh" implying that they must remain in
the same language as they are written in Torah.
(b) We refute that suggestion too - on the grounds that there are no
Aramaic words in Tefilin and Mezuzos.
(c) The Aramaic words that appear in the Torah - are "Yegar Sahadusa"
said by Lavan in Parshas va'Yetzei.
3)
(a) So we finally establish the Beraisa by Megilah. We learn that the
Megilah must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh - from the words
"ki'Chesavam v'chi'Leshonam".
(b) We discover two Aramaic words in the Megilah. Rav Papa cites
"v'Nishma *Pisgam* ha'Melech". Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites -
"v'Chol ha'Nashim Yitnu *Yekar* l'Va'aleihen".
(c) Rav Ashi re-establishes the Beraisa according to Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel, by all Sefarim (other than Sifrei Torah), but according to
Rebbi Yehudah - who says that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's concession
to write Sefarim in Greek is restricted to Sifrei-Torah, due to the
episode that is about to be discussed.
4)
(a) The Beraisa cites fifteen changes in the Torah that the Chachamim
made for the benefit of King Ptolemy of Egypt. They wrote instead of ...
1. ... "Bereishis Bara Elokim" - "Elokim Bara Bereishis".
2. ... "Na'aseh Adam b'Tzalmenu Kidmusenu" - "E'eseh Adam b'Tzelem uvi'Demus."
(b) They changed "va'Yechal Elokim ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i ... "
to "va'Yechal Elokim ba'Yom ha'Shishi ... " - so as to dispel the
impression that Hashem performed work on Shabbos. (The truth is that
the creation that Hashem formed on Shabbos was 'Menuchah' [rest]).
(c) They wrote instead of ...
1. ... "Zachar u'Nekevah Bera'am" - "Zachar u'Nekevah Bera'o".
2. ... "Havah Nerdah v'Navlah Sham Sefasam" - "Havah Erdah v'Avaleh
Sham Sefasam".
(d) They wrote "va'Titzchak Sarah bi'Krovehah" (and she laughed among
her relatives) instead of "va'Titzchak Sarah bi'Kirbah (and she
laughed inside her)" - so that they should not ask how it is that
when Avraham laughed inside, Hashem did not take him to task, but
when Sarah did so, He did.
5)
(a) They wrote instead of ...
1. ... "Ki b'Apam Hargu Ish uvi'Retzonam Ikru Shor" - "Ki b'Apam
Hargu Shor uvi'Retzonam Ikru Evus".
2. ... "va'Yikach Moshe es Ishto v'es Banav va'Yarkivem al ha'Chamor"
- "va'Yikach Moshe es Ishto v'es Banav va'Yarkivem al Nos'ei Bnei Adam".
3. ... "u'Moshav Bnei Yisrael Asher Yashvu b'Mitzrayim Arba Me'os
Shanah" - "u'Moshav Bnei Yisrael Asher Yashvu b'Mitzrayim uve'Sha'ar
Aratzos Arba Me'os Shanah".
(b) They changed ...
1. ... "va'Yishlach es Na'arei Bnei Yisrael" to "va'Yishlach es
Za'atutei Bnei Yisrael" - so that Ptolemy should not ask in surprise
whether Moshe could not find any better Sheluchim that young boys.
2. ... "v'El Atzilei Bnei Yisrael Lo Shalach Yadav" to "v'El
Za'atutei Bnei Yisrael Lo Shalach Yadav" - because that is the Lashon
that they used in the previous question.
(c) Instead of ...
1. ... "Lo Chamor Echad Meihem Nasa'si" - they wrote "Lo Chemed (any
precious object) Echad Meihem Nasa'si".
2. ... "Asher Chalak Hashem Elokim Osam l'Chol ha'Amim" - "Asher
Chalak Hashem Elokim Osam l'Ha'ir l'Chol ha'Amim".
3. ... "va'Yeilech va'Ya'avod Elohim Acheirim Asher Lo Tzivisi" -
"va'Yeilech va'Ya'avod Elohim Acheirim Asher Lo Tzivisi l'Ovdam".
(d) They found it necessary to change "es ha'Arneves" to "es Tze'iras
ha'Raglayim" - because Arneves was the name of Ptolemy's wife, and he
would have been insulted to find her name among the Tamei animals
(Agados Maharsha).
9b--------------------------------------9b
6)
(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah
- who learns that the Torah may be written in Greek over and above
all other foreign languages, from the Pasuk in Noach "Yaft Elokim
l'Yefes v'Yishkon b'Oholei Shem" (meaning that the things of Yefes
will dwell in the tents [of Torah] of Shem.
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains that the Torah must be referring
specifically to (the language of) Yavan, and not to (some specialty
of) one of the other sons of Yefes (Gomer or Magog) - because "Yaft
Elokim l'Yefes ... " means that the beauty of Yefes should rest in
the Torah tents of Shem, and the most beautiful aspect of Yefes was
the Greek language.
7)
(a) The only difference listed by our Mishnah between a Kohen
Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah (a Kohen Gadol who was inaugurated
with the anointing oil) and a Merubeh Begadim (one who was
inaugurated by wearing the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol) - is
the bull that a Kohen Gadol has to bring for all the Mitzvos (if he
issued a ruling permitting something that the Torah forbids with an
Isur Kares, and went on to practice his own ruling), which the former
brings, but the latter does not ...
(b) ... because the Torah writes in va'Yikra "Im ha'Kohen
ha'Mashi'ach Yecheta ... ").
(c) If the latter was not anointed with the anointing oil, it was -
because he lived in the period of the second Beis Hamikdash, when the
jar of anointing oil was not available (because it had been hidden by
Yoshiyah towards the end of the first).
(d) We infer from our Mishnah - that a Kohen Merubeh Begadim may
bring the bull (which he brings together with Klal Yisrael's goat) on
Yom Kippur, and the Asiris ha'Eifah (the Minchah consisting of a
tenth of an Eifah which the Kohen Gadol brings daily) just like a
Kohen Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah.
8)
(a)
1. A 'Kohen Meshamesh' - is the current Kohen Gadol (who became Tamei
and was re-placed by the deputy Kohen until he became Tahor) after he
became Tahor and resumed the Avodah.
2. A 'Kohen she'Avar' - is the deputy Kohen Gadol who re-placed him
and then had to stand down when the Kohen Gadol returned.
(b) Neither of them may allow their hair to grow long or tear their
clothes for a dead relative, and both are obligated to marry a virgin
of under twelve and a half (should they not be married already). They
are also forbidden - to marry a widow and both continue to perform
the Avodah even when they are Onenim (the day that one of their close
relations dies).
(c) A Kohen she'Avar cannot bring the bull of a Kohen Gadol on Yom
Kippur or the daily Asiris ha'Eifah, as our Mishnah specifically states.
9)
(a) We inferred from our Mishnah that a Kohen Merubeh Begadim may
bring the bull on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an Eifah daily-offering
just like a Kohen Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah. The author of our
Mishnah is the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir - because, according to Rebbi
Meir, a Merubeh Begadim too, brings the bull for all the Mitzvos ...
(b) ... and he learns this from the extra 'Hey' in the Pasuk in
Vayikra "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach".
10)
(a) The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah however (which gives a
Kohen she'Avar the same Din as a Kohen Meshamesh), appears to be
Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yosi, who argues with Rebbi Meir, holds - that a
Kohen she'Avar who stands down does not perform the Avodah at all,
neither like a Kohen Gadol nor even like a Kohen Hedyot.
(b) According to Rebbi Yosi, a Kohen she'Avar does not ...
1. ... retain the Din of a Kohen Gadol - because we are afraid that
this will lead to enmity between him and the Kohen Gadol.
2. ... even return to his previous status of Kohen Hedyot - because
of the principle 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin'.
(c) Rav Chisda says 'Reisha Rabanan, Seifa Rebbi Meir'. Rav Yosef
explains that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi who happens to hold
like the Chachamim in the Reisha and like Rebbi Meir in the Seifa.
11)
(a) A Bamah Gedolah was the one large Bamah on which the Korbenos
Tzibur were brought when there was no Beis Hamikdash and no Mishkan;
whereas a Bamah Ketanah was a private Bamah which anyone was
permitted to build in order to bring on it Korbenos Yachid.
(b) The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon - who holds that one
may bring on a Bamah Gedolah all Korbenos Tzibur that have a fixed
time (like Pesachim), but not Korbanos that do not.
(c) The Rabanan hold that whatever they brought on the Mizbe'ach in
the desert, could be brought on the Bamah Gedolah, even Chata'os
Tzibur (that have no fixed time), such as the Par He'elam Davar shel
Tzibur and the goats of Avodah-Zarah.
12)
(a) The only difference between Mishkan Shilo and Yerushalayim ...
1. ... at the time when they both stood - is that, in the former,
they were permitted to eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni at any
point from where they could see it; whereas in Yerushalayim these
could only be eaten within the walls of Yerushalayim itself.
2. ... after they were both destroyed - was that, after the fall of
the former, they were permitted to bring on Bamos once again until
the Beis Hamikdash was built, but not after the destruction of the latter.
(b) We learn this latter distinction from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ki Lo
Ba'sem Ad Atah El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" - because had Bamos
been permanently forbidden already from the time of the Mishkan, then
the Torah should have written "Ki Lo Ba'sem Ad Atah El ha'Menuchah"
and stopped.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
MEGILAH 10
1)
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak heard that one is permitted to sacrifice in Beis
Chonyo nowadays. Chonyo was a son of Shimon ha'Tzadik.
(b) When, after his father's death, his brother succeeded him as
Kohen Gadol - Chonyo went to Egypt and built a Bamah there (for the
sake of Hashem, according to some opinions, and not for idolatry).
This was forbidden however, for as long as the Beis-Hamikdash was
standing, Bamos were forbidden.
(c) He also learned from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el
ha'Menuchah v'el ha'Nachalah" - that the Torah compares Nachalah (the
Beis Hamikdash) to Menuchah (the Mishkan), to teach us that, just as
the Bamos became permitted after the fall of Shilo, so too did they
become permitted after the destruction of Yerushalayim.
(d) When Rav Yitzchak denied having made such a statement - Rava
swore that he did, and that he personally had learned it from him.
(e) He denied having said it, Rava explained, because of our Mishnah
and because of a Mishnah in Zevachim - both of which state that once
they came to Yerushalayim, the Bamos became forbidden forever.
2)
(a) We answer the Kashyos on Rebbi Yitzchak - by establishing a
Machlokes Tana'im. There is a Tana who holds like him, as we shall soon see.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer heard - that, when they built the Heichal and the
Azarah (immediately upon their return from Bavel), they put up
curtains around them.
(c) They did - bring Korbanos as soon as they returned.
(d) When they put up the curtains of the Heichal, they put them up at
the most innermost point and worked from the outside (so as to avoid
gazing at the space of the Heichal and benefiting from it); whereas
when they put up the Azarah, they put them up at the most outermost
point, working from the inside.
3)
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing sacrifices nowadays, even though
there is no Beis Hamikdash, eating Kodshei Kodashim even though there
are no curtains around the area of the Heichal - and eating Kodshim
Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni even though there is no wall around Yerushalayim ...
(b) ... because he holds 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah l'Sha'atah
v'Kidshah l'Asid Lavo'.
(c) On the assumption that Rebbi Yehoshua comes to argue with him, we
initially presume that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Kedushah Rishonah ...
v'Lo Kidshah l'Asid Lavo', and the purpose of the hangings was in do
sanctify the area with Todos and Shir (as we have learned in Shavu'os).
(d) Ravina suggests that Rebbi Eliezer concedes that even after the
destruction of the Beis Hamikdash 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah
l'Sha'atah v'Kidshah l'Asid Lavo' ...
1. ... and that in fact, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua are not
really arguing at all, only each Tana stated what he heard.
2. ... and the reason that they put up curtains (in spite of the fact
that the areas concerned were sanctified anyway), according to Rebbi
Eliezer was - for reasons of Tzniyus (modesty).
4)
(a) So we base Rebbi Yitzchak's initial statement on a Machlokes
between Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and the Chachamim. Rebbi Yishmael
b'Rebbi Yosi explains in a Beraisa, that the Mishnah in Erchin lists
(in connection with the Din of Batei Arei Chomah) specifically nine
towns out of the numerous towns that had a wall around them in the
days of Yehoshua bin Nun - because those are the ones that they found
and consecrated (whilst all the others lost their Kedushah with the
destruction of the first Beis-Hamikdash).
(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi says - that they
only mentioned these nine because they were the ones that they found
when they returned from Bavel, but that in fact, all the towns that
were traditionally walled in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun were
sanctified (and these included the sixty towns of the territory of
Argov that had previously belonged to Og Melech Habashan).
(c) The second Tana's Lashon 'Matz'u Eilu v'Kidshum' is wrong -
because he specifically goes on to say that they do not require consecration.
(d) So we amend it to read 'Matz'u Eilu u'Man'um' (they found these
and listed them').
5)
(a) Initially, we reconcile these two Beraisos - by turning it into a
Machlokes Tana'im regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.
(b) Alternatively, we amend the name of the author of the second
Beraisa to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi, who (in another Beraisa),
Darshened the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with Batei Arei Chomah)
"Asher Lo Chomah" (which is written with a 'Vav' but read with an
'Alef') to mean - that a city that had a wall around it in the time
of Yehoshua bin Nun is considered a walled city, even though it no
longer has one nowadays.
(c) Besides Batei Arei Chomah, the Tana is referring to - the
obligation to send Metzora'im out of the town and the prohibition of
transforming the open areas surrounding towns belonging to the
Leviyim, into fields.
10b--------------------------------------10b
6)
(a) Rebbi Levi (or Rebbi Yonasan) initially states that every
"Vayehi" in Tanach denotes pain or suffering. The suffering that is
hinted in the Pasuk ...
1. ... "va'Yehi Ish Echad min ha'Ramasayim" - is that his (Elkanah's)
favorite wife Chanah, could have no children.
2. ... "va'Yehi Ki Zaken Shmuel" - that his sons did not follow in
his footsteps.
3. ... "va'Yehi David l'Chol Derachav Maskil" - that (on account of
his success) King Shaul began to lie in wait for him to kill him.
4. ... "va'Yehi Ki Yashav ha'Melech b'Veiso" - that King David was
told that he would not be able to build the Beis Hamikdash.
(b) Hashem was as happy as the day on which He created heaven and
earth - on the day that the Mishkan was completed.
(c) Nevertheless, "va'Yehi ba'Yom ha'Shemini" could fit into the
previous list (of sad days) - because Nadav and Avihu died on the same day.
(d) We disprove this theory (that every "Vayehi" denotes suffering)
however, from three sources, beginning with the day on which the
Pasuk in Melachim, with regard to the completion of the Beis
Hamikdash. The ...
1. ... second source is the Pasuk in Vayetze - which describes
Yakov's first meeting with Rachel (Note, see Rashi in Chumash).
2. ... third source is the series of Pesukim in Bereishis - "va'Yehi
Erev va'Yehi Voker ... "Yom Echad", Yom Sheni", "Yom Shelishi" ... -
where the Torah uses the Lashon "va'Yehi" no less than six times
7)
(a) Rav Ashi therefore amends the original statement to read - that
every case of "Vayehi bi'Yemei" denotes suffering.
(b) "va'Yehi bi'Yemei ...
1. ... Achashverosh" - is followed by the threat from Haman.
2. ... Shefot ha'Shoftim" - is followed by a bitter famine.
3. ... Amrafel" - heralds the first major war.
4. ... Achaz" - is followed by Yisrael joining forces with Syria
against Yehudah.
5. ... Yehoyakim" - is followed by mention of the forthcoming Galus.
8)
(a) Amotz and Amatzyah were brothers (the former, was the father of
Yeshayah, and the latter, King of Yisrael).
(b) Rebbi Levi tells us this to teach us - that a woman who behaves
modestly in her father-in-law's house merits off-spring who are kings
and prophets.
(c) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan interprets the Pasuk
in Vayeshev "va'Yir'ehah Yehudah va'Yachshevehah l'Zonah Ki Chis'sah
Panehah" with reference to Tamar - who was the ancestor of Amotz and
Amatzyah through David ha'Melech, because she behaved with extreme
modesty in the house of Yehudah her father-in-law (in that she always
kept her face covered).
(d) At the end of the day, Rebbi Levi substantiates the statement of
Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan - in that Yeshayah ben
Amotz (the Navi) and Amatzyah (the king) both descended from Tamar.
9)
(a) Rebbi Levi's next statement is that the Aron took up no space in
the Kodesh Kodshim - which he cites as a tradition.
(b) We substantiate this with a Beraisa. The ...
1. ... Kodesh Kodshim measured - twenty Amos by twenty Amos, and the ...
2. ... Aron ha'Kodesh - ten by ten.
(c) The Tana now proves Rebbi Levi's Chidush - by informing us that
on either side, the distance from the Aron to the wall was ten Amos.
Note: The Gemara's proof from the wing of the Cherub is unclear [see
Bava Basra 99a. and the Rashbam there]).
(d) The 'Dvir' is - the wall that divided between the Kodesh and the
Kodesh Kodshim.
10)
(a) Rebbi Yonasan would begin his Purim Derashah with the Pasuk in
Yeshayah "v'Kamti Aleihem ... v'Hichrati l'Bavel Shem, u'She'er v'Nin
v'Neched".
1. "Shem" refers to the national script - "She'er" to the national language.
2. "Nin" refers to sovereignty - "Neched" to Vashti (the last member
of Bavel's royal family).
(b) In the Pasuk in Yeshayah, "Tachas ha'Na'atzutz Ya'aleh B'rosh ...
"ha'Na'atzutz" refers to Haman (who made himself into an Avodah-Zarah
[which, in another Pasuk there, is referred to as "ha'Na'atzutzim"]),
as Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni explains - "Brosh" to Mordechai, who is
called ('Rosh') head of all the Besamim.
(c) And if, in the continuation of the Pasuk "v'Sachas ha'Sirpad
Ya'aleh Hadas", "ha'Sirpad" refers to Vashti, the daughter of the son
of the man (Achashverosh) who burned the covering of the
Beis-Hamikdash ('Refidaso shel Beis Hashem') - "Hadas", to Esther,
who was called Hadasah.
(d) Mordechai is called the head of the Besamim because of the Pasuk
in Ki Sisa "v'Atah Kach Lecha Besamim Rosh *Mor Deror*" - which
Targum translates as 'Meira Dachya' (the acronym of Mordechai).
(e) With regard to the two final phrases in the above Pasuk ...
1. ... "v'Hayah Hashem l'Shem" - refers to Mikra Megilah.
2. ... "l'Os Olam Lo Yikares" - to the days of Purim.
11)
(a) Vashti was - the daughter of Belshatzar (see Rashi, Daniel 5:1),
who was Nevuchadnetzar's son.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi would begin his Purim Derashah with the
Pasuk in Ki Savo "v'Hayah Ka'asher Sas Hashem Aleichem l'Heitiv
Eschem, Kein Yasis Lehara Eschem", which cannot be interpreted as it
stands - (that Hashem will rejoice in performing evil with you),
because Hashem does not rejoice when Resha'im are punished.
(c) This is based on two statements of Rebbi Yochanan, who explained ...
1. ... the absence of the words "ki Tov" in the Pasuk in Divrei
ha'Yamim (said by Yehoshafat on his way to fight the Amonim and the
Givonim) "b'Tzes Lefanai ha'Chalutz, v'Omrim Hodu la'Hashem ki l'Olam
Chasdo' - in that Hashem does not rejoice when Resha'im are punished.
2. ... the Pasuk in Beshalach "v'Lo Karav Zeh el Zeh Kol ha'Laylah"
to mean - that although the angels wanted to sing Shirah the night
that the Egyptians drowned in the Yam Suf, but Hashem stopped them,
announcing that His creations were drowning in the Sea, and it was
not therefore befitting for them to do so.
(d) Rebbi Elazar therefore explains the Pasuk to mean, not that
Hashem (Himself) will rejoice to perform evil with you, but - that He
will make others rejoice ... .
(e) The proof of this - lies in the word "Yasis", which is Hif'il
(meaning 'He will make others happy'). Otherwise, the Torah should
have written "Yasus".
12)
(a) Rebbi Aba bar Kahana would begin his Purim Derashah with the
Pasuk in Koheles "l'Adam she'Tov le'Fanav Nasan Chochmah v'Da'as
v'Simchah" - with reference to Mordechai ha'Tzadik.
(b) The next phrase in the Pasuk "u'le'Chotei Nasan Inyan l'Esof
v'Lichnos" - refers to Haman (who amassed riches).
(c) The Pasuk concludes "la'Seis la'Tov Lifnei ha'Elokim" - which
refers to Esther's placing of Haman's estate under the jurisdiction
of Mordechai.
13)
(a) Rabah bar Ofran would begin his Purim Derashah with the Pasuk in
Yirmeyahu "v'Samti Kis'i b'Eilam, v'Ha'avadti mi'Sham Melech
v'Sarim". He explained ...
1. ... "Melech" - to mean Vashti.
2. ... "v'Sarim" - Haman and his ten sons.
(b) Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak would begin his Purim Derashah with the
Pasuk in Ezra "Ki Avadim Anachnu, uve'Avduseinu Lo Azavnu Elokeinu,
va'Yet Aleinu Chesed Lifnei Malchei Paras" - with reference to the
time of Haman.
>>><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
daf-review mailing list
daf-review@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mailman.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-review_shemayisrael.co.il
