1)

(a)What is Rav Mordechai's version of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's Machlokes?

(b)Rav Ashi asked him whether he also switched the exchange of questions and answers between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Why did this bother Rav Ashi? Why did he mention particularly Rebbi Elazar's final comment (concerning Rebbi Yochanan's dream)?

(c)What did Rav Mordechai reply? How did he interpret Rebbi Yochanan's 'Lo Kidshu'?

(d)In that case, they are not even arguing (Mar Amar Chada, u'Mar Amar Chada, ve'Lo P'ligi). What important principle do we learn from here?

1)

(a)According to Rav Mordechai - Rebbi Yochanan said 'Lo Kidshu Bechoros ba'Midbar', whereas Resh Lakish said 'Kidshu'.

(b)Rav Ashi asked him whether he also switched the exchange of questions and answers between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, particularly Rebbi Elazar's final comment (concerning Rebbi Yochanan's dream). This bothered him - because Rebbi Elazar was a close Talmid of Rebbi Yochanan, and would have been unlikely to have misquoted him.

(c)Rav Mordechai replied that when Rebbi Yochanan said 'Lo Kidshu' - he meant 'Lo Hutzr'chu Likadesh' (meaning that it was not necessary to sanctify the Bechoros in the desert, since they were already sanctified).

(d)In that case, they are not even arguing ('Mar Amar Chada, u'Mar Amar Chada, ve'Lo P'ligi'). This teaches us the principle - that one should always cite what one learned from one's Rebbe, using the same terminology as he used.

2)

(a)What did Kuntrukus the governor ask Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (or Rabban Gamliel) concerning the census of the Levi'im? What discrepancy did he discover between the detailed count of Gershon, K'has and Merori on the one hand, and the total figure, on the other?

(b)What did the latter reply?

(c)What reason did Abaye give to explain this?

2)

(a)Kuntrukus the governor asked Raban Yochanan ben Zakai (or Raban Gamliel) why it is that in the detailed count of Gershon, K'has and Merori there were twenty-two thousand, three hundred Levi'im, whereas the Torah gives the total figure as twenty-two thousand.

(b)The latter replied - that the three hundred omitted by the Torah were firstborn, and firstborn cannot redeem firstborn.

(c)Abaye explains that this is - because it is enough for a firstborn to redeem himself.

3)

(a)To explain why Moshe did not account for more than half the silver that Yisrael had donated for the Mishkan, Kuntrukus accused Moshe Rabeinu of being a thief. Which two other options did he present?

(b)The half-Shekalim, he claimed, amounted to three hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and seventy-five Shekalim. If 1Kikar = 60 Manah and 1 Manah = 100 Dinrim = 25 Shekalim/Sela'im, how many Kikar are there in 300,000 Shekalim?

(c)Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (or Rabban Gamliel) replied that Moshe was a most reliable treasurer. What was Kuntrukus' mistake in accusing Moshe of stealing more than fifty percent of the silver that was donated for the Mishkan?

(d)As for the remaining 1775 Shekalim, the Torah has already informed us that it was used to make hooks for the pillars ... . So why did Kuntrukus mention them in the first place?

3)

(a)To explain why Moshe did not account for more than half of the silver that Yisrael had donated for the Mishkan - Kuntrukus accused Moshe Rabeinu of being either a thief - a gambler or simply a poor mathematician.

(b)The total half-Shekalim, he claimed, amounted to three hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and seventy-five Shekalim. If 1Kikar = 60 Manah and 1 Manah = 100 Dinrim = 25 Shekalim/Sela'im - there are a hundred Kikar in 300,000 Shekalim.

(c)Raban Yochanan ben Zakai (or Raban Gamliel) replied that Moshe was a most reliable treasurer. Kuntrukus' mistake in accusing Moshe of 'stealing' more than fifty percent of the silver that was donated for the Mishkan - lay in the fact that the Manah shel Kodesh is double that of Chol, in which case the hundred Kikar was really two hundred.

(d)As for the remaining 1775 Shekalim, the Torah has already informed us that it was used to make hooks for the pillars ... . Nevertheless, Kuntrukus mentioned them - in order to stir up trouble, so he ignored that fact.

4)

(a)Kuntrukus' query was based on the Pasuk in Pikudey "Vay'hi Me'as Kikar ha'Kesef Latzekes". According to Rav Acha'i, what more simple answer could Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai have given Kuntrukus?

(b)Then why didn't he?

(c)What do we try to prove from the fact that the Pasuk presents the leftovers ...

1. ... here as 1775 Shekel? What should it otherwise have written?

2. ... over seventy Kikar of copper as 2400 Shekalim? What should it otherwise have written

(d)How do we refute ...

1. ... the first proof?

2. ... the second proof?

4)

(a)Kuntrukus' query was based on the Pasuk in Pikudey "Vay'hi Me'as Kikar ha'Kesef Latzekes". According to Rav Acha'i, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai could have answered more simply - that the hundred Kikar was used to cast the silver sockets (as stated in the Pasuk), and the remaining hundred Kikar was placed in the Temple Treasury.

(b)He didn't do that however - because of another Pasuk in the same Parshah, which gives the total amount of silver collected as a hundred Kikar, without mentioning what it was used for.

(c)We try to prove from the fact that the Pasuk presents the leftovers ...

1. ... here as 1775 Shekel - that the Manah shel Kodesh must be double that of shel Chol (because otherwise, the Torah ought to have converted it into another Kikar, to total a hundred and one Kikar and 275 Shekel).

2. ... of over seventy Kikar of copper as 2400 Shekel - that the Manah shel Kodesh must be double that of shel Chol, because otherwise, the Torah ought to have reckoned seventy-one Kikar and nine hundred Shekel.

(d)We refute ...

1. ... the first proof on the grounds that - the Torah does not bother to convert less than a hundred Kikar of Shekalim into Shekalim.

2. ... the second proof - that it does not even bother to convert less that ten Kikar of Shekalim, either.

5)

(a)What in simple terms, does the Pasuk in Yechezkel mean when it writes " ... Esrim Shekalim, Chamishah ve'Esrim Shekalim, Asarah va'Chamishah Shekel ha'Manah Yih'yeh lachem"?

(b)What does this prove?

(c)What else do we learn from the extra forty Shekel?

(d)Why do we refer to the fraction as a sixth, when really forty is a fifth of two hundred?

5)

(a)In simple terms, the Pasuk " in Yechezkel ... Esrim Shekalim, Chamishah ve'Esrim Shekalim, Asarah va'Chamishah Shekel ha'Manah Yih'yeh lachem" means - that there are sixty Shekel in a Manah, which is equivalent to two hundred and forty Dinrim.

(b)This proves - that a Manah shel Kodesh is double the hundred Dinrim of Chol.

(c)And we also learn from the extra forty Shekel - that the Chachamim are permitted to add to the Torah's measurement as much a sixth (but no more).

(d)We refer to the fraction as a sixth, even though forty is a fifth of two hundred - because if one has five portions of forty, one adds a sixth portion to make it two hundred and forty.

5b----------------------------------------5b

6)

(a)Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Eliezer why the Mitzvah of Petter Chamor applies specifically to donkeys, and not to horses and camels. What reason did he add to the fact that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv?

(b)How many donkeys did each and every Jew own upon leaving Egypt?

(c)What are Chamorim Lubim? What purpose did they serve?

(d)When he also asked him what "Refidim" (in Beshalach) means, he replied that it was no more than a place name, and that is what he answered when he asked him about "Shitim" (in Balak). How did Rebbi Yehoshua (in a Beraisa) explain ...

1. ... "Refidim"?

2. ... "Shitim"?

(e)Rebbi Eliezer interprets the word "Vatikrenah" (in the Pasuk in Balak "Vatikrenah la'Am le'Zivchei Eloheihen") as naked. How does Rebbi Yehoshua interpret it?

6)

(a)Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Eliezer why the Mitzvah of Petter Chamor applies specifically to donkeys, and not to horses and camels. Besides the fact that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, he added - that it to reward the donkeys for having helped Yisrael carry their belongings out of Egypt ....

(b)... because each and every Jew owned at least ninety donkeys ...

(c)... sturdy donkeys - (Chamorim Lubim) to help them carry the silver and gold that they had 'borrowed' from the Egyptians.

(d)When he also asked him what "Refidim" means, he replied that it was merely a place name, and that is what he answered when he asked him about "Shitim". But Rebbi Yehoshua (in a Beraisa) explained that the Torah refers to it as ...

1. ... "Refidim" - because they were weak in Torah (since "Refidim" is the acronym of 'Rafu Yadayim (min ha'Torah)', which is why Amalek attacked them then.

2. ... "Shitim" - because a spirit of nonsense entered into them (based on the word 'Sh'tus').

(e)Rebbi Eliezer interprets the word "Vatikrenah" (in the Pasuk in Balak "Vatikrenah la'Am le'Zivchei Eloheihen") to mean that the women were 'naked'. Rebbi Yehoshua explains it to mean - that all the men had an emission when they made contact with them.

7)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about a cow that gives birth to a kind of donkey, or a donkey that gives birth to a kind of horse?

(b)How does the Tana learn this from the Torah's repetition of "Petter Chamor"?

(c)In which area of Halachah does the Tana draw a distinction between the same two animals?

(d)Why is that?

7)

(a)Our Mishnah exempts a cow that gave birth to a kind of donkey, or a donkey that gave birth to a kind of horse - from the Bechorah.

(b)And the Tana learns this from the Pasuk's repetition of "Petter Chamor" - once to teach us that the baby must be a donkey, and once, that the mother must be a donkey, too.

(c)The Tana draws a distinction between the same pair of animals - permitting the former to be eaten, and forbidding the latter ...

(d)... based on the principle that 'whatever comes out from something Tamei is Tamei, whilst whatever comes out from something Tahor is Tahor.

8)

(a)What does the Mishnah later learn from the words in Korach ...

1. ... "(Ach) B'chor Shor"?

2. ... "B'chor Kesev"?

3. ... "B'chor Eiz"?

(b)And what does the Tana learn from the word "Ach"?

(c)How do we reconcile that Mishnah with our Mishnah, which learns the same thing from the Torah's repetition of Petter Chamor?

(d)What is the basis of the Machlokes between our Tana and Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili?

8)

(a)The Mishnah later, learns from the Pasuk in Korach ...

1. ... "[Ach] B'chor Shor" - that both the B'chor and the mother must be from the family of an ox, for the Din of B'chor to take effect.

2. ... "B'chor Kesev" - that they must both be from the family of a lamb.

3. ... "B'chor Eiz" - that they must both be from the family of a goat.

(b)"Ach" - that it is sufficient for there to be a slight resemblance between the mother and the baby.

(c)We reconcile this Mishnah with our Mishnah, which learns the same thing from the Torah's repetition of Petter Chamor - by establishing it like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who learns it from "Ach B'chor Shor".

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between our Tana and Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is - that according to one, the Torah writes the Din in connection with Kedushas ha'Guf, and we learn Kedushas Damim from it, whilst according to the other one, it is the other way round.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "B'chor Shor O B'chor Kesev O B'chor Eiz" like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learn from this Pasuk (which concludes "es Damam Tizrok ... ve'es Chelbam Taktir")?

(b)Why can we not learn the other two from ...

1. ... "B'chor Shor"?

2. ... "B'chor Kesev"?

3. ... "B'chor Eiz"?

(c)And why can we not learn ...

1. ... Par from Kesev and Eiz?

2. ... Kesev from Par and Eiz?

3. ... Eiz from Par and Kesev?

(d)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili precludes the firstborn of horses and camels from the Din of B'chor from the words "Petter Chamor". Then what does he learn from the Torah's repetition of "Petter Chamor"?

9)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "B'chor Shor O B'chor Kesev O B'chor Eiz" like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina who learns from this Pasuk (which concludes "ve'es Damam Tizrok ... ve'es Chelbam Taktir") - that all of the Eimurin of each of the three species of animals must be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)We cannot learn the other two from ...

1. ... "B'chor Shor" - because its Nesech (drink-offering) is larger than theirs.

2. ... "B'chor Kesev" - because its fat-tail goes on the Mizbe'ach, whereas their tails do not.

3. ... "B'chor Eiz" - because it is brought as a Chatas Yachid to atone for Avodah Zarah.

(c)Neither can we learn ...

1. ... Par from Kesev and Eiz - since they are both eligible to be brought as the Korban Pesach, which it is not.

2. ... Kesev from Par and Eiz - which are both brought as the Korban Tzibur for Avodah Zarah (as the Olah and the Chatas respectively).

3. ... Eiz from Par and Kesev - which both have more parts of the Korban offered on the Mizbe'ach (as we just explained) than it does.

(d)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili precludes the firstborn of horses and camels from the Din of Bechor from the words "Petter Chamor". From the Torah's repetition of "Petter Chamor" - he precludes the possibility of learning from the previous D'rashah that a donkey can only be redeemed with a lamb, but that they can be redeemed with any Tahor animal.

10)

(a)Rav Acha'i asks that on the contrary, if the Torah had only written "Petter Chamor" once, we would view it as a Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'Kelal Lelamed. What does he mean by that?

(b)And what if it did?

(c)What would we then learn from the second "Petter Chamor"?

(d)On what grounds do we refute Rav Acha'i's query? If the Torah had not wanted to preclude other Tamei animals from the Din of Bechorah completely - which word would it have omitted from the second "u'Petter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh"?

10)

(a)Rav Acha'i asks that on the contrary, if the Torah had only written "Petter Chamor" once, we would view it as a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'K'lal Lelamed' - with reference to the Pasuk in Korach "ve'es B'chor ha'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah Tifdeh".

(b)And now that the Torah teaches us that a donkey needs to be redeemed with a lamb - this would incorporate all the Beheimos Temei'os that are included in the original Pasuk.

(c)And we would then learn from the second "Petter Chamor" - that the other Tamei animals could be redeemed with any animal (as we just suggested).

(d)We refute that however, on the grounds that if the Torah had not wanted to preclude other Tamei animals from the Din completely - it would have omitted the word "Petter" from the second Pasuk, and written "va'Chamor be'Seh Tifdeh".

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF