Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PARSHAH IN SEFER YEHOSHUA

(a) (Rav Chama bar Chanina): The Parshah of Arei Miklat was said to Yehoshua in a harsh language ("*Va'Ydaber* Hash-m...", in the rest of Yehoshua it says "Va'Yomer Hash-m") because it is a Mitzvah of the Torah.

1. Question: Does this imply that va'Ydaber is a harsh language?
2. Answer: Yes - "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos".
3. Question (Beraisa): "Nidberu" (those who fear Hash-m spoke with each other) - this is a gentle language, "Yadber Amim Tachteinu".
4. Answer: Daber (or va'Ydaber) is harsh, Yadber (or Nidberu) is soft.

(b) R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about Rav Chama bar Chanina's teaching, one of them learned like him;

1. The other says, it was said in a harsh language because Yehoshua delayed fulfilling it until Hash-m told him.

(c) (R. Yehudah or R. Nechemyah): "Va'Yichtov Yehoshua Es ha'Devarim ha'Eleh b'Sefer Toras Elokim" - this refers to the last eight verses of the Torah (that discuss Moshe's death);
(d) (The other of R. Yehudah and R. Nechemyah): It refers to the Parshah of Arei Miklat.
(e) Question: According to the first opinion, we understand why it says "b'Sefer Toras Elokim";

1. But according to the second opinion, how do we understand this?

(f) Answer: It means, Yehoshua wrote in his Sefer these matters that are (also) written in Sefer Toras Elokim.
(g) (R. Yehudah or R. Meir): If (the parchments of) a Sefer were sewn with flax, it is Kosher;
(h) (The other of R. Yehudah and R. Meir): It is Pasul;

1. Regarding Tefilin it says "Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha", the entire Torah is equated to Tefilin - a tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that Tefilin must be sewn with sinews, the same applies to Torah.
2. The other opinion says, they are equated regarding laws we expound from the verse, e.g. we must use something Mutar l'Ficha (permitted to your mouth, to exclude Tamei animals), not for Halachos known only through tradition.

(i) Rav: I saw R. Chiya's Tefilin (Ritva - no one argues about Tefilin, the text should say 'Seforim'), they were sewn with flax;

1. The Halachah does not follow R. Chiya.

(a) (Mishnah): A murderer's exile ends when any Kohen Gadol dies, whether the Kohen was Mashu'ach (anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah), or (was not anointed with oil, rather by) Merubah Begadim (wearing the extra garments of a Kohen Gadol), or Mashu'ach she'Avar (one who once substituted for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, and ceased to serve when the (regular) Kohen Gadol returned);
(b) R. Yehudah says, even if the Mashu'ach Milchamah (who speaks to the soldiers going to war) died, the exile ends.
(c) Therefore, the mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim give food and clothing to the exiles, in order that the exiles will not pray for a Kohen Gadol to die.
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(e) Answer (Rav Kahana): We learn about three Kohanim Gedolim from three verses - "Va'Yashav Bah Ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol", "V'Ir Miklato Yeshev Ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol", and "Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol Yashuv";

1. R. Yehudah learns a fourth from "V'Lo Sikchu Chofer Lanus El Ir Miklato... Ad Mos ha'Kohen".
2. Chachamim say, since that verse does not say Kohen *Gadol*, it refers to one of the other three Kohanim Gedolim.

(f) Version #1 (Mishnah): Therefore, the mothers...
(g) Question: This implies that if the exiles would pray for a Kohen Gadol to die, he would die - but it says "Kilelas Chinam Lo Savo" (the Kohen is innocent, Hash-m will not kill him just because murderers pray for this)!
(h) Answer (An elder that learned from Rava): The Kohanim Gedolim are responsible, they should have prayed that there would be no accidental murders.
(i) Version #2: (An alternative text of the Mishnah): Therefore, the mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim give food and clothing to the exiles, in order that the exiles will pray that the Kohen Gadol should live.
(j) Question: This implies that if the exiles would not pray for him to live, he would die - the Kohen is blameless!

1. Version #2A (Chachamim of Bavel): If Tuvya sinned, should Zigud (someone else) be lashed?!
2. Version #2B (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If Shechem took Dinah, should Migavai (someone of his city, who did not benefit from this,) have to circumcise himself?!

(k) Answer (An elder that learned from Rava): The Kohanim Gedolim are responsible, they should have prayed that there would be no accidental murders.

1. A man was eaten by a lion three Parsa'os from R. Yehoshua ben Levi; Eliyahu did not speak with him for three days.

(l) (Rav Yehudah): The curse of a Chacham is fulfilled, even if it was unjustified - we learn from Achitofel.

1. When David was digging the foundations for the Mikdash, water came gushing from below, it was threatening to flood the world. David asked if it is permitted to write Hash-m's name on pottery and drop it on the source of the water (which might cause His name to be erased), in order to stop the water; no one answered him.
2. David: If anyone knows and does not answer, he should be choked!
3. Achitofel judged a Kal va'Chomer: Hash-m allows his name to be erased to permit a Sotah to her husband - all the more so, in order to save the world! He told David, who did so and stopped the water.

i. Nevertheless, the curse was fulfilled - "Va'Achitofel...va'Yechanek"

(m) (R. Avahu): The curse of a Chacham is fulfilled, even if it was conditional (and the condition was not fulfilled) - we learn from Eli:

1. Eli told Shmuel "Ko Ya'aseh Lecha Elokim...Im Techached Mimeni Davar";
2. Even though Shmuel told him everything, "Va'Yaged Lo Chiched Mimenu", the curse came true, Shmuel's children went astray - "V'Lo Holchu Vanav bi'Drachav".

(n) (Rav Yehudah): Niduy (excommunication), even if it was conditional (and the condition was not fulfilled) must be annulled - we learn from Yehudah - "Im Lo Havi'osiv (...v'Chatasi Lecha Kol ha'Yamim)".

1. (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): "Yechi Reuven v'Al Yamos...V'Zos li'Yehudah" - all 40 years in the Midbar, Yehudah's bones were dissembled in his coffin (because of the Niduy he accepted on himself) until Moshe prayed for him;

i. Moshe: It was Yehudah who (by his admission regarding Tamar) caused Reuven to admit (regarding Bilhah)!
ii. "Shma Hash-m Kol Yehudah" - his bones assembled, but he could not enter the Heavenly Yeshivah.
iii. "V'El Amo Tevi'enu" - (he entered), but could not understand and debate with the Rabanan.
iv. "Yadav Rav Lo" - he could argue with them, but he did not merit that the law is as him.
v. "V'Ezer mi'Tzarav Tihyeh" - he merited that the law is as him.

(o) Question: Does exile end when all the Kohanim Gedolim die, or when even one of them dies?
(p) Answer (Mishnah): If he was sentenced to Galus when there was no (Rashi - Mashu'ach) Kohen Gadol, he never leaves.

1. We do not say that he can go free if one of the others dies!

(q) Rejection: The Mishnah means, he was sentenced when there was not any Kohen Gadol

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven was sentenced and then the Kohen Gadol died, he does not go to Galus;

1. If the Kohen Gadol died, another was appointed and then Reuven was sentenced, his Galus ends when the new Kohen Gadol dies.

(b) If he was sentenced to Galus when there was no Kohen Gadol, or if he killed the Kohen Gadol, or if the Kohen Gadol killed, he never leaves.
(c) A murderer may not leave his Ir Miklat to testify about a Mitzvah, money or a capital case;
(d) Even if Yisrael needs him, even a head of the army like Yo'av, he may not leave;

1. "Asher Nas Shamah" - he will live, die and be buried there (it says 'Shamah' three times).

(e) Just as the city is Kolet, also its Techum (the surrounding 2000 Amos).
(f) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if a murderer left the Techum, it is a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him, anyone else is permitted;
(g) R. Akiva says, the Go'el ha'Dam is permitted to kill him, anyone else is (Gra's text - not) liable if he kills him;
(h) (Gemara) Question: What is the reason (for the first law of the Mishnah)?
(i) Answer (Abaye): A Kal va'Chomer teaches this:

1. Someone who already went to Galus goes free (when the Kohen Gadol dies) - all the more so, someone who did not go yet, he does not go!
2. Question: Perhaps someone who already went goes free because he received atonement, someone who did not go yet must go to get atonement!
3. Answer: (Tosfos - regarding exemption from Galus,) the death of the Kohen is the atonement, not Galus.

(j) (Mishnah): If (a new Kohen Gadol was appointed) before Reuven was sentenced...
(k) Question: What is the source of this?
(l) Answer (Rav Kahana): "...Ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol Asher Mashach Oso b'Shemen ha'Kodesh";

1. Question: The murderer did not anoint the Kohen!
2. Answer: It refers to a Kohen Gadol who was anointed in his time (before he was sentenced).

(m) Question: (We deduced above that if the murderer would pray for the Kohen Gadol to die, he would, for he should have prayed that there will not be accidental murders -) if the Kohen Gadol was appointed after the murder, what did he do wrong?
(n) Answer: He should have prayed that the Sanhedrin would exempt the murderer from Galus.
(o) (Abaye): If the murderer was sentenced and died, we bury his bones in an Ir Miklat - "Lashuv *Lasheves ba'Aretz* Ad Mos ha'Kohen" refers to burial;
(p) (Beraisa): If the murderer died (and was buried in his Ir Miklat) and then the Kohen Gadol died, we take his bones and bury them near his family's burial place - "Yashuv ha'Rotze'ach El *Eretz Achuzaso*", this refers to burial.
(q) (R. Ami or R. Yitzchak Nafcha): If the murderer was sentenced and then the Kohen Gadol was found to be a Ben Gerushah or Ben Chalutzah, it is as if the Kohen died (Ritva - his pain at being removed atones like death);
(r) (The other of R. Ami and R. Yitzchak Nafcha): It is as if he never was Kohen Gadol (the murderer may never leave the Ir Miklat). (Seemingly, the argument does not apply to Ben Chalutzah (it was only said Agav), for mid'Oraisa he is a valid Kohen. Or, perhaps it does apply - his appointment is retroactively invalid (it was a mistake), or his removal causes pain like death - Si'ach Yitzchak).
(s) Suggestion: The first opinion holds like R. Yehoshua, the second opinion holds like R. Eliezer:

1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A Kohen was offering Korbanos, he was found to be a Ben Gerushah or Ben Chalutzah - the Korbanos he offered are invalid;
2. R. Yehoshua says, they are valid.

(t) Rejection: Indeed, the first opinion cannot hold like R. Eliezer; but the second opinion could hold like R. Yehoshua:

1. R. Yehoshua learns from "Barech Hash-m Cheilo u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh", the Avodah of Chalalim is acceptable (b'Diavad), but in other respects, he is not a Kohen.