Rebbi Yossi (or Rav Asi) bar Nasan did not understand the Beraisa we are about to quote, until it was explained to him by his Rebbe - Rav Sheishes, whom he followed first to Neharda'a and then to Mechuza, before catching up with him.

Rav Sheishes explained that when the Tana Kama extrapolates from the Pasuk "Mo'adei Hash-m asher Tikre'u osam ... ", 'Mo'adei Hash-m Ne'emru, Shabbos Bereishis Lo Ne'emru', he means that - Yom-Tov requires Kidush (to become sanctified), but not Shabbos.

He learns this on the basis of the fact that - "Mo'adei Hash-m" appears two times in the Pasuk, one of which is seemingly superfluous.

We might have thought otherwise - because, since Shabbos appears in the Parshah of Mo'adim, it ought to have the same Din as them.

Granted, we learn from "Zachor es Yom ha'Shabbos le'Kadsho" that Shabbos too requires Kidush - but we are referring (not to the individual's Mitzvah of Kidush, but) to the Mitzvah of Kidush Beis-Din on the Sunday before (like Kidush Beis-Din of Yom-Tov, which took place on the preceding Rosh Chodesh).

The Tana refers to Shabbos as 'Shabbos Bereishis' - because it was fixed by Hash-m at the Creation (unlike Yom-Tov, which is fixed each time by Beis-Din).

Rav Sheishes also explained ben Azai, who said 'Mo'adei Hash-m Ne'emru, Hafaras Nedarim Lo Ne'emru' to mean that - Hafaras Nedarim (by which he really means Hataras Nedarim) does not require a Beis-Din shel Mumchin, like Kidush Beis-Din does.

Whereas ben Azai 's reconcile this statement with the Torah's own words "Rashei ha'Matos" - by explaining that Pasuk with reference to a Yachid Mumcheh, as we explained earlier.

In the Mishnah on Ta'anis, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel describes Yom Kipur and Chamishah-Asar be'Av as the greatest Yamim-Tovim. On them - the girls would go out to the vineyards and dance.

They would all wear borrowed dresses - so as not to embarrass the girls from poor families, who could not afford pretty clothes.

Yom Kipur is the happiest of days because it is a day of forgiveness, the day when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second Luchos. Based on the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Zeh ha'Davar" (implying that the Isur of Hasavas Nachalah was confined to that generation only, as we explained earlier), Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ascribed the Simchah on Chamishah-Asar be'Av - to the fact that it was the day when the tribes were permitted to intermarry once again.

We refute the opinion that connects this reason with the last opinion (cited later), which explains that the decree of the generation of the Meraglim terminated - since that reason applied to the generation of those who left Egypt, whereas this one applied to the generation who captured Eretz Yisrael (in which case the respective dates were a full generation apart).

Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Simchah on Tu be'Av to the fact that the tribes became reunited with Binyamin once again. He learns from the Pasuk "Ish Mimenu Lo Yiten es Bito le'Vinyamin le'Ishah" (which implies "from us", 'but not from our children') - that the prohibition was not permanent.

The next explanation is that of Rav Dimi bar Yosef Amar Rav Nachman, who ascribes the Simchah on Tu be'Av - to the fact that the last of the generation that left Egypt died.

We just cited the explanation of Rav Dimi bar Yosef Amar Rav Nachman, who attributed the Simchah to the fact that the Meisei Midbar terminated on Tu be'Av. What is technically wrong with that statement is that - in fact, it was on Tishah be'Av that the last person of that generation died.

What he therefore meant was that - on Tu be'Av they got to know that the decree had terminated.

They made this discovery when, in fulfillment of the decree that the entire generation would die in the desert - the last batch of the old generation dug their graves on the night of Tishah be'Av and lay in them, nobody died overnight; and the same happened, on the tenth, the eleventh and twelfth, through to the fifteenth. They then realized that the decree had been annulled and that was when they celebrated.

They did not know already on the ninth, when nobody died, that the decree had been annulled - because they suspected that they got their dates mixed up, and it was only on the fifteenth, when the moon was full, that they concluded that they could not have been mistaken.

The real reason for the Simchah was the fact that - since the sadness that accompanied the annual deaths (preventing the revelation of the Shechinah) had now dissipated, Hash-m appeared to Moshe once again, as He used to do before the episode with the Meraglim.

Rav Nachman learns this from the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim "Vay'hi ka'asher Tamu Kol Anshei ha'Milchamah la'Mus ... Va'yedaber Hash-m Elai Leimor", which means (not that Hash-m did not speak to Moshe throughout the thirty-eight years from the Meraglim until then, but) that - the Shechinah did not speak with him with the same intensity as it used to, or that It did not speak with Him unless it was important to do so.

Rav Nachman might learn his D'rashah from the fact that the first of these Pesukim is superfluous. Alternatively, he might learn it from the Lashon "va'Yedaber Hash-m ... " (and not "va'Yomer Hash-m ... ", the Lashon that it uses a little earlier in the Parshah), implying with greater intensity (and with love).

Ula connects the Simchah of Tu be'Av to the removal of the border-guards which Yeravam (the first king of the ten tribes) set-up to prevent the ten tribes from going up to Yerushalayim on the Shalosh Regalim. They were removed by - Hoshe'a ben Eilah (the last of the kings of the Ten Tribes).

What prompted him to do so was - the fact that the Golden Calves set up by Yeravam to replace the worship of Hash-m in the Beis-Hamikdash, were exiled.

Rav Masnah connects the Simchah of Tu be'Av with those who were killed in the last stronghold of Beitar by the Romans. The cause of the Simchah there was - the fact that after seven years lying in the open, the Romans finally allowed the corpses to be buried.

On the same day, he says, the Chachamim in Yavneh instituted the Berachah of 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' (in Birchas ha'Mazon) ...

... 'ha'Tov' - because they were finally brought to burial.

... 'ha'Meitiv' - because they did not even begin to decompose during that time.

According to Rabah and Rav Yosef, the Simchah of Tu be'Av is connected with the completion of the Mitzvah of cutting the wood for the Mizbe'ach, which began in Nisan. The significance of the final date is based on Rebbi Eliezer, who said that - when the fifteenth of Av arrives, the power of the sun begins to wane (which leads to an increase in smoke and in worms [both of which disqualify the wood from the Mizbe'ach]).

The decline in the heat would not cause wood that was cut before Tu be'Av to become wormy anyway - because once wood has been cut-off from the tree, it does not become wormy.

Rav Menasheh informs us that this day became known as 'Yom Tavar Magal' - the day on which they broke their sickles.

Rebbi Eliezer also describes this day as being - the day when the nights begin to grow longer, and on which one should therefore begin to work less and learn more, and that was the real reason for the Simchah.

Rav Yosef explains the latter half of Rav Menasheh's final statement 'she'Eino Mosef Yasif' to mean that - if someone does not fulfill it, he will die prematurely ('his mother will bury him'), like we find at the end of Megilas Esther "ve'Zichram La Yasuf mi'Zar'am" (meaning 'and the memory of these days will not terminate from their descendants').

The Beraisa lists seven people who spanned the world from the Creation until the present day and beyond. Adam ha'Rishon is the first of these. The last is Eliyahu ha'Navi (who is still alive).

If ...

... Mesushelach served Adam, Shem served Mesushelach.

... Ya'akov served Shem and Amram, Ya'akov.

... Achiyah ha'Shiloni served Amram and Eliyahu, Achiyah ha'Shiloni.

We prefer to list Mesushelach rather than Lemech (who also served Adam) - because he was a Tzadik and the list includes only Tzadikim.

When Mesushelach died - Shem was ninety-eight years old ...

... because Mesushelach died only a week before the Flood, and Shem turned a hundred, two years after the Flood).

It is logical to say that Amram saw Ya'akov - because his father K'has, was among those who went down to Egypt, seventeen years before the death of Ya'akov, and Amram, who was K'has' oldest son, could well have been born during those seventeen years.

According to other Midrashim, only two people spanned the world - Adam and Chanoch (on the assumption that the latter became the Angel Matatron, only our Tana holds that Chanoch died).

The Tana of our Beraisa interprets the Pasuk "ve'Einenu, ki Lakach oso Elokim" to mean that - Chanoch died prematurely (since he buried Adam and Chavah) surviving the former by only fifty-seven years (even though he was born hundreds of years after him).

According to this Tana, Pinchas cannot have been Eliyahu - because, according to him, we could have listed six generations, by concluding that Moshe served Amram, and Pinchas served Moshe (omitting Achiyah ha'Shiloni altogether).

Bearing in mind that Ya'akov lived in Egypt 17 years, and that Amram lived 147 years, the youngest age that Achiyah ha'Shiloni (who saw Amram) could possibly have been awhen they left Egypt was 56 (210-17-137).

This leaves us with a problem, because we know, on the one hand, that none of those who left Egypt entered Eretz Yisrael, and on the other, that Achiyah ha'Shiloni entered Eretz Yisrael - because he was the Navi who crowned Yeravam King of the ten tribes.

Rav Hamnuna initially answers by listing Achiyah ha'Shiloni as a Levi - and the Levi'im were not subject to the decree that nobody from that generation would enter Eretz Yisrael ...

... which we learn from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-lecha "ba'Midbar ha'Zeh Yiplu Pigreichem ve'Chol Pekudeichem le'Chol Misparchem" - implying that the decree of the Spies was confined to those who were counted from the age of twenty (to preclude the Tribe of Levi, who were counted from the age of one month).

Ya'ir and Machir were - sons of Menasheh.

The Beraisa says that - they left Egypt at the time of the Exodus, yet they entered Eretz Yisrael.

The Pasuk records that the men of Ay smote thirty-six men of Yisrael. Rebbi Nechemyah disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, who interprets this literally - based on the Lashon of the Pasuk "ki'Sheloshim- ve'Shishah Ish" (and not "Sheloshim-ve'Shishah Ish").

He therefore interprets the Pasuk with regard to Ya'ir ben Menasheh who is the only one to have been killed and who is considered like thirty-six Tzadikim (the majority of the Sanhedrin) ...

... a proof that he entered Eretz Yisrael, even though he left Egypt (that Machir did too, is presumably, a tradition).

We have proved from this Beraisa that - it is not only members of the tribe of Levi who left Egypt and entered Eretz Yisrael, but also from other tribes (in which case, it is also possible that Achiyah ha'Shiloni was not a Levi after all).

In the realm of Erchin, someone who is under twenty has in common with someone who is over sixty that - they are both evaluated at less than the full Erech of fifty Shekalim (for men) and thirty Shekalim (for women).

Based on this fact, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "va'Ma'alah" (in Sh'lach-l'cha ["mi'ben Esrim Shanah va'Ma'alah"]) from "va'Ma'alah" by Erchin (in Bechukosai) that - just as those over sixty are compared to those under twenty by Erchin, so too, are they compared with regard to being excluded from the decree of having to die in the desert.

Assuming that Achiyah ha'Shiloni was not a ben Levi, the minimum number of years that he would then have had to see Amram for him to have entered Eretz Yisrael is - five years.

When he left Egypt he was - sixty-one.

They asked whether Eretz Yisrael was divided up 'li'Shevatim' (according to the tribes) or 'le'Karfaf Gavri' (according to the number of people) in other words - whether it was divided into twelve equal portions, irrespective of how many people it comprised, or whether it was divided according to its size (i.e. the larger the tribe, the larger the portion).

We resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which merely quotes the Pasuk in Pinchas "Bein Rav li'Me'at" - implying that some people received bigger portions than others, whereas if Eretz Yisrael was divided according to the people, then everyone would receive the same size portion. (According to this, we conclude that, according to this Tana, Eretz Yisrael was divided 'li'Shevatim'.