Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CALVES KOSHER FOR BEHEADING

(a) The Kohanim say "Atone for your nation Yisrael..."; they need not say "The blood will atone for them" - that is the Torah's promise that this ritual will atone for them.
(b) (Gemara) Question: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a blemish disqualifies a calf (for beheading)!

1. Even though a red heifer is never disqualified for being too old, a blemish disqualifies it - a calf, which is disqualified at the age of 2 or 3, all the more some a blemish should disqualify it!

(c) Answer: By the red heifer, it says "There is not a blemish in it" - this teaches, a blemish disqualifies a red heifer, but not a calf for beheading.
(d) Question: If we expound thusly, we should learn that labors with a red heifer (other than bearing a yoke) should not disqualify a red heifer!

1. (It says by the beheaded calf, "Work was not done with it" - we should say, work disqualifies a calf, but not a red heifer!)
2. But Rav Yehudah taught, if one placed a bundle of sacks on a red heifer, it is disqualified; a calf is not disqualified until it carries them!

(e) Answer: A Gezeirah Shavah "Yoke-yoke" from a beheaded calf teaches that work also disqualifies a red heifer.
(f) Question: If so, the Gezeirah Shavah should teach that a blemish disqualifies a calf, just as it disqualifies a red heifer!
(g) Answer: By the red heifer, it says "There is not a blemish in it" - this teaches, a blemish disqualifies a red heifer, but not a calf for beheading.
(h) Question: By the beheaded calf, it says "Work was not done with it" - we should say, work disqualifies a calf, but not a red heifer!
(i) Answer: No - this teaches, work disqualifies a calf, but not sacrifices.

1. One might have thought to learn a Kal va'Chomer from a beheaded calf: a blemish does not disqualify a calf, but work does - sacrifices, which are disqualified by a blemish, all the more so work disqualifies them!
2. Objection: This Kal va'Chomer is invalid!

i. There is a stringency of a calf - age disqualifies it - so we cannot learn to sacrifices.

3. Answer: Some sacrifices also are disqualified by age - for these, one might have thought to learn a Kal va'Chomer, so we need the verse to teach that work does not disqualify them.

(j) Question: But a different verse teaches that work does not disqualify sacrifices!

1. "Blind ... or spotted, you will not offer these to Hash-m" - but you may offer sacrifices that worked!

(k) Answer: If only 1 verse taught that work does not disqualify them, we would have thought that it refers to permitted work, but forbidden work disqualifies them - the 2nd verse teaches that even forbidden work does not disqualify them. (l) Question: There already is a 2nd verse permitting sacrifices that worked!

1. "From a Nochri you may not offer (an animal with any of the above blemishes)" - but you may offer sacrifices that worked!

(m) Answer: A 3rd verse is needed - one might have thought, the other verses speak of work done before the animal became a sacrifice, but work done after it became a sacrifice disqualifies it - a 3rd verse is needed to teach that this is not so.

(a) (Rav Yehudah): If one placed a bundle of sacks on a red heifer, it is disqualified; a calf is not disqualified until it carries them.
(b) Question (Beraisa): The Torah explicitly says that a yoke disqualifies a red heifer; other work is learned from a Kal va'Chomer.

1. A blemish does not disqualify a calf, but work does - a blemish disqualifies a red heifer, all the more so work disqualifies it!
2. Alternatively, a Gezeirah Shavah "Yoke-yoke" teaches that just as work disqualifies a calf, it also disqualifies a red heifer.

i. Question: Why does the Tana need to say that a Gezeirah Shavah can teach the law - he learns a Kal va'Chomer!
ii. Answer #1: One can challenge the Kal va'Chomer - age disqualifies a calf, but not a red heifer, so we cannot learn from a calf.
iii. Answer #2: Or, we can disprove the Kal va'Chomer from the law of sacrifices - blemishes disqualify sacrifices, but work does not!
iv. Therefore, the Tana says that the law can be learned from a Gezeirah Shavah.

3. Summation of question: Since we learn from a calf, how can we be more stringent than by a calf - work only disqualifies a calf if the calf moved the load, but by a red heifer, even without moving!

(c) Answer: Rav Yehudah holds as a Tana that argues on the Tana of the Beraisa.

1. Rav Yehudah's Tana learns from the Parsha of the red heifer itself that work disqualifies a red heifer - therefore, he can say that work disqualifies a red heifer without moving.
2. (Beraisa): One might have thought, only a yoke (which is explicit in the Torah) disqualifies a red heifer - "That did not come upon it a yoke" teaches that other work also disqualifies it.
3. Question: If so, why did the Torah specify a yoke?
4. Answer: A yoke disqualifies it whether or not it was going to work with it; other work only disqualifies it at the time of work.
5. Suggestion: Why don't we say that "That did not come upon it" is a generality, "a yoke" is a specific, and a generality followed by a specific is expounded to include only the specific - a yoke!
6. Rejection: The word "That" comes to add cases - this shows that we do not learn as suggested.

(d) A Beraisa teaches similarly regarding a calf.

1. (Beraisa): One might have thought, only a yoke disqualifies a calf (for beheading) - "That work was not done with it" teaches that other work also disqualifies it.
2. Question: If so, why did the Torah specify a yoke?
3. Answer: A yoke disqualifies it whether or not it was going to work with it; other work only disqualifies it at the time of work.
4. Suggestion: Why don't we say that - "That work was not done with it" is a generality, "a yoke" is a specific, and a generality followed by a specific is expounded to include only the specific - a yoke!
5. Rejection: The word "That" comes to add cases - this shows that we do not learn as suggested.

(e) (R. Avahu): R. Yochanan said that a calf is disqualified if it carries a load for a distance the size of a yoke.
(f) Question: Does he mean the length of a yoke, or the width?
(g) Answer (R. Yakov): The width of a yoke - 1 Tefach.
(h) Question: Why didn't he just say, 1 Tefach?
(i) Answer: He wanted to teach (by the way) that the width of a yoke is 1 Tefach.
(j) Question: Why is that important to know?
(k) Answer: For commerce (if one sells a yoke, it must be this wide).

(a) Question (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul): Why did the Torah say to behead a calf in a rocky valley (Rashi; Rambam - by a river)?
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul): In order that something (a calf) that did not yield fruit should be beheaded in a place that does not yield fruits to atone for (the murder of) the victim, who was prevented from bearing fruits.
(c) Question: To which fruits does he refer?

1. Suggestion: If he means children - if so, a calf should not be beheaded for a victim that was too old to have children, or a eunuch!

(d) Answer: Rather, Mitzvos.
(e) (Mishnah): They descend to a rocky valley; "Eisan" is understood simply - hard.
(f) (Beraisa) Question: How do we know that Eisan means hard?

(g) Answer: "Eisan is your sitting, and you put your nest in a rock"; it also says "Listen, mountains, the quarrel of Hash-m, and the Eisanim, the foundations of the land;

1. Others say, "Eisan" means old - "An Eisan nation, a nation that always was".

(h) (Mishnah): They behead it with a chopping knife from the back.

1. We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Beheading-beheading" from the sin-offering of a bird, whose neck is pinched from the back.

(i) (Mishnah): It is forbidden to seed or work the land where the beheading was done.
(j) (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "That is not worked or seeded" - this means, the beheading is done in a place that was not worked or seeded;
(k) (R. Yonason): The verse forbids working or seeding the land where the beheading was done.

1. (Rava): All agree that the verse forbids seeding the land in the future - it says "And it will not be seeded"!
2. They argue if it also says that the land was not worked.

i. R. Yoshiyah says, "It will not be worked" would mean the future; "That it will not be worked" denotes the past.
ii. R. Yonason says, it does not say "That it was not worked" - therefore, it only means the future.
iii. R. Yoshiyah says, "That" denotes the past.
iv. R. Yonason says, "That" comes to include (other work, as we shall see shortly).

(l) (Mishnah): It is permitted to comb flax and chisel rocks.
(m) (Beraisa) Question: "That is not worked or seeded" - how do we know that other uses of the land are forbidden?
(n) Answer: "That it will not be worked" - in any way.
(o) Question: If so, why did the Torah mention "It will not be seeded"?
(p) Answer: To teach that it is only forbidden to work the land, such a seeding; but combing flax or chiseling rocks is permitted.

1. Suggestion: We should say, "That is not worked" is a generality; "And it will not be seeded" is a specific - when a generality is followed by a specific, we only learn the specific case!
2. Rejection: "That" comes to include (indicating that we do not learn as suggested).

(a) (Mishnah): The elders of the city wash their hands ...
(b) (Beraisa) Question: All the elders of the city close to the corpse will wash their hands on the beheaded calf in the valley" - why must it say "beheaded"?
(c) Answer: To teach that they wash in the place it was beheaded.
(d) Question: They say, "Our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see" - would we have thought that Beis Din kill people?!
(e) Answer: Rather, it means, it is not the case that he came to us and we sent him away without food, and left him without an escort.
(f) (Beraisa - R. Meir): We force people to escort, since the reward for it is immeasurable - "The guards saw a man leave the city ... they said, show us the entrance and we will do Chesed with you"..."He showed them the entrance."
(g) Question: What Chesed did they do with him?
(h) Answer: They killed the entire city, but spared him and his family.

1. "The man went to the land of Chitim and built a city; he called it Luz, it is still called Luz today."
2. (Beraisa): This is the Luz in which Techeiles is dyed; Sancheriv and Nebuchadnetzar were unable to disturb it; even the angel of death may not enter!

i. When old people want to die, they leave the city and die.

(i) The man that showed them the entrance did not speak nor walk to escort them, still he merited to save himself and his descendants for eternity; one who walks to escort people, all the more so!
(j) Question: How did he show them the entrance?
(k) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): By contorting his mouth.
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): He pointed with his finger.

1. Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Because this Kana'ani pointed with his finger, he merited to save himself and his descendants for eternity.

(m) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who walks on the way without an escort should learn Torah - "It is an escort of grace for your head".
(n) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Paro escorted Avram 4 steps went Avram left Miztrayim; as reward for this, he enslaved Avram's descendants for 400 years.
(o) (Rav Yehudah): One who escorts a guest 4 Amos in the city ensures that the guest will not be harmed.

1. Ravina escorted Rava bar Yitzchak 4 Amos; on his way, Rava bar Yitzchak encountered (what normally would cause) damage, and was saved from it.

(a) (Beraisa): A Rebbi escorts his Talmid to the outermost houses surrounding the city; one escorts his colleague to the limit one may go to on Shabbos (2000 Amos outside the city); there is not limit to how far a Talmid escorts his Rebbi.
(b) Question: How far does he escort his Rebbi?
(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes): 1 Parsah (4 Mil).

1. For one's primary Rebbi, one escorts him 3 Parsah'os.

(d) Rav Kahana escorted Rav Simi bar Ashi from Pum Nahara until Bei Tzinisi of Bavel.

1. Question (R. Yosi bar Chanina): "In a land where Adam (a man) did not pass, and a man did not sit" - if no man passed, of course no man sat!
2. Answer: Rather, this teaches that a land is inhabited only if Adam (ha'Rishon) decreed so.

(e) Rav Mordechai escorted Rav Ashi from Hegronya until Bei Kipi.
(f) (R. Yochanan): Anyone that does not escort or is not escorted, it is as if he murders.

1. Had the people of Yericho escorted Elisha, he would not have incited bears to attack the children.
2. "(Elisha) headed towards Beis Kel; Na'arim (youths), Ketanim (minors) left the city and derided, "Go, bald one, for you have ruined our income".
3. Question: Why does it say "Na'araim, Ketanim"?
4. Answer #1 (R. Elazar): They were Minu'arim (emptied) from Mitzvos, and of small faith.
5. Answer #2 (Beraisa): They were youths, but debased themselves as minors.
6. Question (Rav Yosef): Perhaps they are called Na'arim because they come from there (as we see elsewhere)!

i. Question: "They captured from Yisrael a Na'arah, a minor" - if she is a Na'arah, she is not a minor!
ii. Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from Ne'uran.

7. Answer: Here, we know that they were from Yericho.

(g) Question: "(Elisha) saw them and cursed them with Hash-m's name" - what did he see?
(h) Answer #1 (Rav): He only saw them (the curse came by itself).

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Wherever Chachamim out there eyes, death or poverty resulted.

(i) Answer #2 (Shmuel): He saw that all of them were conceived on Yom Kipur.
(j) Answer #3 (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): He saw they grew ponytails as the pagans.
(k) Answer #4 (R. Yochanan): He saw that they did not have any trace of a Mitzvah.

1. Question: Perhaps one of their descendants would perform Mitzvos!
2. Answer (R. Elazar): He saw (prophetically) that they and their seed, for all generations, would not have Mitzvos.

(l) "Two bears came from the forest and killed 42 children".