Previous daf

1)

(a) The maximum age of an Eglah Arufah is - one year.

(b) There is no minimum age for a Parah Adumah.

(c) We attempt to learn a 'Kal va'Chomer from Parah Adumah, where a blemish disqualifies, even though age does not that a blemish should disqualify a calf from being used as an Eglah Arufah, where age does disqualify.

(d) We reject that 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Pasuk "Asher Ein *Bah* Mum" (written in connection with Parah Adumah) - which implies that a blemish only disqualifies by a Parah, but not by an Eglah (thereby overriding the 'Kal va'Chomer').

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a Parah Adumah which had a bundle of sacks placed on its back. He learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with an Eglah Arufah) "Asher Lo Mashchah be'Ol" - that it only becomes disqualified if it actually walked with the load.

(b) We initially assume his source for disqualifying a Parah on such a basis, despite the fact that the Torah writes "Ol" (and this is not an Ol) to be - a Kal va'Chomer from Eglah.

(c) Based on what we just said - how can Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learn such a 'Kal va'Chomer', in spite of the word "Asher Lo Ubad *Bah*" which precludes a Parah Adumah from the Din of Eglah?

(d) We answer that Parah is not learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer', but from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Ol" "Ol") from Eglah. Nevertheless, we do not also learn Eglah from Parah, to disqualify an Eglah Arufah with a blemish - because the Torah writes "Bah" by Parah, to preclude an Eglah (and there is nothing else that we can learn from this word).

(a) Even though the Torah also writes "Bah" ("Asher Lo Ubad Bah") in connection with Eglah Arufah, as we explained earlier, we do not learn from it to preclude Parah from other Avodos - because we have an alternative, to preclude Kodshim from the P'sul of having been worked with.

(b) If not for "Bah", we would have disqualified Kodshim that were worked with - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, where a blemish does disqualify but work does (how much more so Kodshim, where even a blemish disqualifies).

(c) We are concerned specifically with Kodshim whose age is restricted (otherwise we could not even think of learning them from Eglah, whose age is restricted). This involves - the Korban Pesach and a Chatas (both of which must be within their first year).

(a) We extrapolate from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Averes O Shavur ... Lo Sakrivu *Eileh* la'Hashem" - that these (blemishes) are Pasul, but not Kodshim with which work was performed.
2. ... "u'mi'Yad ben Neichar Lo Sakrivu *Eileh* la'Hashem" - that these are Pasul, but not Kodshim with which forbidden work was performed.

(b) The second D'rashah comes to add that even Kodshim with which work that entailed a sin was performed may be sacrificed - such as working with them on Shabbos or an ox which one used for plowing together with a donkey.

(c) In spite of these Pesukim, we need "Asher Lo Ubad *Bah* to preclude Kodshim from the P'sul of Avodah - even if work was performed with them after they were declared Kodshim (whereas the previous Pesukim speak when work was only performed with them before they were declared Hekdesh).

(a) We learn other Avodos by Parah from "Ol" "Ol" from Eglah. We cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, because Eglah is subject to age, which Parah is not (as we explained earlier). We cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah (which is not disqualified with a blemish like Parah is), because Eglah is subject to age, which Parah is not (as we explained earlier). We might also refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kodshim - which do *not* become disqualified through work, even though they *do* through a blemish.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a Parah that carried a pile of sacks on its back even though it did not move, whereas an Eglah only becomes Pasul when it walks with them. The problem with this is - seeing as we learn other Melachos by Parah from Eglah, why do we not learn Parah from Eglah in this regard too?

(c) We answer that he holds like the Tana who learns Parah from its own Pasuk (and not from "Ol" "Ol"). He learns from "Asher Lo Alah Alehah ... " - to include other Melachos (besides pulling a yoke).

(d) The Torah adds the word "Ol" - to teach us that whereas pulling a yoke disqualifies the cow even if it was placed on it not whilst it is working, other Melachos only disqualify it if they are performed whilst it is working.

(a) We ask that "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" should be a 'K'lal' and "Ol" a 'P'rat' - in which case, the Din would be confined to pulling an Ol and no other Melachah (because 'K'lal u'P'rat, Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat').

(b) We refute this Kashya - by pointing out that "Asher" is a Ribuy which comes to include all other Melachos.

(c) The Tana makes exactly the same D'rashos with regard to Eglah, learning "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" and "Ol" as it did "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" and "Ol" by Parah. He refutes the Kashya that "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" should be a 'K'lal' and "Ol" a 'P'rat' - in exactly the same way as we did the Kashya on Parah: by establishing "Asher" as a Ribuy, that includes all other Melachos.

(a) They asked Rebbi Yochanan what distance the Eglah must pull the yoke in order to be disqualified. He replied - 'ki'Melo Ol' (the distance of the yoke).

(b) The two possible interpretations of 'ki'Melo Ol' - are the length of the yoke or its breadth.

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov resolves the dilemma by quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself, who told him that he meant the width, which is a Tefach.

(d) Having established the width of a yoke as one Tefach, Rebbi Yochanan said 'ki'Melo Ol' rather than a Tefach - to teach us that the standard width of a yoke, which result in a false sale should someone sell his friend a yoke of a different width.

(a) The Torah prescribes for this Mitzvah to bring a calf to a strong valley - because Hashem said 'Let them bring something which did not produce fruit and have its neck broken in a location which does not produce fruit, to atone for a person whom they did not allow to produce fruit'.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul quoted Hashem as referring to 'a person who was not allowed to produce fruit', he could not have meant that he was unable to have children - because what would we then say in the case of an old or sterile man?

(c) What he really meant was - that they prevented him from performing Mitzvos.

9)

(a)

1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Eisan Moshavecha" interprets "Nachal Eisan" to mean - a strong valley (i.e. one with virgin soil).
2. Acheirim, based on the Pasuk "Goy Eisan Hu Goy Me'olam Hu" interprets it to mean - that its earth has always been there (and not one to which earth had been transported).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Chatas ha'Of - that one kills the Eglah Arufah from the back of its neck.

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah interprets "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo ve'Lo Yiza'rei'a" to mean that the valley had never been worked. According to Rebbi Yonasan - it means that it would never be worked.

(b) According to Rava, both Tana'im agree that it pertains to the future. Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the fact that the Pasuk writes "Asher Lo Ye'aved and not just "ve'Lo Ye'aved" - that it pertains to the past as well.

(c) Rebbi Yonasan's source for restricting the Pasuk to the future and not to the past - is the Lashon "Asher Lo Ye'aved", which is the future tense.

(d) According to him, the Torah writes ...

1. ... "Asher" - to include other Avodos (besides sowing).
2. ... "Lo Yiza'rei'a" - to restrict the prohibition to working the ground, but permitting other tasks, such as combing flax and chiseling stones to be performed there.

(a) The local judges declared 'Our hands did not spill this blood'! - meaning that he had not come to them for assistance and they turned him away, sending him empty-handed on his way, nor did they see him leave and allow him to go unaccompanied.

(b) Rebbi Meir says that one forces a person to perform the Mitzvah of 'Levayah', whose reward is limitless. He bases his statement on the man who showed the Beis Yosef how to gain entry into Beis-El (alias Luz) for them to capture it. What ...

1. ... the man there subsequently merited to build in the land of the Chitim - was the town Luz, where nobody ever died.
2. ... the inhabitants of the second Luz do when they feel that they have lived long enough - is to leave the precincts of the town and die outside its walls.
3. ... they do in Luz - is to dye the Techeiles for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis.

(c) Neither Sancheriv not Nevuchadnetzar were able to destroy Luz. The implication of the Pasuk "Hi Sh'mah Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - is that it continues to exist until the end of time.

(d) We learn from the man who built Luz - that if one receives such tremendous reward for himself and for all his descendants for just a few words (Chizkiyah) or even just pointing with one's finger (Rebbi Yochanan - whose opinion is corroborated by a Beraisa), then imagine how much reward is forthcoming for accompanying a person on a journey!

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi advises a person who has no-one to accompany him on his journey - to study Torah, which is described in Mishlei as "Ki Livyas Chein le'Roshecha ('Because they are an accompaniment of charm for your head') va'Anakim le'Gargerosecha" ('and necklaces for your neck').

(b) For the four steps that Par'oh's emissaries accompanied Avraham when he left Egypt - Par'oh merited to subjugate Avraham's descendants for four hundred years.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement about someone who accompanies his friend in town is corroborated by Ravina and Rava bar Yitzchak. When the former accompanied the latter four Amos in town - the latter was miraculously saved from a situation which almost caused him harm.

(d) A Rav is obligated to accompany his disciple until the town's limits (the furthest house within seventy Amos from the city walls). The minimum distance for the Mitzvah of Levayah for ...

1. ... a friend accompanying a friend is - until T'chum Shabbos (one Mil from the city walls).
2. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbe she'Eino Muvhak' (who taught him Torah) is - one Parsah (four Mil).
3. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbe Muvhak' (who taught him most of the Torah that he knows) is - three Parsah.

(a) When Rav Kahana, who was accompanying his Rebbe, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, arrived with him in Bei Tzinisa de'Bavel, he pointed out that the date-palms there had been there from the time of Adam ha'Rishon. This reminded Rav Shimi bar Ashi of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who, based on the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "be'Eretz Lo Avar Bah Ish, ve'Lo Yashav Sham Adam", said - that any town that Adam ha'Rishon decreed would be inhabited, was ultimately inhabited, and any town that he decreed should not be inhabited (only that palm-trees should grow there), did not become inhabited (but palm-trees grew there).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Meir says - that if someone fails to accompany a fellow Jew on his way or leaves on a journey without being accompanied, it is as if he has murdered.

(c) His source for this is - the episode where forty-two youths were cursed to death by Elisha, and which would have been avoided had the residents of Yericho accompanied Elisha when he left town.

(d) When the youths from Yericho said to Elisha "Alei Kerei'ach, Alei Kerei'ach" - they were referring to his having cured the undrinkable water of the town, and in doing so, he had deprived them of their income (which had been from providing the local residents with water) They were accusing him of having turned their town into a bald patch 'where their Parnasah would no longer grow', so to speak.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Pasuk calls them '"Ne'arim", because they were empty of Mitzvos, and "Ketanim" because they were 'Ketanei Emunah' (they had little faith). The Navi labeled them with that title - because they were worried that they had lost their Parnasah on account of the water having been healed (when Hashem can just as well provide Parnasah from another source).

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa interprets the double term "Ne'arim Ketanim" to mean - that they were really youths, but that they degraded themselves like little children.

(c) We reject the suggestion that they were Ketanim from the town Ne'uran (in the same way as Rebbi P'das interprets the Pasuk in Melachim " ... va'Yishbu me'Eretz Yisrael Na'arah Ketanah") - on the grounds that here, the Pasuk specifically informs us that they were from Yericho (and not from Ne'uran).

(a) "va'Yifen Acharav va'Yir'em, ve'Yekalelem be'Shem Hashem". According to Rav, who explains "va'Yir'em" to mean that he looked at them before cursing them, this is based on a statement of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who stated in a Beraisa - that whenever the Chachamim gave someone a piercing look, it resulted in either death or poverty.

(b) According to Shmuel, Elisha saw that all of them had been conceived on Yom Kipur, and according to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, he saw that they had all grown long hair in the style of idolaters. The last opinion is that of Rebbi Yochanan, who explains - that he saw into the future, that not one of them or their descendants would ever possess even the trace of a Mitzvah.

(c) Some say that appearance of the two bears (out of the blue as it were) that attacked the youths was a miracle, whilst others claim that it was a miracle within a miracle - meaning that not only did the bears appear from nowhere, but so did the forest from which they emerged.

(d) The second miracle was necessary - because bears are afraid to attack unless they are have the back-up of a safe haven to escape to (such as a forest).