Previous daf

1)

(a) We try to learn that each thread of the Me'il comprised twelve strands from the Paroches, from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Techeles" "Techeles" - each thread of the Paroches comprised *six* strands. However, because the Torah writes by the Me'il "Kelil Techeles", implying *double*, each thread of the Me'il would then comprise *twelve*.

(b) We do not want to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the threads of its own pomegranates, which comprised *eight* threads - because the pomegranates were ornaments, not an intrinsic part or the garment, and we prefer to learn a garment from a garment than a garment from an ornament.

(c) On the other hand, it would be preferable to learn the Me'il from its pomegranates - because they are part of itself, rather than from the Paroches.

(d) We finally learn that each thread of the Me'il comprised six - before it was doubled - from the fifth "Sheish", which we learned above came for those garments where Sheish is not mentioned. 'Those garments' refers to the Me'il.

(a) The Paroches comprised twenty-four threads. This is straightforward - because the Paroches consisted of four different fabrics: Techeles, Argaman, Tola'as Sani and Sheish, each comprising six threads.

(b) The Choshen and the Eifod comprised twenty-eight threads - because, besides the four kinds which made up the Paroches, it also contained gold threads, which they inserted by adding one gold thread to each of the four.

(c) They manufactured gold threads - by beating out the gold into thin plates, and cutting each plate into fine strips.

(d) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the word "Pesilim" (in Pikudei) that there were *four* threads of gold and not *six* - from the Torah's expression "ve'Kitzetz Pesilim" ('and they cut threads'): Pesil implies *two* threads, and Pesilim, *four*.

(a) Rav Ashi learns that there were *four* threads of gold and not *six* from the Pasuk "La'asos be'Soch ha'Techeles, u've'Soch ha'Argaman ... ." - How did they organize it? Should they double each thread, that would make *eight* (and not the required *six*). Should they leave them single (which is what they in fact, did), they would have only *four* threads, and once again, not the required *six*?

(b) Neither could they add two double golden threads and two single ones - because the Torah writes "ve'Asisa" by the Choshen and the Efod, implying that all the threads must be equal (i.e. either single or double).

(a) Rav Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yikare'a" - that anyone who tears any of the Bigdei Kehunah transgresses a La'av (though it is unclear from where we know that this La'av extends to the other Bigdei Kehunah - besides the Me'il).

(b) The Torah cannot just be teaching us to stitch a hem around the neck to reinforce it in order that it should not tear - because then, it would have written *"she'Lo* Yokare'a".

(c) The same argument applies to "ve'Lo Yizach ha'Choshen me'Al ha'Efod" - not detaching the Choshen from the Efod, to which it was tied, and "ve'Lo Yasuru" - removing the poles of the Aron from the Aron, both of which are La'avin.

(d) The poles of the Aron were movable - they could be pulled to and fro in the rings. However they were made thicker at the ends, so that they had to be squeezed into place initially, and were subsequently difficult to remove.

(a) The Torah describes the planks of the Mishkan as "Atzei Shitim Omdim" - implying that they stood vertically (just as they grew) and not horizontally (like the logs of a log-cabin).

(b) 'Ma'amidin es Tzipuyan' - means either that the gold (with which the planks were overlaid) were attached to the planks with nails, or that neither did the planks ever become worm-eaten nor did the golden covering ever fall off.

(c) "Omdin" can also mean that they were to last forever (i.e. that they remained intact until they were hidden, and never fell into the hands of the enemy).

(a) "Bigdei *ha'Serad*" implies escape (refugee, like the word 'Sarid') - because were it not for the Avodas ha'Korbanos (which cannot be performed without the Bigdei Kehunah), no remnant would remain from K'lal Yisrael.

(b) The Halachic ramifications of "Bigdei *ha'Serad*" - are that garments which needed sleeves were initially woven without them. The sleeves were they woven separately and sewn on afterwards.

7)

(a) Betzalel made three Aronos - the middle one (the main Aron, made of wood) was *nine* Tefachim high, the inner one (of gold) - *eight*, and the outer one (also of gold) - *ten* plus a bit.

(b) Others say that the outer Aron was *eleven* Tefachim and a bit - because they hold that the base was a Tefach thick.

(c) The tenth Tefach corresponded to the lid, which was one Tefach thick, and the bit protruding above the lid, represented the Keser Torah (the Crown of Torah).

(a) The crown of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav represented the Keser Kehunah, and that of the Shulchan, the Keser Malchus.

(b) Aharon ha'Kohen took the Keser Kehunah and David ha'Melech the Keser Malchus. The Keser Torah is available to anyone who wants it.

(c) Even though anyone can take the crown of Torah, we know that it is valuable because of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Bi Melachim Yimlochu" (that the kings are crowned through the crown of Torah - and the one who crowns [a king] is greater than the one who is being crowned).

(d) From the fact that the word "Zer" is written without a 'Yud' (which reads 'Zar' strange) - we learn that it is only if someone learns Torah with pure motives that he merits the Keser Torah, but that, if he does not, then it becomes strange to him (i.e. he forgets what he has learned). (The Agados Maharsha interprets this, not as 'Zar', but as 'Zara', meaning 'a sword' - have Chazal have said 'The Sefer and the sword came don wrapped together').

(a) Although the Torah initially instructed Moshe to make a wooden Aron, it then switched the obligation to Klal Yisrael - to teach us that the local townspeople are obligated to sustain the Talmidei-Chachamim who reside there.

(b) We learn from the obligation to overlay the Aron with gold from within and from without - that a Talmid-Chacham must be as pure from within as he is from without (i.e. to be consistent, to behave when he is *not* being watched, just as he would when he *is*.

(c) Others say that a Talmid-Chacham who does not fit this description has earned himself the title 'despicable'.

(d) Woe to someone who has Torah but no fear of G-d - he is compared to someone who has a door but no house to which to attach it (because Torah is no more than the doorway to Yir'as Shamayim).

(a) When Rava pleaded with his disciples not to inherit Gehinom twice - he was referring to them learning without the Yir'as Shamayim to match - because then they would stand to lose their reward in the World to Come, as well as having toiled in this world to no end.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learnt from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "ve'Zos ha'Torah Asher *Sam* Moshe ... " - that Torah is called a balm (Sam): if he merits it, it will be a balm of life; if not, it will be a balm of death i.e. poison.

(c) Rava is more specific - he explains 'Zachah' to mean that one learns with the *correct* motivation, and 'Lo Zachah', as one who learns with the* wrong* one (as we learned above in 8d).

(a) "Imras Hashem *Tzerufah*" - means both to purify and to remove the impurities. Consequently, the Torah purifies (for life) someone who merits it, and removes from the world (like an impurity) someone who does not.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim ...

1. ... "Pikudei Hashem Yesharim, Mesamchei Leiv" - in conjunction with the Pasuk "Imras Hashem *Tzerufah*" - like the two explanations of Resh Lakish in the previous question: that if someone merits it, the Torah makes him happy, but if not, it removes him (like one removes an impurity).
2. ... "Yir'as Hashem Tehorah, Omedes La'ad" - that if someone learns Torah with purity (i.e. he first marries and then studies Torah - see Agados Maharsha), then his Torah will be eternal.
3. ... "Eidus Hashem Ne'emanah" - that Torah can be relied upon to give testimony as to which of its students observed what they learned and which of them did not.

(c) One Pasuk says (in connection with the screen - at the entrance of the Heichal) "Ma'aseh Rokem"; another Pasuk says "Ma'aseh Choshev" (in connection with the coverings and the Paroches); Rebbi Elazar explains 'she'Rokmin be'Makom she'Choshvin' - meaning that they would first paint the required picture (e.g. a lion or an eagle) on the fabric (Ma'aseh Choshev) before embroidering it with a needle (Ma'aseh Rokem).

(d) Rebbi Nechemyah explains that 'Ma'aseh Rokem' was plain needlework - consequently, the same picture would appear on both sides of the fabric; whereas 'Ma'aseh Choshev' means that it was woven - with a different picture on either side.

(a) According to Rav Dimi, when the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah came to serve in the Beis Hamikdash - he wore the eight Begadim of a Kohen Gadol.

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "u'Vigdei Aharon Asher la'Aharon Yiheyu le'Vanav *Acharav*" - which teaches us that the Kohen Gadol's garments are worn by the person who comes *after* the Kohen Gadol (i.e. who is second to him) - the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (Pirush Rebbi Elyakim).

(c) The Mashu'ach Milchamah is not fit to serve as Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.