Previous daf

1)

(a) In the Pasuk in Daniel, Gavriel (the angel) after informing Daniel that his Inuyim were accepted, added that he (Gavriel) had been permitted to return on account of him. This refers to the occasion when Gavriel was expelled from his position in Heaven for disobeying Hashem's command (as will be explained shortly). He was only permitted to return when he spoke up in defense of Yisrael by referring to the righteousness of Daniel.

(b) After a hand had transported Yechezkel to the Beis Hamikdash by his hair - he saw twenty-five men between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, bowing down towards the sun with their backs to the west.

(c) The Pasuk in Yechezkel finds it necessary to add that their backs faced the west - to teach us that they were actually defecating in the direction of the Kodesh Kodashim.

(d) When the Angel Micha'el argued that at least the best among them should be saved - Hashem replied that He would kill *them* as well; because they too, were guilty, for not rebuking those who sinned.

(a) The 'Ish Levush ha'Badim' - was the Angel Gavriel.

(b) He was told to take two hands-full of burning coals from among the angels and to scatter it over Yerushalayim (to cause the Churban).

(c) They lashed him with sixty flashes of lightning - because now that he did what Hashem told him to do (it would have been in order had he *not*, on the basis that Hashem would retract from the evil decree), a. he should have done it directly, and not asked Micha'el to hand him the coals (though had he done so, Yerushalayim would have been completely destroyed); and b. because he reported the completion of his Shelichus - and one does not report bad news.

(d) He was replaced by Dubiel - the angel of Persia.

(a) Dubiel re-placed Gavriel - for twenty-one days (a prominent period of punishment for Yisrael).

(b) As a result, twenty-one kings and twenty-one ports came under the Persians' jurisdiction.

(c) Gavriel initially attempted to prevent Dubiel from having the Talmidei- Chachamim pay the Persians taxes - because even their wives would shake sleep from their eyes (waiting to greet their husbands upon their return from the Beis-ha'Medrash).

(d) His initial request was ignored. When however, he cited the merits of Daniel, who would outweigh all of the wise gentiles, Hashem commended Gavriel for speaking out on behalf of Yisrael, and rewarded him by allowing him to return to his former post.

(a) Some say that the letters of Dubiel (obligating the Talmidei-Chachamim to pay head-taxes) were not yet sealed when Gavriel tried to take them by force. So he swallowed them to prevent Gavriel from obtaining them.

(b) According to the second version of the story - the letters were already sealed when Gavriel entered. However, when Dubiel swallowed them, some of the letters were erased.

(c) The outcome of the above tussle - was that some Talmidei-Chachamim subsequently had to pay taxes, and others did not.

(d) When the angel of Greece entered, Gavriel had to leave, because that decree had already been sealed. No amount of pleading on his part was effective.

(a) Evyasar ha'Kohen was Chayav Misah for joining Adoniyahu, in his attempted coup d'etat against his father, David ha'Melech. Shlomoh ha'Melech ordered him to go to his property in Anasos and to remain there. He did not kill him outright - because he had suffered exile alongside David, when he fled from his other son Avshalom.

(b) We cannot prove from the Pasuk in Shmuel, which describes the Inuyim of David and his followers (as they fled from Avshalom) as "Ra'ev, *ve'Ayef* ve'Tzamei" that bathing is called an Inuy - because "Ayef" could also mean from going bare-footed.

(c) We finally prove from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Mayim Karim al Nefesh Ayefah" - that "Ayef" in Shmuel means, not from not *wearing shoes*, but from not *bathing*. And it cannot refer to not *drinking*, because the Pasuk writes "*al* Nefesh Ayefah", and not "*be*Nefesh Ayefah".

(a) There is no proof from the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'David Oleh be'Ma'aleh ha'Zeisim ... ve'Yachef" that walking *barefoot* is considered an Inuy - because "Yachef could mean *without a horse* or a staff.

(b) Yeshayah was not used to riding on a horse. Yet there is no proof from the Pasuk written in connection with Hashem's command for him to display Inuy, where the Pasuk writes "Vaya'as Kein Haloch Arum ve'Yachef" - because it may mean that he walked with *patched shoes*.

(c) In fact, *Yachef* cannot mean literally, bare-foot - no more than "Arum" can mean naked. Just as "Arum" must mean with patched clothes, so too, must "Yachef" mean with patched shoes.

(d) We finally learn that going barefoot is considered an Inuy from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Min'i Raglech mi'Yachef, u'Geronayich mi'Tzim'ah" - which we interpret to mean: "Refrain from sin, so that your feet will not have to walk barefoot; hold your tongue from speaking idle chatter, so that your throat will not have to suffer thirst".

7)

(a) We learn that refraining from Tashmish is considered an Inuy from the words of Lavan in Vayetzei "Im Te'aneh es Benosai, ve'Im Tikach Nashim". "Im Te'aneh es Benosai" - from Tashmish (to grant them their due Onah); "ve'Im Tikach Nashim" - not to marry any other wives.

(b) "ve'Im Tikach Nashim" cannot simply be an explanation of "Im Te'aneh es Benosai" - because then, the Pasuk would have written "*Im* Tokach Nashim", and not *ve*'Im ... ".

(c) The Gemara then suggests that both phrases refer to not taking Tzaros (rival wives) to Rachel and Leah - one to taking Bilhah and Zilpah (who were also daughters of Lavan, from a concubine), meaning that he should not put them on a par with Rachel and Leah, and the other, that he should not take any other wives from the outside.

(d) And we answer that, in that case, the order of the phrases should have been inverted - because, surely, it would be worse for Rachel and Leah if Ya'akov were to take strangers from the outside, than to marry Bilhah and Zilpah and treat them as equals. Consequently, Lavan should have mentioned the worst scenario first, as that is the way one normally speaks ('Lo Zu, Af Zu')?

(a) The Pasuk written in connection with Shechem's abduction of Dinah "va'Yishkav Osah va'Ye'aneha" is not referring to the Inuy of *Tashmish* - but to his *withholding Tashmish* from her, because, once he had abducted and raped Dinah, she had a desire for him, and after the initial rape, he refrained from further Tashmish.

(b) Rashi prove that the Gemara's answer cannot mean that he had abnormal relations with her - because, if it *did*, then why can we not also explain Lavan's request of Ya'akov in the same way? And besides, the Gemara ought then to have said 'she'Inah *be*'Bi'os Acheiros', and not *mi*Bi'os Acheiros'.

(a) Washing even part of one's body on Yom Kipur is forbidden, too.

(b) One is permitted to wash or even to take a bath - if one is very dirty.

(c) It is forbidden to anoint even a part of one's body. Someone who ...

1. ... has scabs on his head may anoint his head.
2. ... is ill, may even anoint his whole body if need be.

(d) A woman is permitted to wash one hand to feed her baby.

1. Her hand needs to be washed - because of the Ru'ach Ra'ah that appears on the finger-tips in the morning. Since, if not for the need to feed her child, the woman had no reason to wash her hands in the morning (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum'), she now became obligated to wash it before doing so.
2. They made Shamai wash both of his hands in order to feed his baby - to ensure that people would comply with the Halachah, and not follow in the footsteps of Shamai, and not wash at all.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa permits someone who is on his way to greet his father, his Rebbi or anyone who is greater than he is in Torah, to wade through water on Yom Kipur.

(b) Rav Ashi disagreed with Rav Yitzchak bar bar Chanah, who proved that even a Rebbe may wade through water to visit his Talmid, from the fact that Ze'iri did so when he went to visit Rav Chiya bar Ashi his Talmid - because, according to him, it was *Rav Chiya bar Ashi* who waded through water on his way to visit his Rebbe, Ze'iri.

(c) Rava gave express permission to the residents of Eiver Yemina to wade through water on Yom Kipur - in order to guard their fruit.

(d) Abaye disagreed, when Rav Yosef permitted the people of Tarbu to wade through water to go and hear the Derashah on Yom Kipur, but not on the return journey - in future, he argued, they would not want to go and listen to the Derashah (since they were not able to return). Consequently, once they are permitted to wade through water on the outward journey, they must also be permitted to do so on the return journey.

(a) Rav Yehudah permitted Rami bar Papa to wade through the river to ask him and his son Rav Shmuel some Kashyos - provided that he did not remove his hand from the hem of his cloak, to remind him not to raise the cloak on to his shoulders, which looks like carrying.

(b) The concession to wade through water up to one's neck on Yom Kipur pertains to a river that is not fast-flowing, and is therefore not dangerous - whereas the Pasuk in Yechezkel, regarding the river which flowed through the Beis Hamikdash from the Kodesh Kodashim, and which later become a turbulent, impassable river, is confined to a very fast-flowing one, asis evident from the context.

(c) One may cross a fast-flowing river which is ...

1. ... ankle-deep.
2. ... knee-deep.
3. ... loin-deep.

(d) It will *not* be possible ...

1. ... to swim across the stream that will flow from the Kodesh Kodashim, one it becomes impassable on foot.
2. ... to cross it by boat.
3. ... for the Angel of Death to cross it.