Previous daf

1)

(a) In fact, they wanted to introduce the Aseres ha'Dibros into the daily Davening. However the idea was scrapped, because of the heretics, who would turn round and say to the Amei ha'Aretz that *that* was the real Torah, and that all the rest was phoney. They would prove their point from the fact that the Aseres ha'Dibros were said every day and the rest of the Torah was not!

(b) The outgoing Kohanim would say to the incoming ones 'May the One who rests His Name in this House, grant you love and brotherhood, peace and friendliness'.

(a) The most important part of the Berachah are the words 'Baruch Ata Hashem' - as is evident from the text of the Berachah. Consequently, it is essential to know how the Berachah will terminate at the time that one recites those words.

(b) If someone were to conclude 'Shehakol' over a glass of wine, he would be Yotze. It is therefore obvious, that if he at first intended to conclude 'Shehakol', but actually concluded 'Borei Peri ha'Gafen', that he is Yotze.

(c) The Gemara's Sha'aleh is whether, since the main part of the Berachah is the opening words, and at the time that he recited them, he had the wrong intention ('Borei Peri ha'Gafen' - an ending which would not have rendered him Yotze), he will not be Yotze; or whether we say that everything goes after the ending, so that, as long as one concludes correctly, he is Yotze.

(a) According to Rav, as long as the Berachah includes the Name of Hashem, one is Yotze; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, any Berachah that does not contain Hashem's Name and Malchus ('Melech ha'Olam') is not a Berachah.

(b) The proof from the Berachah of 'Yotzer Or' is not acceptable according to Rav, because the reason that he is Yotze there, is because he concludes with a complete Berachah: 'Baruch Ata Hashem, Yotzer ha'Me'oros'. Whereas in the case of our Sha'aleh, he may well *not* be Yotze, because he had the wrong intention during the main part of the Berachah, nor did he conclude with a Berachah.

(c) Neither is the proof acceptable according to Rebbe Yochanan, because one is possibly Yotze by 'Yotzer Or', because when all's said and done, he did mention 'Midas Yom ba'Layla and Midas Layla ba'Yom', in which case the initial Berachah incorporates both day and night.

(d) 'ha'Kol Holech Achar ha'Chitum' could come to include when he ate dates, thinking it was bread, and everything goes after the conclusion, because even if he would have concluded 'ha'Motzi Lechem min ha'Aretz', he would have been Yotze.

(a) Raba bar Chinena the elder quoting Rav, learns from "le'Hagid ba'Boker Chasdecha" that one should say 'Emes ve'Yatziv' in the morning, and from "ve'Emunascha ba'Leilos", that one says 'Emes ve'Emunah' in the evening.

(b) And he learns from "Hashem Zokef Kefufim" that when one bows down to Hashem, one bends the knees at 'Baruch', and straightens when mentioning the Name of Hashem.

(c) Rav Sheishes used to bow down like a stick (in one go - a sign of awe), but when he straightened, he would unfurl like a snake, so as not to convey the impression that he was in a hurry to come up.

5)

(a) During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, we say 'ha'Melech ha'Kadosh', instead of 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh'; and instead of 'Melech Ohev Tzedakah u'Mishpat', 'ha'Melech ha'Mishpat'. The reason for this is because, during these days Hashem demonstrates His Sovereignty, when He judges the world.

(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "va'Yigbah Hashem Tzevakos ba'Mishpat, ve'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh Nikdash bi'Tzedakah", that even during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, when Hashem judges the world, we should still say 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh'. (His opinion, though, is not Halachah - even Bedieved).

(a) We learn from Shmuel ha'Navi's words ("Gam Anochi, Chalilah Li mei'Chato la'Hashem" etc.) that it is sinful to fail to pray for a fellow Jew who needs help, if one is able to do so.

(b) And from David ha'Melech's "Gam ba'Chalosam Levushi Sak", we learn that when a Talmid-Chacham (such as Do'eg and Achitofel, to whom David was referring) is in trouble, Davening alone is insufficient, but that one should actually become ill with worry.

(c) We cannot derive this from King Shaul's complaint (that nobody seemed to become ill over his troubles), because maybe that applies only to a King, but not to anybody else.

(a) King Shaul was too ashamed to mention the fact that he had not been answered through the Urim ve'Tumim, because he had a guilty conscience for having killed the Kohanim of Nov (which was possibly why he had not been answered by the Urim ve'Tumim). That is why Shmuel told him that on the following day, he and his sons would be with him (Shmuel) - in Gan Eden. From here we learn that someone who is ashamed of his sins, is forgiven.

(b) Hashem did indeed, tell Yisrael the same thing; However that may well aaply exclusively to Klal Yisrael as a whole, but not necessarily to an individual - for which we therefore need another Pasuk.

(c) "u'Machar Ata ... Imi" ' 'Imi, bi'Mechitzasi', meaning that, despite Shaul's sin of the killing the city of Nov, he was forgiven, and would go straight to Gan Eden, to join Shmuel there.
And the proof from the Pasuk "ve'Hoka'anum la'Hashem be'Giv'as Shaul, Bechir Hashem", is from the final two words, which were pronounced by Hashem - proving that Hashem had forgiven Shaul for his sin - because of his embarrassment.

(a) Both the Parshah of Ribis and that of weights and measures contain mention of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, and might possibly have been chosen to fulfill the Mitzvah of mentioning Yetzi'as Mitzrayim daily.

(b) Parshas Balak mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim; but besides that, it also contains the Pasuk "Kara, Shachav ka'Ari" which refers to Yisrael, who do not go to bed without reading the Shema (which protects them - like a lion), and "u'che'Lavi, Mi Yekimenu" (which refers to Yisrael's recital of the Shema as soon as they get up in the morning - and again, the Shema protects them - like a lioness).

(c) Chazal did not include this Pasuk in our daily Davening, because of the length of the Parshah, which would be a 'Tirchah de'Tzibura' to say every day.

(d) They could not insert the one Pasuk, since one is not permitted to break up any Parshah that Moshe Rabeinu did not break up.

(a) Parshas Tzitzis contains (besides the Mitzvah of Tzitzis) 1. The Exodus from Egypt; 2. The yoke of Mitzvos; 3. 'Da'as Minim' (heretics); 4. Thoughts of sin (of a sexual nature); 5. Thoughts of idolatry.

(b) From "Acharei Levavchem", we learn the prohibition of Da'as Minim, and from "Acharei Eineichem", thoughts of sin. Whereas "Asher Atem Zonim Achareihem" refers to idolatrous thoughts.

(a) Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya ultimately quoted Ben Zoma, who learns the obligation to mention the Exodus from Egypt from "Le'ma'an Tizkor es Yom Tzeischa Mei'Eretz Mitzrayim *Kol* Yemei Chayecha" - "Kol" comes to include the night-time.

(b) When Yirmiyah talks of not speaking about the Exodus from Egypt, he does not mean that it is taboo, but that the mention of the miracles of Egypt will be secondary - because the miracles of Egypt themselves will be so overshadowed by the new miracles, that they will become secondary to them.

(c) A similar thought is expressed in connection with the changing of Ya'akov Avinu's name, where the Torah writes that he should no longer be called Ya'akov but Yisrael. This does not mean that it is forbidden to call Yisrael, Ya'akov, but that Yisrael is the main name, Ya'akov the secondary one. In fact, Hashem Himself indicated this, by calling Yisrael 'Ya'akov' when he was on his way down to Egypt, after having stated the above Pasuk, which seemingly forbids this.