Explanation: This is written in the border of Binyamin in Sefer Yehoshua, and not like it is written in Seforim [li'F'as Yam].

Reference: This verse is written in Parshas Mas'ei. The verses above (i.e. in the question) "v'Sa'ar he'Gevul... v'Alah ha'Gevul" are written in Sefer Yehoshua, every division of every Shevet;

This verse [in Mas'ei] teaches that the entire border of Eretz Yisrael is one (but borders between Shevatim are not considered borders).

This is unlike Rashi, who explained that after [the Torah] lists [the borders], it makes it one land.

Rebuttal: He connotes that both of them are written in one place. This is not so! This ("Zos Tihyeh Lachem...") is written in the Torah, and this ("v'Sa'ar he'Gevul...") is written in Nevi'im!

Question: If he expounds from "Yarden Yerecho" that they were equated [to each other], this is written in several places! (Why does he bring specifically this verse?)

Answer: He brings specifically this verse in Parshas Mas'ei written after the Torah listed the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and it says "va'Ytzav Moshe... Shnei ha'Matos v'Chetzi ha'Mateh Lakchu Nachalasam me'Ever l'Yarden Yerecho Kedmah Mizrachah";

This connotes that the Yarden is part of the primary Eretz Yisrael, and not in the boundary of the two and a half Shevatim, just like Yerecho is not within their boundary.

Explanation (Rashi): However, what extends above (north of) Yericho is not the Yarden. Its importance is Batel, for it mixes with great seas.

Question: If above its importance is Batel, for it mixes, if so also below, for it already mixed with seas above!

Answer: Even though it mixed with lakes, it can be that below, it leaves the lake and goes without a mixture, like it says below, that it goes in the sea of Savchei and in the sea of Tiverya and in the sea of Sedom (Yam ha'Melach) and goes and falls into the great ocean;

Inference: It is recognized when it leaves each of those seas and falls into the great ocean, like we say also in Bereishis Rabah in Parshas Bereishis "the Yarden goes into the Yam ha'Melach, and does not mix [with it].

Question: Rashi's Perush is difficult, for even so, its importance is Batel below Yericho more than above, for the truth is, below Yericho it widens more and goes to Yam ha'Melach;

The border of Shevet Binyamin was between Bnei Yehudah and Bnei Yosef, like it says in Yehoshua, and Yehudah was in the south of Eretz Yisrael, and Bnei Yosef was in the north, and Binyamin was in the middle;

The portion of Yehudah spanned the entire length if Eretz Yisrael from east to west, and Yam ha'Melach was on the entire eastern border of Yehudah, and where the Yarden finishes and falls into [Yam ha'Melach], there ends the eastern border of Yehudah in the north.

This is like it is written in Yehoshua regarding the border of Bnei Yehudah "u'Gevul Kedmah Yam ha'Melach Ad Ketze ha'Yarden", and the Yarden was the eastern border of Binyamin, like it says at the end of the Parshah [of Binyamin's border] "veha'Yarden Yigvol Oso li'F'as Kedmah";

And when it lists the northern border of Binyamin from east to west, it is written "Lahem ha'Gevul Tzafon[ah] Min ha'Yarden v'Alah ha'Gevul El Kesef Yericho [mi'Tzafon] v'Alah va'Har Yamah";

Explanation: From the side of their northern border, from the Yarden in the east the border begins, and it rises to past nearby Yericho in the north, and it rises from there to the west, past Yericho, and a string (a straight border) is stretched north of Yericho;

It turns out that Yericho is within the string, in Binyamin's portion. [The verse] returns to recount the western border from north to south, and afterwards the southern border west to east, and at the end of the southern border, on the east side, it says "v'Hayu Totz'os ha'Gevul El Leshon Yam ha'Melach Tzafonah El Ketze ha'Yarden Negbah Zeh ha'Gevul Negev."

Explanation: [The border] is north of the Lashon (a thin extension of the Dead Sea), for the entire Lashon is in Yehudah's portion.

Summation of question: Now, all the verses prove that the Yarden goes from north to south and falls into the Yam ha'Melach at the end of the border of Binyamin at the south side, and Yericho was in Binyamin's portion on the north side;

Why wasn't the Yarden important from Yericho and above (to the north)? There were not seas there until the end of Binyamin's border, that [there] it falls into Yam ha'Melach!

Answer: It seems that he expounds a verse that it is called Yarden only from Beis Yericho and below, for the verse "veha'Yarden Yigvol Oso" discusses from Beis Yericho and below.

Explanation: It is not called fourth because it is small. Rather, it means as follows. It is Pras from the beginning. Initially its name is Pras before it separates into four ends;

When it begins to separate, the rivers come out, this on this side and this on this side, and the Pras goes straight in its course. Therefore, it keeps its name [and the rivers that come out have different names].

[In a Piyut] for Parshas Shekalim, R. Eliezer ha'Kalir wrote when the Pras emerges, its might is equal to two rivers.

Support: Bereishis Rabah connotes like this, that [the Pras] is big. They say to the Pras "why doesn't your voice go (it is not heard from a distance)?", and it says "my Peros testify about me." They say to Chidekel "why doesn't your voice go?", and it says "if only I would make my voice heard, and I would be seen"! This implies that Chidekel is smaller than the Pras.

Question: It says in Shevuos (47b) "Ad ha'Nehar ha'Gadol Nehar Pras" - the slave of a king is like a king. This implies that due to Eretz Yisrael (Pras will be a border of Eretz Yisrael in the future) it is called big (but not because it is big)!

Implied question: Shmuel discusses all rivers, and it connotes that R. Meir mentioned specifically the Pras, that it is called Pras because its waters Parim v'Rabim (increase, but other rivers do not. If so, he does not support Shmuel!)

Answer #1: [R. Meir] did not [specify Pras] because its waters increase more than other rivers, rather, because it is more important than the others.

Answer #2: Because it is the head of all [rivers], it is called Pras, since all are blessed from the Pras' source.

Support: So R. Tam explained in a Teshuvah, because the Pras is above all rivers, and it is from Eretz Yisrael, and all rivers drink from it, the verse attributes Piryah v'Rivyah to it (its name alludes to this), for when it is great, all rivers increase. (Perhaps he mentions that it is from Eretz Yisrael, for it is the highest land. - PF)

Explanation: This is from its source, like the Targum of Sela (Bamidbar 20:8, the rock that gave water after Moshe hit it) is Kipah.

Inference: Here it connotes that the Pras flows from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, and like I explained above (44b).

Consequence: This connotes that Gan Eden is in the west of the world, for (a verse teaches that the Pras, the border of Eretz Yisrael, comes out of Eden, and) Bavel is northeast of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore people of Bavel call Eretz Yisrael "the west."

Support: We say in Bava Basra (25b) that Bavel is in the north of Eretz Yisrael, for it says "mi'Tzafon Tiftach ha'Ra'ah"... This shows that the Pras flows from west to east;

And it connotes that it is so from the beginning of its emergence [from its source], like we say "it is Pras from the beginning." This shows that Gan Eden is in the west of the world.

Support: Bereishis Rabah says that everywhere, we find that the eastern direction absorbs (exiles);

It absorbed Adam ha'Rishon (when he was exiled from Gan Eden), like it says "va'Ygaresh Es ha'Adam va'Yishkon mi'Kedem l'Gan Eden Es ha'Keruvim." It absorbed Kayin, like it says "va'Yeshev b'Eretz Nud Kidmas Eden." Also regarding [a Shogeg] murderer it says "Az Yavdil Moshe Shalosh Arim Mizrachah Shemesh;

Inference: This world that Adam ha'Rishon entered was east of Gan Eden. This shows that [Gan Eden] is in the west of the world.

Question: In Bava Basra (84a) we say that the sun appears red in the morning and in the afternoon (end of the day). In the morning, it is because it passes over the roses of Gan Eden. This connotes that [Gan Eden] is in the east, for in the morning the sun is in the east!

Strengthening of question: So the Rashbam explained there, since it says "va'Yita... Gan b'Eden mi'Kedem."

Even though the Targum [of mi'Kedem] is mil'Kadmin (before), it connotes also the east, for also "Kidmas Eden mi'Kedem l'Gan Eden", it connotes in Bereishis Rabah that it is the east, and the Targum is mil'Kadmin!

Answer: We can reject [the proof from] the verse, that it is the east of Eden, but Eden itself is in the west of the world.

Answer: We can explain the Gemara in Bava Basra, that [the sun's rays] do not truly pass [over the roses of Gan Eden]. Rather, in the morning, when the sun comes out in the east, the beam of light beats against [and reflects from] the roses of Gan Eden. In the afternoon, it beats against the fire of Gehinom in the east.

Support: This reason is not astounding, for however we will explain, we must say so, for it says there "and some say oppositely";

It is unreasonable to say that they argue about this, that one holds that Gan Eden is in the east, and one holds that it is in the west.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They put mats below their feet in the water, due to mud, lest it be a Chatzitzah.

Support: It connotes like this in Nidah (66b). Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said that a woman should not immerse in a port, and even though now [after she left the water] there is no mud [on her feet], I can say that through Diduy, that she shakes herself, it fell;

After this, it brings Shmuel's father's teaching here, and afterwards it brings Rav Gidal's teaching in the name of Rav that if she gave a cooked food to her son and immersed, the Tevilah does not count for her. Even though now there is no [food on her], I can say that through Diduy, it fell.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He put mats for privacy, for the rivers are low in Tishrei (for there is little rain in summer). He spread mats so people will not see them, lest they rush Tevilah due to shame, and not immerse properly.

This is also the reason why she should not immerse in a port, because men are found there, and she rushes Tevilah due to fear of men.

This is like it says there above that a woman should not stand on a Kli Cheres [while immersing], and it explains there that she fears lest she fall, and does not immerse properly.

In the case of a port, the text does not say "even though now there is no [Chatzitzah", for it is not due to Chatzitzah].

Explanation #1: This is like Rashi explained, and rainwater is not Metaher b'Zochalin (when it flows), like it teaches in Toras Kohanim that a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, and a Mikveh through Ashboran (contained water).

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Ashboran for a Mikveh is precise. It excludes Zochalin. However, Zochalin of a spring is not precise. It does not exclude Ashboran;

Rather, it means as follows. A spring is Metaher even b'Zochalin, but a Mikveh is Metaher only b'Ashboran.

Source: Regarding these it is brought there in Toras Kohanim. It teaches "just like a spring is bi'Ydei Shamayim, also a Mikveh is bi'Ydei Shamayim. This excludes one who filled (poured water from Kelim) and made a Mikveh from the beginning;

Perhaps just like a spring Kol she'Hu (of any size) is Metaher, also a Mikveh Kol she'Hu is Metaher! It says "Ach Mayan" - a spring Kol she'Hu is Metaher, but a Mikveh needs 40 Sa'im.

Perhaps just like a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, also a Mikveh is Metaher b'Zochalin! It says "Ach Mayan" - a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, and a Mikveh b'Ashboran. (We learn from a spring to a Mikveh, but not vice-versa.)

Proof: We can bring a proof from the Yam that Shlomo made. Kohanim immersed in it, even though spring water was gathered in it!

Rejection: We can reject this. In the Yerushalmi it says "veha'Yam l'Rachtzah ha'Kohanim" (it was for them to immerse). It says "was it not a Kli?" (One may not immerse in a Kli!) It explains that the legs of the oxen had holes big enough for pomegranates to leave. If so, it is possible that [the water was considered] Zochalin.

Similarly, [we cannot bring a proof from] the Mikveh above Beis ha'Parvah in Yoma (31a), which was from Ein Eitam, and the Kohen Gadol immersed in it. It is possible that the water entered on one side, and left on the other side.

Remark: However, it is obvious that spring water that was cut off from the spring is Metaher b'Ashboran, no matter what you will say (about whether or not a spring is Metaher b'Ashboran), for it became a Mikveh, since it was cut off from the spring.

A Mishnah (Mikva'os 5:1) explicitly teaches that if they passed a spring over a pond and cut it off [from the spring], it is like a Mikveh. If he returned (reconnected it to the spring, so the water flows, it is considered Mayim Chayim only when he knows that the water that was there before reconnecting it, it left).

Support: Liquids of Bei Mitbechai (where Korbanos are rinsed, e.g. water) - it says (Pesachim 17b) that in the ground, it is proper to immerse needles and small forks in it (but not if it is in a Kli). It connotes that it is b'Ashboran, similar to a Kli, and it says there that [the water] was from the spring that went through the Azarah.

Assertion: One can bring a proof [that spring water is Metaher b'Zochalin] even if it was not cut off] from the Mishnah in Mikva'os (8:8), brought in Shabbos (109a). R. Yosi says, all seas are Metaher b'Zochalin, and they are Pasul for Tevilas Zav (who needs Mayim Chayim)...

He argues with the first Tana, who says that all seas are like a Mikveh, for it says "ul'Mikveh ha'Mayim Kara Yamim", and it connotes that R. Yosi comes to say that even though [the water] is contained and still, like it says in Makos (4a), they are Metaher also b'Zochalin. The verse does not come to annul from them the law of [Taharah through] Zochalin.

They argue about the following. The first Tana holds that they are not Metaher b'Zochalin, and according to R. Yosi they are Metaher b'Zochalin, but all agree that they are Metaher b'Ashboran.

Support: Also, since it says here "the only water (river) that is Metaher b'Zochalin is the Preas in Tishrei", this connotes that [other rivers], b'Zochalin they are not Metaher, but they are Metaher b'Ashboren, even though perhaps the majority is Zochalin.

Explanation (R. Tam, in a Teshuvah that begins "from when increased murderers (unqualified people who give rulings))": Even though Shmuel here and his father, who made Mikva'os in the days of Nisan, and Rav, who said [that the Pras is a witness of] rain in Eretz Yisrael, they agree with each other, we do not hold like this;

Rather, [we hold like] the other teaching of Shmuel, who said that a river is blessed from its source, for the Beraisa of R. Meir supports him. He says that the real name [of Pras] is Yuval.