Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yitzchak heard that one is permitted to sacrifice in Beis Chonyo nowadays. Chonyo, one of the sons of Shimon ha'Tzadik, went to Egypt and built a Bamah there, when, after his father's death, his brother was appointed to the position of Kohen Gadol. The Bamah (according to some opinions) was built for the sake of Hashem, and not of idolatry (though this too was forbidden, since everyone agreed that, as long as the Beis-Hamikdash was standing, Bamos were forbidden).

(b) Rav Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah ve'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 Shiloh, so too did they become permitted after the destruction of Yerushalayim.

(c) When Rav Yitzchak denied having made such a statement - Rava swore that he did, and that he personally had learned it from him.

(d) 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.

(a) We answer the Kashyos on Rav 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 indeed - 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 entering the space of the Heichal); whereas when they put up the Azarah, they put them up at the most outermost point, working from the inside.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua permitted bringing sacrifices even though there was no Beis Hamikdash, eating Kodshei Kodshim even though there were no curtains around the area of the Heichal, and eating Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini even though there was no wall around Yerushalayim - because the Kedushah with which Yehoshua sanctified Yerushalayim was permanent (and did not fall away after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash).

(b) We initially explain Rebbi Eliezer - to mean that they put up the hangings as part of the sanctification procedure (because *he* holds that the original Kedushah fell away at the time of the destruction).

(c) We conclude that Rebbi Eliezer also agrees that the initial Kedushah remained even after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash (in which case, it was not necessary to put up the curtains) - and the reason that they did was for reasons of Tz'ni'us (as the Navi Michah wrote "ve'Hatznei'a Leches im Elokecha").

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi says that the nine towns that are listed in the Mishnah in Erchin - were the only towns to have been sanctified, because they were the ones that the returning exiles came across when they returned; but all the other towns, whose sanctity had fallen away with the destruction of Yerushalayim, remained un-sanctified (regarding the Dinim of Batei Arei Chomah). Clearly, he is the Tana who holds that the original Kedushah of Yerushalayim fell away with the destruction of the Beis-Hamikdash, and is the source of Rav Yitzchak.

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi wonders why only nine towns are listed, and concludes that, in reality, all the towns that were walled in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun were automatically sanctified, and that they mentioned these nine only because they are the ones that they happened to have come across.

(c) Having just said that towns that were known to have been walled in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun were automatically sanctified, how can Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi then say 'Matz'u Eilu *ve'Kidshum*'? He must therefore have meant to say 'Matz'u Eilu *u'Man'um*'.

(d) One way to reconcile the two contradictory statements of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi. The alternative - is to establish the author of the latter Beraisa as being *Rebbi* Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi (who said in another Beraisa that any city surrounded by a wall in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun is considered a walled city even though its wall no longer exists - though this proof is unclear).

5)

(a) We initially believe that every "va'Yehi" in T'nach is a Lashon of pain or suffering.
The suffering that is hinted in the Pasuk ...

1. ... "va'Yehi Ish Echad min ha'Ramasayim" - is that his favorite wife Chanah, could have no children.
2. ... "va'Yehi Ki Zakein Shmuel" - that his sons did not follow in his footsteps.
3. ... "va'Yehi David le'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 be'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 "va'Yehi" denotes suffering) however, from three sources: from the day on which the Beis Hamikdash was completed and from the occasion when Ya'akov first saw Rachel (with regard to both of which the Torah uses the Lashon "va'Yehi", even though there is no hint of suffering). The third disproof is from a series of occasions where the Torah uses the Lashon "va'Yehi" no less than six times - that series of occasions comprises the creation of the world, where the Torah writes six times "va'Yehi Erev va'Yehi Voker ... "Yom Echad", Yom Sheini", "Yom Sh'lishi" ...

(a) We therefore amend the original statement to read - that every case of "va'Yehi bi'Yemei" denotes suffering.

(b)

1. "va'Yehi bi'Yemei Achashveirosh" - is followed by the threat from Haman.
2. "va'Yehi bi'Yemei Sh'fot ha'Shoftim" - by a bitter famine.
3. "va'Yehi bi'Yemei Amrafel" - heralds the first major war.
4. "va'Yehi bi'Yemei Achaz" - is followed by Yisrael joining forces with Syria against Yehudah.
5. "va'Yehi bi'Yemei Yehoyakim" - by mention of the forthcoming Galus.

(a) Amotz and Amatzyah were brothers (the former, father of Yeshayah, the latter, King of Yisrael).

(b) Rebbi Levi (who is also the author of the previous Sugya) 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 (like Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini quoting Rebbi Yonasan, with regard 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.

(c) He interprets the Pasuk in va'Yeishev "va'Yir'ehah Yehudah va'Yachshvehah le'Zonah Ki Chis'sah Panehah" - to mean that Yehudah did not recognize Tamar because she used to keep her face covered whenever she was in his house. Otherwise, if we try to understand the Pasuk literally, why would Yehudah have taken her for a prostitute just because she covered her face?

(a) Rebbi Levi's next statement is substantiated by a Beraisa. In the first Beis Hamikdash there was a distance of ten Amos from the Aron to the wall of the Kodesh Kodashim. The Kodesh Kodashim was twenty Amos by twenty Amos - in which case the Aron took up no space. Note: The Gemara's proof from the wing of the Cherub is unclear - see Bava Basra 99a. and the Rashbam there).

(b) The 'D'vir' is - the wall that divided between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim.

(a) Rebbi Yonasan would begin his Purim Derashah with the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Kamti Aleihem ... ve'Hichrati le'Bavel Sheim, u'She'er ve'Nin ve'Neched".

1. "Sheim" - refers to the script.
2. "She'er" - to the language.
3. "Nin" - to sovereignty.
4. "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 ... " ...

1. ... "ha'Na'atzutz", according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini - refers to Haman ha'Rasha, who made himself into an Avodah-Zarah (which, in another Pasuk in Yeshayah, is referred to as "ha'Na'atzutzim".
2. ... "B'rosh" - to Mordechai, who is called ('Rosh') head of all the Besamim.
3. ... "ve'Sachas *ha'Sirpad*" - refers to Vashti, the daughter of the son of the man (Achashveirosh) who burned the covering of the Beis-Hamikdash ('Refidaso shel Beis Hashem').
4. ... "Ya'aleh *Hadas*" - to Esther, who was called Hadasah.

(c) Mordechai is called the head of the Besamim because of the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "ve'Atah Kach Lecha Besamim Rosh *Mor Deror*" - which Targum translates as 'Meira Dachya' (an obvious reference to Mordechai).

(d)

1. "ve'Hayah Hashem le'Sheim" - refers to Mikra Megilah.
2. "le'Os Olam Lo Yikareis" - to the days of Purim.

(a) Vashti was the granddaughter of Nevuchadnetzar (Belshatztar's sister or cousin).

(b) The Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Hayah Ka'asher Sas Hashem Aleichem le'Heitiv Eschem, Kein Yasis le'Hara Eschem". We decline to explain the Pasuk in its simplest sense (that Hashem will rejoice in performing evil with you), based partially on the Pasuk in Beshalach "ve'Lo Karav Zeh el Zeh Kol ha'Laylah" - which we Darshen as if it was written "ve'Lo *Kara* Zeh el Zeh Kol ha'Laylah". The angels wanted to sing Shirah the night that the Egyptians drowned, but Hashem stopped them: "the Work of My Hands are drowning in the Sea, and you will sing Shirah"! From here we learn that Hashem does not rejoice when the people that He created have to be killed - even if it is the wicked nations of the world, who are not called His children, how much more so K'lal Yisrael, who are!

(c) 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 ... .

(d) 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".

(a) The Pasuk writes "le'Adam she'Tov Lefanav Nasan Chochmah ve'Da'as ve'Simchah" - with reference to Mordechai ha'Tzadik.

(b) The next phrase in the Pasuk "u'le'Chotei Nasan Inyan le'Esof ve'Lichnos" - refers to Haman.

(c) The Pasuk concludes "la'Ses la'Tov Lifnei ha'Elokim" - which refers to Esther's placing of Haman's estate under the jurisdiction of Mordechai.

(a) The Pasuk in Yirmiyah says "ve'Samti Kis'i be'Eilam, ve'Ha'avadti mi'Sham Melech ve'Sarim". Rabah bar Ofran explains ...

1. ... "Melech" - to mean Vashti.
2. ... "ve'Sarim" - Haman and his ten sons.

(b) According to Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak - the Pasuk in Ezra "Ki Avadim Anachnu, u've'Avduseinu Lo Azavnu Elokeinu, va'Yeit Aleinu Chesed Lifnei Malchei Paras" refers to the time of Haman.