Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi, the Nunin are there to indicate that that those two Pesukim constitute an independent Parshah (not because they do not belong there). In that case, Bamidbar has been divided into three Sefarim, and the Torah consists of seven Sefarim, rather than *five* - presenting us with a distinct interpretation of the Pasuk "Chatzvah Amudeha Shiv'ah".

(b) The Tana Kama, who claims that the Parshah is out of place, is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. In his opinion, the Parshah is placed *here*, in order to break between two Parshiyos of punishments: their desire for meat (see Tosfos, DH 'Pur'anus'), and their grumbling over the need to travel.

(c) It really belongs in Naso (*fifty* Parshiyos earlier), where the Torah describes how they traveled in the desert.

(a) There is no proof from the Beraisa (which rules that a Sefer that does not contain eighty-five letters cannot be saved) - that one may not save the margins, because, since the Beraisa is speaking about a Sefer where the letters faded, presumably, the parchment of the margins wore out; too.

(b)

1. The spaces between the words and between the lines - are not included in the Sha'aleh of margins (but clearly have the Kedushah of the words themselves) - as is evident from the whole Sugya.
2. The blank spaces that remain, after the letters have been erased - are not included in the Gemara's Sha'aleh (as the Gemara concludes), because, when the letters were erased, their Kedushah departed.
3. Neither is the margin of a written Sefer, which is sanctified together with the letters.

(c) What *is* called GIlyon in this regard - is the margin (top, bottom and sides) of a Sefer whose letters have been erased.

(d) The Beraisa, which writes 'ha'Gilyonim, ve'Sifrei ha'Minim' - means 'ha'Gilyonim *shel* Sifrei ha'Minim'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, the names of Hashem that one cuts out from the Sefer-Torah of a heretic, must be placed into Genizah.

(b) Rebbi Tarfon maintains that a Sefer-Torah written by a heretic should be burnt together with the Names of Hashem. As for someone who is being chased by an assailaint or by a snake - he should rather escape into the house of a gentile idolater than of a heretic. Why is that? Because, whereas the former blasphemes out of ignorance, the latter does so with full knowledge of what he is doing.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael says that if one erases Hashem's Holy Name in order to make peace between man and wife, how much more so a Name written by heretics (and which is *not* Holy), should be destroyed.

(d) The Chidush in saying that one may even save them from water or from other dangers - is that, even during the week, when the suspicion that one may come to extinguish the fire (the reason that it is prohibited on Shabbos) does not aply, it is still forbidden to save them (see also Tosfos DH 'Kach').

(a) Bei Avidan - is where the heretics used to stage religious disputations with the Jews.

(b) In ve'La'av, ve'Rafya Biydei - means that Rebbi Avahu was not sure what the Din was; one day he said 'Yes'! and the next day he said 'No'!

(c) Nitzrefo - is the name of an idol, and Bei Nitzrefo, its place of worship.

(a) Shmuel would attend the Bei Avidan, but not the Bei Nitzrefo.

(b)

1. Rava used to avoid attending the Bei Avidan (although attending was apparently, compulsory), and would then offer excuses for his absence - such as there was a tree in the way, and he was unable to uproot it, or because he could not bear its smell.
2. Mar bar Rav Yosef claimed that was not afraid to attend that Bei Avidan, because he had well-placed friends there. On one occasion however, they attempted to kill him - in spite of his well-placed friends.

6)

(a) Eima Shalom was the sister of Raban Gamliel, and the wife of Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) She and her brother Raban Gamliel decided to test that philosopher who was purported not to take bribes. They set out to prove that this was untrue.

(c) So she brought him a golden lamp (as a bribe), and told him that she wanted to share her father's inheritance with her brother. He took the lamp and told her that she was indeed entitled to half the inheritance. To her query that the Torah writes otherwise, he replied that since Yisrael went into exile, a new Torah was handed to them (the New Testament), in which it is written that a son and a daughter inherit equally.

(d) The following day, Raban Gamliel brought him a Lubian donkey, and presented *his* case, to which the philosopher replied that he had no intention of detracting from the words of the Torah of Moshe or of adding to it, and that at a later point it was written in the New Testament that a daughter does not inherit when there is a son. 'May you shine like a lamp', Eima Shalom said. To this, Raban Gamliel replied 'Came the donkey and kicked the lamp'.

(a) Shmuel could not possibly have forbidden the reading of Kesuvim outside the time of the Derashah - because in Neherda'a, which was Shmuel's town, they used to read the Haftarah from Kesuvim at Minchah on Shabbos afternoon.

(b) The time of the Derashah was *before* the Se'udah, since afterwards, the people might have been drunk.

(c) Rav and Shmuel's dispute concerns learning Kesuvim outside the Beis ha'Medrash (where there is no Derashah) - but during the time of the Derashah: Rav holds that one may, Shmuel, that one may not.

(d) Rav Ashi establishes Shmuel's initial ruling (forbidding learning Kesuvim outside the time of the Derashah) according to Rebbi Nechemyah. Rebbi Nechemyah says that one may never learn Kesuvim on Shabbos, so that people will say, that if learning Kesuvim is forbidden, how much more so financial documents and letters. Shmuel however, does not follow Rebbi Nechemyah's opinion, and that is why they used to read the Haftarah from Kesuvim at Shabbos Minchah.

(a) Yes! It is permitted to save the bag in which the Sefer-Torah is kept, or a Tefilin-bag, even where there is money in it.

(b) According to Ben Beseira, even saving them by carrying them to an alley-way which opens at both ends into a street, is permitted.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, one was permitted to strip the Pesach (starting from the hind-legs) only as far as the chest - because that is as much as was necessary to remove the innards, which would otherwise go bad, if left inside the animal's body. Beyond that, Mafshit is a Melachah and is forbidden.

(b) The Rabbanan permit the completion of the stripping process.

(c) According to Rava, the Rabanan's reason is so that Kodshei Shamayim should not be left lying like carcasses.

(d) Although the South-wind is also cool, Yoma de'Istana means a day on which the *North-wind blows, and the animal can be left out without going bad. In this case, Rav Yosef will agree that, even according to the Rabbanan, stripping the animal will be forbidden.

(e) The other difference between Rav Yosef and Rava will be in a case when the Pesach is lying on a golden table: according to Rav Yosef, stripping it will still remain permitted, since a golden table will not prevent the animal from going putrid. Whereas according to Rava, the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Yishmael and forbid one to strip it completely - since it is not now lying like a carcass.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, "Kol Po'al Hashem Lama'anehu" teaches us that one should not remove the innards before the animal has been stripped, because otherwise, some of the hairs of the skin might become stuck to the flesh.

(b) How can one derive that one may strip the Pesach (a Melachah) - from the fact that one may save the bag of the Sefer together with the Sefer (which is merely Tiltul)?

(c) The Gemara means to say that, besides arguing about stripping the Pesach, Rebbi Yishmael and the Rabbanan also argue about carrying the skin together with the flesh; and it is with regard to the latter Din that the Rabbanan prove their point - from the Heter of saving the bag of the Sefer together with the Sefer - since both are Tiltul, and both a matter of Kavod Shamayim.