Previous daf

1)

(a) Having established two rows of tables, we initially think that Moshe's Shulchan was placed - in between the two rows, and parallel to them.

(b) The Kohanim carrying the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim required - two and a half Amos to pass as they walked side by side.

(c) The problem with that, according to Rebbi is - that seeing as the tables were arranged from east to west, the two and a half Amos between the northern wall and the first row of tables, plus the space between Moshe's Shulchan and the row of tables on either said, plus the three Amos of the width of the three tables, adds up to ten and a half Amos, which means that half an Amah of the second row of tables was placed in the southern half of the Heichal?

(d) We cannot ask this Kashya on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon too, that it is not possible to fit five tables (ten Amos) into the north side of the Heichal without the tables entering a little into the south - because, seeing as it is a matter of not more than a Tefach, it doesn't really matter.

(a) We answer the Kashya - by placing Moshe's Shulchan outside the two rows on the west, but nevertheless parallel to them (as is evident from Rashi in the next Mishnah).

(b) And when we describe the other tables 'ke'Talmid ha'Yoshev Lifnei Rabbo' - we mean that like a Talmid sits lower than his Rebbe, so too, were the two rows of tables lower than that of Moshe (because the Beis-Hamikdash tended to rise with the incline of the mountains, as one moved westwards [see Rashash]).

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ..."ve'es ha'Shulchan Asher Alav Lechem ha'Panim" - that only the Shulchan of Moshe actually had loaves on it.
2. ... "Menoras ha'Zahav ve'Nerosehah Leva'er ba'Erev" - that only Moshe's Menorah was actually lit.

(b) What does Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua learn from the Pesukim there "es ha'Shulchanos ve'Aleihem Lechem" and "es ha'Menoros ve'Neroseihem Leva'aram ka'Mishpat ... " - that all the Shulchanos and all the Menoros were used, sometimes this one, sometimes that one.

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah concurs with the Tana Kama regarding the tables. He establishes the Pasuk "es ha'Shulchanos va'Aleihem Lechem" - with regard to 'the three tables in the Mikdash', two in the Ulam (which we are about to discuss), and the one in the Heichal that Moshe made.

(a) The Kohanim placed the Lechem ha'Panim on one of the tables in the Ulam in the process of carrying them into the Heichal - in order to take a momentary rest.

(b) Despite the fact that the Shulchan on which they placed it was made of marble (as we shall see in the next Mishnah), the Beraisa refers to it as a silver table - because white marble resembles silver.

(c) When they carried the loaves out to distribute them among the Kohanim, they placed them on the golden Shulchan that was lying there - to delay the distribution until the Bazichin were brought on the Mizbe'ach. (d) We learn from the Lechem ha'Panim the principle of ...

1. ... 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh' - from the fact that they removed the loaves from the marble table and placed them on to a golden one.
2. ... 've'Lo Moridin' - from the fact that, after removing the loaves from the golden Shulchan, they did not put them down on to the marble table in the Ulam (where they had already lain previously), but on to the golden table there.

(a) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "Va'yakem Moshe es ha'Mishkan, Va'yiten es Adanav, Va'yasem es Kerashav, Va'yiten es Berichav, Va'yakem es Amudav" - 've'Ein Moridin' (either because both the beginning and the end of the Pasuk mention 'setting up' (implying 'up' and not down), or because once Moshe began erecting the Mishkan, he did not permit anybody else to assist him, or because he first put up the Mishkan (i.e. the bottom curtains), and then, when putting up the pillars and the sockets, he did not put them down, but continued to hold them).

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the fire-pans of Korach the principle of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh - from the fact that first Korach and his men declared them 'Tashmishei Mizbe'ach' (accessories of the Mizbe'ach), and later Moshe made them part of the Mizbe'ach itself.

(c) And the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk "Asher Shibarta Ve'samtam ba'Aron" - that the broken Luchos, as well as the whole ones, were placed inside the Aron.

(d) The Tana learns from there - that one is forbidden to despise a Talmid-Chacham who forgot his learning be'O'nes.

6)

(a) The Torah could have written 'she'Shibarta'. We therefore Darshen from the word "Asher" - that Hashem was actually thanking Moshe for breaking them ('Yeyasher Kochacha she'Shibarta').

(b) Resh Lakish learns from there - that sometimes 'nullifying something is necessary for its fulfillment.

(c) And from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'chashalta ha'Yom, Ve'chashal Navi Gam Imach Laylah" he learns - that if a Talmid-Chacham goes astray, one should not denigrate him in public. He explains the word "Laylah" to mean that one should cover his evil deeds from the public eye like the dark of night.
2. ... (in connection with Torah-study) "Rak Hishamer Lecha u'Shemor Nafshecha Me'od" - that someone who forgets even one word of his learning, transgresses a La'av.

(d) This is based on a statement by Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'a, who stated - that the words "Hishamer", "Pen" and "Al" all constitute a La'av.

(a)

1. Ravina learns from the fact that the Torah writes both "Hishamer" and "Pen" - that someone who forgets what he has learned transgresses, not just one La'av, but two ...
2. ... whereas according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, based on the Torah's three expressions "Rak Hishamer Lecha, u'Shemor Nafshecha Me'od, Pen Tishkach" - three.

(b) They learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "u'Fen Yasuru mi'Levavcha" - that one only transgresses if one behaved in a way that caused one to forget one's learning (but not if one forgot be'O'nes).

(c) Rebbi Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai adds (based on the opening word "Rak") - that if he forgot because he was unable to establish what he learned (e.g. he could not grasp what he had learned), he is Patur.

(a) Torah and the Neshamah (i.e. the formation of the baby) have in common - the fact that one of them was given, the other, formed, in forty days.

(b) Based on this fact, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar issued a statement - that anyone who guards the Torah, will merit that G-d will guard his soul; (and conversely, someone who does not, will not).

(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael draws an analogy with someone who handed a wild bird to his Eved which he instructed him to guard. And he told the Eved, who thought that if the bird flew away, he would pay his master the small value of the bird - that this was not the case, but that he would have to pay for the bird with his life.

(a) The Mishnah discusses the two tables in the Ulam (which we have already alluded to, and) - which were placed next to the entrance to the 'Bayis' (i.e. the Heichal).

(b) Four Kohanim entered the Heichal on Shabbos afternoon to change the Lechem ha'Panim - two of them holding the two rows of loaves, the other two, the Bazichin.

(c) Four other Kohanim preceded them empty-handed - to remove last week's loaves from the Shulchan.

(d) When they arrived at the Shulchan - those with the new loaves stood on the north side, whilst those who removed the old loaves stood on the south. The author of the Mishnah is - Rebbi, who holds that the tables were arranged from east to west, in which case the two sides of their width faced north and south.

(a) Bearing in mind the need to adhere to the specification of "Tamid", which the Tana Kama understands literally - the Kohanim on the north would slide the fresh loaves into place as the Kohanim in the south were removing the old ones (giving the impression that the former were actually pushing the loaves off).

(b) Rebbi Yossi - who defines "Tamid" as there not being one night without Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, permits placing the fresh loaves after the old ones have been removed.

(a) They distributed the loaves among the Kohanim - only after the Bazichin had been brought on the Mizbe'ach, as we learned earlier. They were not permitted however, to delay this until Sunday - because once the loaves have been removed from the Shulchan, they are subject to Me'ilah like a regular Korban.

(b) They distributed the loaves on Motza'ei Shabbos - if Yom Kipur fell on Shabbos.

(c) When Yom Kipur fell on Friday (although this cannot happen today), and it was forbidden to cook the Sa'ir of Musaf on Motza'ei Yom Kipur (since it was Shabbos) - they would have to eat it raw (see Tif'eres Yisrael).

(d) The Bavli'im (Kohanim who originated from Bavel), who were less refined than those from Yisrael, would eat a goat raw.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa (who does not learn "Tamid" literally, as we explained in the Mishnah) - permits even removing the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos morning and placing the new ones only in the evening (before nightfall)?

(b)

1. Rebbi Ami adapts Rebbi Yossi's opinion to the Mitzvah of "Lo Yamush Seifer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha, Ve'hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah" - by rendering someone who learns a Perek in the morning and a Perek at night, Yotzei (since this is considered 'Tamid').
2. Rebbi Yochanan carries this one step further - by rendering him Yotzei even if he merely recited the Sh'ma morning and evening.

(c) He added however, that it is forbidden to tell this to an Am ha'Aretz - because then he will rely on it Lechatchilah, and not take the trouble to teach his children Torah.

(d) According to Rava however, it is a Mitzvah to do so - because the Am-ha'Aretz will figure that if one receives the reward promised to Yehoshua just for reciting the Sh'ma twice a day, then how much more so if one were to learn all day. Alternately, he will learn from the Rabbanan, who could avoid having to study intensively by reciting the Sh'ma, yet they don't. Realizing what a great reward must be attached to Torah-study, he will take his cue from them (see also, Agados Maharsha).

(a) ben Dama, the son of Rebbi Yishmael's sister, asked his uncle whether he was allowed to study Greek philosophy. He believed that he may be - because he had already learned the entire Torah.

(b) The latter replied however - that, based on the Pasuk in Tehilim, it would be permitted only if he could find a time that was neither day nor night.

(c) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni disagrees. Quoting Rebbi Yonasan, he interpret the Pasuk "Lo Yamush" (not as a Mitzvah, but) - as a B'rachah ...

(d) ... which Hashem conferred upon Yehoshua, because of his intense love for Torah-study (as the Pasuk writes in Ki Sisa (with regard to Yehoshua) "Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel".

(a) When Tana de'Rebbi Yishmael says that Divrei Torah are not an obligation, he means - that they should not be viewed as a task that once performed, need not be pursued further, as he himself concludes.

(b) Based on a Pasuk in Iyov, Hashem advises those who want to escape having to go to Gehinom - to study Torah.

(c) From the fact that the Pasuk begins with the words "ve'af Hesischa", Chizkiyah declares that unlike people, whose incitement takes them from the path of life to the path of death - Hashem's incitement (to study Torah, as we just explained) takes them from the path of death to the path of life.

(a) Chizkiyah discusses further the Pasuk in Iyov. The entrance to Gehinom is narrow - to allow the smoke to accumulate within.

(b) He then learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah ...

1. ..."He'emik Hirchiv" - that although the entrance is narrow, Gehinom itself is very spacious.
2. ... "Gam Hi le'Melech Huchan" - that even kings (referring to Talmidei-Chachamim) are not barred from Gehinom (should their deeds warrant it).

(c) And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... there "Medurasah Eish ve'Eitzim" - that there is plenty of wood there (so the fires will not go out too soon).
2. ... in Iyov "Ve'nachas Shulchancha Malei Deshen" - that not going to Gehinom is not the ultimate reward, but that a table full of good things awaits one too.