Previous daf

1)

(a) Bearing in mind that "Beheimah" incorporates 'Chayah', Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Va'yikach No'ach mi'Kol ha'Beheimah ha'Tehorah u'mi'Kol Of ha'Tahor" - that No'ach sacrificed on the Mizbe'ach animals and birds from every species, male and female, whole or blemished?

(b) *All* kinds of Ba'alei-Mum were not eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, since Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk a. "u'mi'Kol ha'Chai mi'Kol Basar", and b. "Lechayos Zera al-P'nei Kol ha'Aretz"- that No'ach was not permitted to take a. any animal with a missing limb, and b. any animal that was a T'reifah.

(c) The problem with learning 'T'reifah' from "Lechayos Zera ... " is - according to the opinion that holds that T'reifos can survive a year.

(d) So that opinion will preclude Treifah from the animals that No'ach took with him - from the word "Itach", and there is good reason to assume that No'ach was not a T'reifah (as we shall now see.

(a) We learn from the Torah's description of No'ach as ...

1. ... 'Tzadik' - that he was righteous in deed.
2. ... 'Tamim' - that he was also righteous in Midos (humble and patient).

(b) We know that he was not a T'reifah - because if he was, then why would the Torah write "Itach", which would then suggest that he should take with him animals that were T'reifos like him?

(c) And "Lechayos Zera" - merely indicates that "Itach" does not just mean 'to keep him company'.

(d) Bearing in mind that the Torah had not yet been given, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan explains the Tana's mention of 'Temei'in' and 'Tehorin' to mean - (not species, but) animals that had inter-bred, and animals that had not.

(a) Rav Chisda explains, No'ach knew which animals had not inter-bred by passing them in front of the Teivah. According to Rebbi Avahu - the animals came by themselves (as the Torah writes "ve'ha'Ba'im Zachar u'Nekeivah Ba'u").

(b) No'ach knew which species were eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, and which were not - from whether they came in pairs of two or in groups of seven.

(c) The problem with the Beraisa's statement that before the Mishkan was erected, they all brought only Olos is - that the Pasuk specifically writes (in connection with Matan Torah) "Va'yizbechu Zevachim Shelamim".

(d) We solve the problem - by restricting the Tana's statement to Nochrim; Yisrael already brought Shelamim from Matan Torah (though this implies that after the Mishkan was erected, Nochrim brought Shelamim, too?)

(a) Whether Nochrim may bring Shelamim or not, is a Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. One of them proves from the Pasuk "ve'Hevel Heivi Gam Hu mi'Bechoros Tzono *u'me'Chelveihen*" - that Nochrim must have brought Shelamim too (because an Olah is brought in its entirety, and not just the Chalavim.

(b) Whereas the other opinion proves that they did not, from the Pasuk (in connection with Mashi'ach) "Uri Tzafon u'Vo'i Teiman", which he interprets as a call to the nations of the world that only Shecht Korbanos (Olos) in the north and the nation (Yisrael) that Shecht them in the south, too (Shelamim) to come and greet Mashi'ach.

(c) The ...

1. ... latter opinion interprets "u'me'Chelveihen" - to mean from the choicest of their animals.
2. ... former opinion interprets "Uri Tzafon u'Vo'i Teiman" - as a call to the respective winds to gather the exiles from their respective parts of the world and return them to Eretz Yisrael.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Gam Atah Titen be'Yadeinu *Zevachim* ve'Olos" is - that it seems from here that Paroh gave Moshe Shelamim to sacrifice on his behalf.
2. ... "Vayikach Yisro Olah u'Zevachim be'Yado" is - that if, as the chronological order of events suggests, Yisro arrived in the Midbar before Matan Torah, when even Yisrael were considered B'nei No'ach, how could Yisro bring a Shelamim.

(b) We dispense with ...

1. ... the first problem - by translating "Zevachim" as Chulin animals to be Shechted (and eaten by Yisrael [seeing as Lizbo'ach" really means 'to Shecht')
2. ... the second problem (initially) - that the Korbanos in question were brought after Matan Torah.

(c) This answer cannot be unanimous - because the b'nei Rabbi Chiya and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue over whether Yisro arrived before or after Matan Torah, and if he came before, the answer will not hold water.

(d) The opinion that holds that Yisro arrived before Matan Torah - follows the opinion of the Tana (mentioned earlier) who holds that the B'nei No'ach may bring Shelamim.

(a) Yisro's arrival at Har Sinai is also a Machlokes Tana'im. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, Yisro went out to Har Sinai, because he heard about the battle with Amalek - following the chronological order of the Parshiyos.

(b) Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i says - that he went to Har Sinai because he heard about Matan Torah.

(c) The people of the world went running to Bil'am at the time of Matan Torah - because of Hashem's Powerful Voice that could be heard from one end of the world to the other.

(a) When they asked Bil'am whether Hashem was perhaps bringing ...

1. ... a flood on the world, he replied - that Hashem had already promised not to send another flood.
2. ... a conflagration to consume the entire world he replied - that He had also sworn not to destroy the world, like the Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Vayeishev Hashem Melech Le'olam" (and there is no king without subjects).

(b) Bil'am therefore explained to them - the frightening noise was connected with Hashem intention to hand the desirable object (that had been stored away by Him for the nine hundred and seventy-four generations prior to the creation) to His children.

(c) The significance of the nine hundred and seventy-four generations is - that this is the number of generations that Torah preceded the creation.

(d) The connection between these generations and the Pasuk "Davar Tzivah le'Elef Dor" is - that the above 974 generations, plus the 26 between Adam and Moshe, adds up to 1000.

(a) The famous Pasuk in Tehilim which Bil'am quoted the nations, to inform them that Hashem was giving Yisrael the Torah was - "Hashem Oz le'Amo Yiten" ...

(b) ... to which they responded - 'Hashem Yevarech es Amo va'Shalom".

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer (ben Ya'akov, according to some), Yisro was attracted to Har Sinai by the same event which Rachav ha'Zonah referred to with awe - Keri'as Yam-Suf.

(d) In describing the fear that Keri'as Yam-Suf inspired, when Rachav used the term "ve'Lo *Kamah* Od Ru'ach *ba'Ish*" (whereas the Pasuk later writes "ve'Lo Hayah Bam Od Ru'ach"), she meant - that the men were even unable to perform Bi'ah out of fear.

(a) Rachav knew about that, due to a statement of Mar - who said that there wasn't a prince or important dignitary who had not been intimate with her.

(b) She was ten when Yisrael left Egypt, and fifty when they entered Eretz Yisrael. During those forty years - she had been engaged in prostitution.

(c) She requested from Hashem that the rope and the window which she used to enable the spies to escape, and the flax with which she covered her well to hide Kalev - should serve to atone for her sordid past ...

(d) ... because that is how she used to protect the men who used her services, and help them escape.

10)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Daber el b'nei Yisrael" - that the Isur of Shechutei Chutz does not pertain to Nochrim, who are therefore permitted to build a Bamah and to bring on it whatever they please.

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov Amar Rav Asi - prohibits assisting them to build one nowadays (since they are forbidden to us).

(c) Rabah qualifies Rav Asi's Isur however - by permitting a Yisrael to teach a Nochri how to build one.

(d) Ifra Hurmiz - the mother of Shavur Malka (King of Persia) sent a Korban to Rava.

(a) The instructions she sent together with the Korban were - that he offer it for the sake of Hashem.

(b) Rava sent Rav Safra and Rav Acha bar Huna to see to the Korban, with instructions - to appoint two young Nochri men, who were born on the same day (as a nicety) to sacrifice it.

(c) And he instructed them to build a Mizbe'ach from the slime that builds up by the sea-shore.

(a) And he insisted that they use - fresh wood and steel that has never been used for someone's private needs.

(b) The source for this is Rebbi Elazar bar Shamua - who learned in a Beraisa - that the firewood for a Korban, like the Mizbe'ach on which the Korban is brought, must not have been used for someone's private needs.

(c) The problem with this statement, bearing in mind that we are talking about a Bamah is - that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua himself it seems, in a Beraisa, concedes that the prohibition does not extend to Bamos (as we shall now see).

(d) Two Pesukim discuss David's purchase of Aravnah's threshing-floor, which he bought - as the location in which the Beis-Hamikdash was to be built.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa reconciles the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, which gives the price as *six hundred* gold Shekalim, with the Pasuk in Shmuel, which records the price as *fifty* silver Shekel - by explaining the former as the full price that he paid, and the latter, as the amount that each of the twelve tribes towards its purchase (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) Based on the fact that the latter Pasuk adds "Bakar ... " to the sale, Rebbi (in the name of Aba Yossi ben Dustai) explains - that David purchased the cattle, the wood and the location of the Mizbe'ach for fifty Shekalim, and the major area for six hundred.

(c) Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua disagrees with Rebbi - inasmuch as, based on the Pasuk - he subtracts the location of the Mizbe'ach from the purchase of the fifty Shekalim (and adds it to the six hundred).

(d) Rava answers the Kashya (that it appears from there that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua agrees that a Bamah does not require fresh wood) - by establishing the plowing vessels there too, as new ones that Aravnah had not yet used.

(a) One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula translates as Mitah shel Turbal, and based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Samtich *le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos", Abaye redefines as - a sort of wooden goat with sharp spikes and niches, which they would pass over the stalks of corn after they had been threshed, cutting them up and turning them into hay.

(b) Rachbah presented his son the discrepancy between the Pesukim in Divrei Hayamim and Shmuel - reconciling them like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa.

(c) And he explained the fact that the first Pasuk refers to golden Shekalim, and the second, to silver ones - by suggesting that he claimed fifty gold Shekalim's-worth of Shekalim in silver coins from each tribe, which he subsequently gave to Aravnah.

(a) Referring to our Mishnah 'Kodshim Kalim Ne'echalin be'Chol Machaneh Yisrael' (with reference to the desert), Rav Huna states 'be'Chol Mekomos Yisrael', which we initially interpret to mean - that in the desert there was no Din of Machaneh Yisrael, and they were permitted to eat Kodshim anywhere, even outside the extremity of the Camp.

(b) The Beraisa compares Yerushalayim to the desert. The boundaries of Machaneh Yisrael in Yerushalayim - were from the walls of the city till the outside of the Har ha'Bayis.

(c) Machaneh Shechinah constituted the entire area within Sha'ar Nikanor, and Machaneh Leviyah - from the Har ha'Bayis until Sha'ar Nikanor (the gate leading to the main Azarah).

(d) The equivalent of within Sha'ar Nikanor in the desert was - the Kela'im (the hangings of the Azarah.

(a) In any event, we see from this Beraisa that Machaneh Yisrael in the desert (to which the Tana compares Yerushalayim) did have boundaries. So we reinterpret Rav Huna's statement ('be'Chol Mekomos Yisrael') to mean - that when they traveled, they took their Kodshim Kalim with them, to eat once they set up camp again.

(b) If not for Rav Huna, we might have thought - that it becomes Pasul be'Yotze, once the camp has been dismantled.

(c) However, we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" - that to a certain extent, Machaneh Yisrael retains its identity, even whilst traveling.