Explanation: This means that the Torah needed to state their sin, and the fact that their repentance was accepted.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say in Eiruvin (13b) that they (Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) got together and decided that it was best for man not to have been created. (If this is so, why should we be grateful to them for sinning and making sure we were created?)

Answer#1: This is only in the beginning, when a person is born, as it is unclear what he will end up becoming. However, when a person becomes a righteous person, he is praised and praised is the generation that he is in.

Answer#2: Additionally, according to the conclusion of our Gemara, he only means that it is as if we would not have come into the world (but we indeed would have come into the world anyway).

Question: Let these souls be finished through the idolaters having children!

Answer: Rabeinu Elchanan says that the souls of future Jews and future idolaters are not in the same Guf (and the one here is talking about Jewish souls as well).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (30b) says that in the future a woman will give birth every day during the time of Moshiach.

Answer: It is possible that this will be from a new Guf, and with new souls.

Explanation: Moshiach is called a spirit, as the Pasuk says, "The spirit of our nostrils is the Moshiach of Hash-m." The Pasuk means that Moshiach will be late before Me. This is akin to the Pasuk, "that are later/older will be to Lavan" due to the souls that I made.

Implied Question: One cannot say that they became blind. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the Pasuk says regarding Dasan and Aviram's response to Moshe, "Even if you will poke out their eyes (meaning those of Dasan and Aviram, we will not go)."

Implied Question: One cannot say they were lepers. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because they were sitting in the camp of Bnei Yisrael (and not outside of it, as they would have been doing if they were lepers).

Answer(cont.): You cannot say that they were healed at the giving of the Torah (along with everyone else, as stated by Chazal), as those who were healed ended up having their ailments again after the sin of the Golden Calf.

Implied Question: One cannot say that they did not have children. (Why not?)

Answer: This would not have made them lose their ties to the king, in order that they should be less of a threat to slander Moshe like they did originally.

Opinion: Some say that it must be they became poor, as this meant they no longer had the power to damage Moshe. However, all of the other problems would have still enabled them to damage him through their money.

Observation: The simple explanation of the Pasuk is that the person who died was Pharaoh (unlike our Gemara's explanation that it was Dasan and Aviram), as the Pasuk states beforehand, "And the king of Mitzrayim died."

Explanation: He called them ingrates because they did not want to say, "You give" because they did not want to have to be grateful for it.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that Moshe himself did not remember.

Question: If so, why did Moshe get upset at Bnei Yisrael? He himself did not remember!

Answer: Being that he did not require this prayer, he did not pay attention until forty years later when he realized what His Master meant. However, Bnei Yisrael required this prayer. They therefore should have thought from that time on about this, as they already sinned by the golden calf and the spies.

Opinion#2: The Ri explains that Moshe was not upset at them regarding this matter for forty years. This is because he thought that after forty years they would understand what Hash-m wanted at the time, and they would say, "You give." He didn't think that they would refrain from saying this due to their being ingrates. However, when forty years passed and he saw that they should have known to ask this, he understood that they refrained from doing so because they were ingrates, and he therefore rebuked them.

Explanation: This is derived from the Pasuk, "From those who send out the feet." This is because the evil inclination is called a guest (i.e. a poor guest who walks as opposed to rides, see Seder Yaakov), as the Pasuk says, "And the one who walked went to the rich man."

Explanation: Rashi explains, does a person usually get so involved in his happiness and holiday that three days before his holiday it should be forbidden to deal with him because he will end up thanking his idols?! Doesn't the Mishnah say that four times a year etc.

Explanation(cont.): The Gemara concludes that when he is thinking about what he will eat, he only requires one day. However, here he is thinking about what he will offer as a sacrifice and he must prepare accordingly. He therefore requires three days. This is why it is forbidden to do any buying and selling with them in any way, because the name of their idol is constantly on their lips during this time, causing them to thank their idol upon a good deal.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not mention that they used to slaughter animals for the first day of Sukos. (Why not?)

Answer#1: This is because they were busy at this time with the Mitzvah of Lulav and Sukah, and they do not have time to make big meals.

Answer#2: Some say that these four times have special reasons for making a bigger meal (on purpose, unlike the first reason).

Answer(cont.): The last day of Sukos is special as it is its own holiday (having its own Shehecheyanu), and is different than the days of Sukos before it. They therefore instituted to make large meals on this day. This is as opposed to the seventh day of Pesach.

Answer(cont.): The Korbanos on the eighth day of Sukos are due to Bnei Yisrael, as opposed to the other days where the Korbanos correspond to the nations of the world.

Answer(cont.): They made large meals on Erev Pesach (for Pesach) being that it is a day of redemption and going out to freedom.

Answer(cont.): They made big meals on Shevuos because the Gemara says in Pesachim (68b), "Everyone agrees on Shevuos that we also require "for you." (This means that everyone agrees there should be some kind of physical celebration, which is usually represented by eating.)

Answer(cont.): They made big meals on Rosh Hashanah because it was the beginning of the year. This was a good sign for the rest of the year. They did many things at this time for a good sign, as stated in Horiyos (12a) and Kerisus (5b).

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Kesuvos (5a) asks that if Yom Kippur falls on Monday it should be pushed off. We should decree that perhaps a person will slaughter a bird on Shabbos (in order to prepare for the big meal on Erev Yom Kippur which would fall out on Sunday.) Why didn't the Gemara focus on any of the other times that everyone agrees are big holidays? Why did it focus instead on Erev Yom Kippur according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili?

Answer: It is possible to answer that the question is also according to the Rabbanan. The main question is specifically from a bird. A person who would want to slaughter an animal first must go through a lot of trouble such as making the animal fall down, causing him to remember that it is Shabbos. (There is therefore no need to make a decree for the other days.)

Answer(cont.): At these (four) times, one usually only slaughters animals. On Yom Kippur, they usually slaughter birds, fish, and light things. This is as stated in Bereishis Rabah (ch.11) that there was an incident with a person who bought a single fish for (the unreasonable price of) twelve Dinarim (on Erev Yom Kippur).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that even though there is no Korban Pesach anymore, we still ask regarding the laws of Pesach for thirty days. (Accordingly, it is possible that the thirty days has nothing to do with the Korban Pesach, and therefore cannot be brought as relative to our discussion.)

Answer: Even so, the main decree (of thirty days) is regarding the Korban. This is as the Gemara explains in Pesachim (6b) that the prophet stood up on Pesach and warned people regarding Pesach Sheini (which was one month later).

Explanation: This is referring to Nochrim offering an animal as a sacrifice on their own private altar. In the Beis Hamikdash, it would even be forbidden to sacrifice an animal with a cataract in its eye, as the Pasuk says, "And from the hands of a Nochri you should not offer." The Gemara answers by quoting the Pasuk, "And from all the living etc." to indicate that Hash-m warned Noach not to bring an animal missing a limb to the Teivah (ark), because he was supposed to bring Korbanos from these animals in the future.

Question#1: The Gemara later (6a) says that Hash-m warned Noach not to bring an old animal or a Sris (animal whose member has been cut off) to the Teivah. However, these animals are allowed to be offered as sacrifices. (This shows that we cannot establish a rule that whatever was allowed to enter the Teivah can be used, and what was not cannot be used.)

Question#2: Additionally, the Pasuk quoted above is regarding the unkosher animals, as two animals came from each of the unkosher animals. This is as the Pasuk says, "And from all of the living, from all of the flesh, two from all you should bring etc." These cannot be brought as Korbanos even for Nochrim, as is implied by the Gemara in Zevachim (116a). (Accordingly, how can we learn a rule from this Pasuk regarding the condition of kosher animals in order to be sacrificed?)

Answer: One cannot forbid an old animal or a Sris because they were not allowed to come into the Teivah. It is possible that this was for a different reason, namely that they are not fit for re-populating the world with their species. However, the only reason that animals missing a limb would be prohibited from entering the Teivah is because they should not be brought as a Korban. After all, they could repopulate the world with their species.

Answer(cont.): The Torah clearly is not addressing (with these words) unkosher animals, as they cannot even be offered as sacrifices if they are without blemish.

Observation: The term "forbidden" indicates that this is in fact something that a Nochri is forbidden from doing.

Question: This is difficult. Why isn't this counted as one of the seven Noahide laws that are punishable by death?

Question(cont.): One cannot say that this is because the warning against this prohibition is not clearly stated.

Question(cont.): This is because we understand a negative from a positive. This concept is used in the derivation, "From all trees of the garden you should eat - (this teaches) not from things that are stolen." We similarly derive, "And he will stick to his wife - (this teaches) and not his friend's wife."

Answer: Rather, it is possible to answer that this is an active Mitzvah. We derive from the Pasuk, "A man a man" that even a Nochri can pledge and donate Korbanos like a Jew. If he pledged an animal that is missing a limb, we tell him to bring a whole Korban. Mitzvos that require action are not counted among the seven Noahide laws (see Sanhedrin 58b).

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Kidushin (24b) that we require the Pasuk, "From the bird - (teaching) not the entire bird" to exclude a bird with a dried out wing or a cut off foot. Why do we require this teaching? It is obvious, as there is nothing that is permitted to a Jew that is prohibited to a Nochri (if the Nochri cannot bring it as a Korban, certainly a Yisrael cannot bring it).

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that one would think as follows. Other blemishes that render an animal invalid to be brought as a Korban are permitted by a bird, as we state that there is only a concept of no blemishes and being male for an animal Korban, but not for a bird. Being that there is no difference between a blemish and missing a limb regarding an animal sacrifice, we should say regarding a bird that just as it can have blemishes, it may also be missing a limb. This is why the Pasuk must teach us, "From the bird" (as stated above).

Answer#2: It is also possible to answer that without the Pasuk, "From the bird" forbidding a Jew from bringing a bird that is missing a limb, I would think that Nochrim are permitted to do so. The Pasuk would presumably be forbidding this for a Jew, even though it is stated regarding Noahides.

Answer#2(cont.): This is as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (59a) that every Mitzvah that was said to Noahides, and was not said again at Sinai, is a Mitzvah that is for Bnei Yisrael and not for Noahides. If it was said at Har Sinai as well, both of them must keep this commandment. [See also Tosfos in Zevachim (68b, DH "v'Shenismis").]