Previous daf

1)

(a) Eliyahu (who used to learn with Rav Anan Seider d'Eliyahu) stopped visiting him - because he was responsible for the Takalah that occurred when he sent the man to Rav Nachman (perhaps he should have informed Rav Nachman why he sent him), or because he accepted the fish.

(b) To make him come back - Rav Anan Davened and fasted.

(c) From that time on - Rav Anan was afraid to stand before Eliyahu, so he made himself a cubicle inside which he stood whenever Eliyahu learned with him.

(d) What Eliyahu taught Rav Anan when he stood - outside the cubicle was called 'Seider d'Eliyahu Rabah'; inside the cubicle, 'Seider d'Eliyahu Zuta' (see also Tosfos DH 've'Haynu').

(a) When the Rabbanan asked Rav Yosef to Daven for them - he declined on the grounds that if Elisha, who was left with two thousand, two hundred Talmidim to look after at a time of Divine anger, refused to do so, how could he (who had only four hundred Talmidim, as we shall see shortly) do so?

(b) We learn from the Pasuk, which describes how Elisha gave twenty loaves, one Bikurim-bread and one bread made from fresh parched corn, to a hundred men - that he had two thousand, two hundred men to feed in time of draught (a hundred men for each loaf).

(c) The Pasuk cannot mean a total of a hundred men (as it appears to be saying) - because it is not feasible that only a hundred men would come to him for assistance when there was such a severe draught.

(a) Twelve hundred men remained at Rav Huna's table after he concluded his D'rashah - which was conveyed to the public by thirteen Amora'im.

(b) They knew in Eretz Yisrael whenever Rav Huna's D'rashah terminated - because of the tremendous amount of dust that rose when the Talmidim shook the coats (on which they had presumably been sitting), causing the sky to become overcast, which could be seen as far away as Eretz Yisrael.

(c) After the D'rashah of Rabah and Rav Yosef, four hundred remained at their table. Those Talmidim referred to themselves as - Yesomim (in view of the relatively small numbers, compared to the earlier generations).

(d) After the D'rashah of Abaye (Rav Papa or Rav Ashi) - two hundred Talmidim remained. *They* referred to themselves as 'Yasmi de'Yasmi'.

(a) The following four - all receive their remuneration from the Terumas ha'Lishkah: the blemish- inspectors in Yerushalayim (Rav Yitzchak bar Redifa Amar Rav [or Rebbi] Ami); the Talmidei-Chachamim who taught the Kohanim the Dinim of Shechitah (Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel), and those who taught them the Dinim of Kemitzah (Rav Gidal Amar Rav); those who corrected the Sefarim in Yerushalayim (Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) We just referred to those who corrected Sefarim in Yerushalayim. By 'Sefarim' - we mean people's private Sifrei Torah (or Tenachim - all in scroll form), because it is forbidden to retain Sefarim which contain mistakes in one's house.

(c) According to Rav Nachman Amar Rav, the women who wove the curtains (in the Beis-Hamikdash) belong in the previous group too, since they were also paid from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. Rav Nachman himself says - that they were paid from Bedek ha'Bayis (since the curtains were considered to be part of the actual building).

(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, the women who wove the curtains, as well as the families of Beis Garmu (who prepared the Lechem ha'Panim) and Beis Avtinas (who prepared the Ketores) - got paid from Terumas ha'Lishkah.

(b) Rav Nachman explains - that the Tana of that Beraisa is referring to the seven gates that served purely to divide between the different sections of the Beis-Hamikdash (for Tz'niyus), whereas *he* was referring to the four curtains that divided between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodshim (in the second Beis Hamikdash), and which actually served as substitutes for the missing section of wall.

(c) The four curtains that replaced the building - were the two between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodshim (also known as between the Heichal and the D'vir) below and the two which served the same purpose one floor higher, in the attic.

(d) There were four curtains and not just two - because in the first Beis-Hamikdash there had been a wall one Amah thick dividing between the Kodesh ad the Kodesh Kodshim. For technical reasons however, it was not possible to build a wall there in the second Beis-Hamikdash. Consequently, since they did not know whether the Amah that had been taken up by the wall had the Kedushah of the Kodesh or of the Kodesh Kodshim, they had no option but to put up two curtains, with the space of an Amah in between.

(a) According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the women who 'reared their children for the Parah' would also get paid from the T'rumas ha'Lishkah. These children were born in special courtyards built in rocks on top of archways so that there could be no graves beneath them. They subsequently grew up in an environment where they would not become Tamei Meis, and would later help prepare the Parah Adumah be'Taharah.

(b) This was necessary to counter the leniency of specifically preparing the ashes of the Parah Adumah through a Kohen who was a T'vul-Yom (which in turn, they did to counter the Tzedokim, in whose opinion this was forbidden).

(c) According to Aba Shaul - it was the wealthy women of Yerushalayim who used to sustain the women who 'reared their children for the Parah', and not the Terumas ha'Lishkah funds.

7)

(a) When Rav Huna asked Rav whether the K'lei Shares were manufactured from the money of Bedek ha'Bayis or from the Terumas ha'Lishkah - he was referring to the K'lei Shares of the Mizbei'ach ha'Chitzon (ha'Olah), which was made of stones and was considered a building. Consequently, the K'lei Shareis that served it might be paid from Bedek ha'Bayis (which was essentially a building-fund). Alternatively, it might come out of Terumas ha'Lishkah, since the K'lei Shareis were used in connection with the Korbanos.

(b) When Rav Huna quoted him a Pasuk from Divrei Hayamim, which writes that Bedek ha'Bayis money was to be used to manufacture the K'lei Shareis - Rav replied that whoever had taught him Kesuvim (meaning Divrei Hayamim), had apparently not taught him Nevi'im, because there is a Pasuk in Melachim which specifically writes that Bedek-ha'Bayis money was not to be used to obtain K'lei Shareis.

(c) Rav reconciled the two Pesukim - by establishing that the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim speaks when Bedek-ha'Bayis money was left over, and that in Melachim, when they want to use it Lechatchilah for that purpose.

(d) Despite the fact that we consider the K'lei Shareis as pertaining to the Korbanos rather than to the Mizbei'ach, one is nevertheless permitted to use money that was collected for Bedek ha'Bayis to obtain them - because of the principle 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihem' (meaning that Beis-Din made a stipulation that whatever was left-over should be used for the K'lei Shareis).

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael (corroborating Rav's previous statement, though disagreeing with his interpretation of the Pasuk) learns from the Pasuk " ... Heivi'u Lifnei ha'Melech vi'Yehoyada es Sha'ar ha'Kesef, Vaya'aseihu Keilim le'Beis Hashem" that the K'lei Shareis were made from Terumas ha'Lishkah - because "Sha'ar ha'Kesef" implies money that has leftovers (which fits the description of the money of Terumas ha'Lishkah), from which they deliberately only took some.

(b) That Pasuk cannot however, mean that they used the actual leftovers of the Terumas ha'Lishkah (rather than the original money in the boxes - because "*ha*'Kesef" implies the first money, just like "ha'Olah" in Pinchas (as we shall now see).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Arach Alehah *ha'Olah*" - that the Korban Tamid shel Shachar was the first Korban to be brought on the Mizbei'ach each day, and that no Korban was permitted to precede it.

(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that the Ketores and all the Korbanos came from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. According to this Tana, they funded ...

1. ... the Mizbei'ach ha'Zahav, the Levonah and the K'lei Shareis - from Mosar Nesachim.
2. ... the Mizbei'ach ha'Olah, the rooms surrounding the Beis Hamikdash and the Azaros - from Bedek ha'Bayis.
3. ... the Ezras Nashim, the Chil, the walls of Yerushalayim and its towers - from Mosar Terumas ha'Lishkah (the money that remained in the large boxes in the Azarah after they had taken from them for the Korbanos).

(b) The Mosar Nesachim might mean the extra flour that the seller would heap onto the pile that he was selling to the Beis-Hamikdash - or it might mean the difference between the original contract and the current price, should the price of flour rise (from four Sa'ah per Sela to three - in which case, whoever undertook to provide flour for the Menachos, would continue to provide four per Sela), leaving them with an extra Sa'ah for each Sela.

(c) Rav reconciles his opinion (that the K'lei Shareis came from the Terumas ha'Lishkah) with this Beraisa - by establishing a Machlokes Tana'im (and he follows the opinion of the other Tana - as we shall now see).

(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Shekalim rules that they would use Mosar Terumah to overlay the floor and the walls of the Kodesh Kodshim. 'Mosar Terumah' - was money left in the boxes after Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which heralded the new year for Korbanos.

(b) According to Rebbi Yishmael, 'Mosar Peiros le'Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach, Mosar Terumah li'K'lei Shareis'. 'Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach' - is the name given to Olos that they purchased and sacrificed on the Mizbei'ach, whenever no other sacrifices were being brought (particularly during the long summer months - hence the name) so that the Mizbei'ach should not be idle. This was the only public Korban Nedavah.

(c) Rebbi Akiva Omer, 'Mosar Terumah, le'Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach ... . Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim Omer, 'Mosar Nesachim le'Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach ... '.

1. Rebbi Akiva says - 'Mosar Nesachim li'K'lei Shareis'.
2. Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim says - 'Mosar Terumah, li'K'lei Shareis'.

(d) 'Mosar Peiros' mentioned by Rebbi Yishmael - refers to the fruit that they would purchase with money that was ultimately left in the boxes, and sell it to make a profit on behalf of Hekdesh.

(a) Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim - disagree with the very concept of Peiros. According to them, they did not purchase Peiros, because it is the not the done thing for Hekdesh to look for a supplementary income).

(b) This was not done with money belonging to ...

1. ... Hekdesh - because of the principle 'Ein Aniyus be'Makom Ashirus' (it is not becoming for a wealthy institution like Hekdesh to look for ways and means to make a supplementary income, in the way that poor people do).
2. ... the poor (with funds collected for them) - because it may happen that a poor man comes for Tzedakah, and there is nothing to give him, because the money in the kitty is being invested.