Previous daf

1)

(a) Had neither of the Metzora'im died, they would bring the two Korbanos, each one in the name of its respective owner.

(b) And had the one Metzora died without having brought one of the Korbanos, then we would have no option but to allow both Korbanos to die, in which case the surviving Metzora would simply bring a new Korban.

(c) The problem in our case is that, on the one hand, he cannot bring the remaining Korban, in case it is really the Korban of his deceased friend; nor can he bring a new Korban, in case the remaining one is the one that he already designated.

(d) Rebbi Shimon only permits bringing a Korban on condition, when the sprinkling of the two Korbanos is identical, such as by an Asham, which he brings on condition that, if he is not Chayav an Asham, then his Korban should be a Shelamim (and an Asham requires the same Matan Damim - on the two diagonally-opposite sides of the Mizbei'ach). Whereas *we* are concerned with a *Chatas* Metzora, and a Chatas requires four Matanos on the four corners of the Mizbei'ach (as opposed to a Shelamim, which requires two, as we just explained).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua answered that the surviving Metzora should write his property out to somebody else, thereby rendering himself a poor man. And a poor man brings a Chatas ha'Of, which is brought even by a Safek, (which the Chatas Beheimah of an Ashir is not).

(b) Shmuel explains that we are speaking in a case when the Metzora has already brought his Asham, and it is only the Chatas which is still owing.

(c) If Shmuel follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, then everything is determined by the Asham; in other words, since he brought the Asham in the capacity of a wealthy man, he must also bring the Chatas of a wealthy man - in which case, Rebbi Yehoshua's answer would be incorrect.

(d) And if he follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds that it is the Chatas which determines which Korban he should bring, then why does Rebbi Yehoshua require that he writes out his property to someone else? According to Rebbi Shimon, this is quite unnecessary, because Rebbi Shimon holds that one is permitted to bring an Asham on condition that, should he not be Chayav to bring it, it should be a Shelamim (as we explained above - in 1d).

(a) The Safek Asham, Safek Shelamim must, of course, be brought with all the Chumros of both the Asham and the Shelamim. Consequently, it must be Shechted on the North side of the Azarah, its blood must be placed on the right thumb and right big toe etc., it could only be eaten by male Kohanim and for one day and a night (like an Asham); and it required leaning one's hands and waving, and its chest and right calf had to be given to a Kohen (like a Shelamim).

(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon. According to them, it is forbidden to bring an Asham as a Safek Shelamim, since that would entail curtailing the allotted time to eat a Shelamim from two days to one. This, in turn, means, that, after one day, whatever remained uneaten, will have to be burnt - and it is prohibited to bring Kodshim to the 'Beis ha'Pesul.'

(c) We answer the Kashya in 2d, by saying that, although Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon with regard to the first Din (that is the Chatas which fixes the Korbanos, and not the Asham), he does not however hold like him with regard to bringing an Asham on condition (i.e. he follows the opinion of the Chachamim, who hold that one may not bring an Asham on condition).

4) Rebbi Yehoshua resolves the discrepancies like this

• 1. Hashem does not take bribery (cannot be swayed) *after* the final decree has been sealed; but He does, *before*.
• 2. Hashem wants to kill the sinners if they do not repent, but He does not want them to die, if they *do*.
• 3. Hashem chose Yerushalayim, *before* Shlomoh ha'Melech married Bas Par'oh, but from the moment that he married her, He rejected it.

• 1. A dead person is Metamei Meis, not a pillar of salt!
• 2. Dead people are Metamei Meis, not live ones!
• 3. He suggested that we will be able to look into whether the dead who come back to life at Techi'as ha'Meisim will require sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah or not, when the event takes place. Alternatively, Moshe Rabeinu, who will be revived with the dead, will teach us the Halachah.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua told the Alexandrians that, if they want to become wise, they should increase their learning and decrease their business. When they complained that many have tried that, but without success, he replied ...

(b) They should pray to the One to whom wisdom belongs.

(c) With his second answer, Rebbi Yehoshua did not come to retract from the first, but rather to add to it. By increasing one's learning hours together with Tefilah, he was telling them, they could achieve their goal.

(d) We learn from Rebbi Chiya's parable that wisdom is not Hefker, or something which automatically develops with a person as he grows up. Not at all, like the portions of food handed out by the King to his servants, wisdom belongs to Hashem, Who distributes it to whoever He sees fit.

(a) When the Alexandrians asked Rebbi Yehoshua the same question about wealth, he answered that they should do more business (although the Gra erases this), and do business with integrity.
When they again queried him, he added that this too, will only work together with prayer.

(b) In order to have sons, Rebbi Yehoshua informed the men of Alexandria, they need to marry a good wife, sanctify themselves during Tashmish and to pray.

(c) From the first half of the Pasuk ("Hinei Nachalas Hashem Banim"), we learn that having children (like wisdom and wealth), belongs to Hashem. Rebbi Chama bar Chanina appears to learn from the second half of the Pasuk "Sachar P'ri ha'Baten") a Derashah which circumvents what we learnt from the first half: he learns that as a reward for holding oneself back from being Mazri'a (i.e. restraining oneself at the height of one's desires), one will merit having sons.