Refuted Answer #1: One cannot answer that the Torah writes "Re'eihu by a Tam, in order to declare Patur the Tam of a Hedyot that damages Hekdesh, whereas a Mu'ad remains Chayav ...

Refuted Answer #1 (cont.): ... which would explain why it did not write it by a Mu'ad ...

Refutation: ... since the Torah only declares a Mu'ad Chayav there where a Tam is Chayav.

Refuted Answer #2: Neither does it come to exempt both of them completely where Hedyot gores Hekdesh ...

Refutation #1: ... because then the Torah ought to have written it by Mu'ad, where it would be a greater Chidush.

Refutation #2: One could also not then err by Darshening it other than li'Petur, and how much more by a Tam.

Authentic Answer: But it is obvious that, since the Torah did not write it by Mu'ad, "Re'eihu" comes to render a Tam that gores Hekdesh Chayav full damages.

Authentic Answer: And it also comes to exempt completely a Tam of Hekdesh that gores an ox of Hedyot.

Authentic Answer (Extension): And what the Pasuk is saying is that the difference between a Tam and a Mu'ad is confined to 'Re'eihu', but when it is not, then Hedyot be'Hekdesh is Chayav (full damages), whereas Hekdesh be'Hedyot is Patur (from paying anything).

Clarification: It implies specifically in this way where an ox belonging to a Yisrael gores an ox belonging to a Nochri.

Clarification (cont.): This is fine according to the opinion that forbids stealing from a Nochri ...

Question: ... but according to the opinion that permits it, it is difficult (as to why we need a Pasuk to declare him Patur).

Clarification: Rashi explains that Hash-m offered the Torah to all the nations and that they declined to accept it - implying that He revealed Himself to the nations in Paran.

Support #1: And this is also implied in the Targum Yerushalmi (on the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "Hofi'a me'Har Paran"), which translates it as 'He revealed himself on Mount Gavla (Har Paran) to the b'nei Yishmael, and Paran is in the land of Yishmael (as the Torah writes in connection with Hagar "And she resided in the Land of Paran").

Support #2: And at the beginning of Maseches Avodah-Zarah too (Daf 2b &3a) some texts read 'What was He doing in Se'ir? What was He doing in Paran'?

Question: In Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 89a) it is implied that Paran is equivalent to Sinai, when it lists there the five names by which the latter is known - 'The Desert of Tzin, of Kadesh, of Paran, of Sinai and of Kedeimos'.

Answer: The Desert of Sinai is a large desert, one side of which is called Sinai, the other, Paran ...

Answer (cont.): In fact, all five names that it reckons in Maseches Shabbos denote five different sections of it, each with its own name.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara Darshens all the names, that is not a problem.

Conclusion: And on the side that is called 'Paran' Hash-m revealed Himself to the B'nei Yishmael.

Question: But Nochrim are not called 'Adam'?

Source: ... as we learned in a Beraisa in 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 114b), where Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai says that 'the graves of Nochrim are not Metamei be'Ohel, since the Torah writes "Adam ki Yamus be'Ohel", and 'You are called Adam, but not Nochrim'.

Answer #1: Rashi, in Perek Arba Misos (Sanherin, Daf 59a DH 'Ela'), explains that Rebbi Meir in this Sugya holds like the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 61a DH 've'Ein').

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam however, draws a distinction between "Adam" and "ha'Adam".

Proof: ... since the Gemara in Yevamos asks from a Pasuk in Nevi'im and not from the Pasuk in the Torah "ha'Adam ve'ha'Beheimah asher Yimatzei ba'Sadeh" (Sh'mos, 9).

Refutation: There however (one could answer that) that took place before Matan Torah.

Question: In that case, Rebbi Meir ought to have said that 'It does not say Adam, but "ha'Adam" '?

Answer: That is not a Kashya, since that Beraisa is cited in Toras Kohanim, and there are many similar cases there where the Tana uses a similar style of Lashon ...

Example #1: ... as we find there - 'And so it says in Yeshayah (26) "Open the gates and let the righteous nation enter" - It does not say 'Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'elim' but "a righteous nation" '.

Example #2: 'And so it says (in Tehilim, 125) "Heitivah Hash-m la'Tovim" - It does not say 'Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'elim' but "la'Tovim", so you see that even a Nochri who studies Torah is akin to a Kohen Gadol!'.

Question: From the Pasuk "Lulei Hash-m she'Hayah lanu be'Kum aleinu Adam" (Ibid., 124) we see that Nochrim are called 'Adam'?

Answer: When it mentions Adam next to the Name of Hash-m, it refers to Nochrim as 'Adam' - implying 'a weak creation that comes from man'.

Precedent: And the same applies regarding Chiram (King of Tyre - in Yechezkel, 28).

Question: The Riva queries this from the Pasuk in Yeshayah (43) "va'Etein Adam tachtecha"?

Answer: And he answers with the Gemara in the last Perek of B'rachos (Daf 62b) which Darshens from there "va'Etein Edom tachtecha, in connection with the case there of 'a certain Roman'.

Implied Question: And as for the Gemara in ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 47a) says that a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael to dig in it pits, trenches and caves, since the Pasuk (in Tehilim 115) writes "ve'ha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam ...

Answer: ... "B'nei Adam" implies 'the sons of Adam ha'Rishon' See Mesores ha'Shas).

Implied Question: The reason that the Gemara mentions specifically Kohen Gadol is ...

Answer: ... because the Gemara in Sotah (Daf 4b) Darshens on the Pasuk "Yekarah Hi mi'Peninim" that 'He (a Nochri who studies Torah) is more precious than a Kohen Gadol who enters the Kodesh Kodshim'.

Question: But the Gemara says in Chagigah (Daf 13a) that 'Someone who teaches Torah to a Nochri transgresses the Asei of "Magid Devarav le'Ya'akov' (Tehilim 147)?

Answer #1: They were forced to teach them, following a royal edict.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... and they were under no obligation to sacrifice their lives for this..

Answer #2: They (the two Roman officers) made themselves out to be Geirim, as the Sifri says in the Parshah of "Af Choveiv Amim" (in ve'Zos ha'Berachah).

Clarification: The Ri explains that this is La'av Davka, but what it means is that Moshe would have learned a Kal va'Chomer had the Torah not warned him first (not to attack them) ...

Reason: Since the Torah wrote "Do not oppress Mo'av!" before it wrote "Oppress the Midyanim and smite them!" ...

Source: ... as we Darshen on the Pasuk "Atah Yelechachu ... ", that Balak was only afraid of Yisrael 'licking up', because they (Yisrael) were only permitted to engage them in forced labor ...

Reason (cont.): ... and the Pasuk concerning Midyan was written after that of Balak.

Clarification (cont.): And what Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu said to Moshe too 'Not what you thought ... ' is La'av Davka.

Question: R. Elchanan asks that here it implies that even after they were commanded to oppress the Midyanim, the warning against oppressing the Mo'avim remained intact ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas in Bereishis Rabah at the end of Parshas Vayeitzei it states that when David sent Yo'av to Aram Naharayim and to Aram Tzovah, he met the Mo'avim and wanted to wipe them out, but they brought a copy of their constitution where it said 'Do not oppress Mo'av' ...

Question (cont.): ... but David answered them that they had 'breached the wall' first as the Pasuk writes "And he (Balak) sent messengers to Bil'am the son of Be'or" ...

Question (concl.): ... implying that from that moment on they were permitted to attack them?

Answer: The Ri answers that his David's response was merely a 'push-off ', since the Pasuk he should have quoted was the one in Shoftim, which describes how Eglon, King of Mo'av oppressed them ...

Answer (cont.): ... only he wanted to cite his answer from the Torah due to the Chilul Hash-m.

Implied Question: Even though concerning the Edomim, he cited a Pasuk from the Navi "He gathered to him all the men of Amon and Amalek and he smote Yisrael and took possession of the town of dates (alias Yericho)?

Answer: Nevertheless, whenever he found a Pasuk in the Torah, he preferred to quote it.

Question: We can understand why Ula needs a Pasuk for Mo'av, why does he also need one for Edom and Amon?

Answer: He needs a Pasuk to forbid forced labor which they were permitted to instigate, since that Moshe was allowed to do without specific permission.

Implied Question: And even though he (Ula) mentions 'two doves' ...

Answer: ... this is not necessary regarding Amon, only regarding Mo'av.

Source: They (the daughters of Lot) acted le'Shem Shamayim, as the Gemara explains in Perek Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir ... (Nazir, Daf 23a).

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara rules at the end of the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 16a) that they were all genuine Geirim ...

Answer: ... that refers specifically to those who converted totally, whereas the Geirei Arayos here did not ...

Source: ... as the Pasuk writes (in Melachim 2) "They feared Hash-m, but they (still) worshipped their gods".

The Other Opinion: ... whereas the opinion that holds that they were genuine Geirim holds that eventually they too, converted completely.

Question: The Gemara in Perek Dam ha'Nidah (Nidah, Daf 56:) asks 'If the blood of a Yisrael is Tahor, then whose blood is Tamei?'

Answer: And it answers that blood that is found among Yisrael and among the Kutim in their residences is unanimously Tamei, seeing as Kutim are Geirei Emes ...

Answer (cont.): ... and what is found in the cities of Yisrael is Tahor, since Yisrael are not suspect on their stains, and they hide them.

Answer (concl.): ... whereas what is found in the cities of the Kutim, Rebbi Meir declares Tamei, since the Kutim are suspect on their stains, whilst the Chachamim declare them Tahor, since they do not consider them suspect.

Explanation: Rashi explains in Kesuvos (Daf 29a) that the Gemara needs to inform us that the Nesinim are subject to K'nas, even though it was David who decreed on them (the prohibition against marrying them).

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries Rashi however, inasmuch as it is the Torah which forbids it with the La'av of "Lo Sischaten bam" ...

Source: ... as Rava concludes in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 76a), where he says that the term 'marriage' does not apply as long as they are still Nochrim, only after they have converted?

Proof #1: In Perek Eilu hein ha'Lokin (Makos, Daf 13a) too, the Tana lists 'Nesinah' (among the Chayvei Malkos), and 'Nesinah' S'tam always refers to a Giyores who is subject to K'nas and on whom Kidushin takes effect?

Proof #2: Also in Perek Yesh Mutaros (Yevamos, Daf 85b) it implies that a Nesinah is forbidden mi'd'Oraysa, when it says that the difference between them is a Mamzeres and a Nesinah - 'the one who holds there d'Oraysa, they are also d'Oraysa'.

Proof #3: And at the beginning of 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 29b) in connection with the Machlokes between Shimon ha'Timni and Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (it is also implied that a Nesinah is Asur min ha'Torah).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that David only decreed on them Shibud, but the Isur of marrying into the Kahal is mi'd'Oraysa, from "Lo Sischaten bam".

Conclusion: And the beginning of Eilu Na'aros is the place to deal with this issue in more detail.

Clarification: This Sugya clearly holds that Kutim are genuine Geirim.

Question: In that case, what is the Chidush in telling us that they are subject to K'nas?

Refuted Answer: And if you will suggest that it on account of Rabah, who says in Perek Asarah Yuchsin (Kidushin, Daf 76a) that 'A Mamzer from his sister and from an Eishes Ish became mixed up among them' ...

Refutation: ... we already know that from the Reisha where even a Vaday Mamzeres is subject to K'nas, how much more so a Safek?

Answer: The Chidush is precisely that - that they are genuine Geirim, because if they were Geirei Arayos they would not be subject to K'nas.

Question: According to Rava, who says in Perek Asarah Yuchsin (Ibid.) that 'An Eved and a Shifchah became mixed up among them', why are they subject to K'nas? Why can one not say to her 'Prove that you are not a Shifchah and take'?

Reason: ... since a Shifchah is not subject to K'nas, as is evident in 'Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 29a)?

Refuted Answer: And it is not because she has a Chazakah of being a Be'ulah that she is not subject to K'nas ...

Refutation: ... because even a Shifchah who is kept secluded does not receive K'nas.

Implied Question: ... even though the majority of them are not Shefachos ...

Answer: The Kashya will nevertheless be valid according to Shmuel, who says that regarding money matters, we do not follow the majority.

Answer to Main Question: ... because we place each woman on the Chazakah of her father, since it was the Shefachos who became mixed up with them and married Kutim.

Implied Question: Even though Rava maintains that they declared Pasul the Kutim on account of the Isur Shifchah, and that we do not place them on the Chazakah of their father? ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, with regard to K'nas, we do not consider them Shefachos, in order that the sinner should not benefit.

Implied Question: And even though Rava mentioned 'Eved ve'Shifchah' (insinuating that it was a couple that became mixed up with the Kutim)?

Answer: ... that is La'av Davka, according to what Tosfos explained there that the Shefachos married the Kutim, and the Kutiyos married Avadim. That being the case, one cannot declare them Pasul on account of the Avadim, based on the ruling (in Yevamos, Daf 45a) that if a Nochri or an Eved who has relations with a bas Yisrael, the baby will be Kasher.

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked on the Rabanan, since they concede that we penalize them, as we learn from the Mishnah, which exempts a Yisrael from paying if his ox gores that of a Kuti?

Answer: And it is only because the author of a S'tam Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, that the Gemara asks on Rebbi Meir (from his own opinion in the Mishnah in Kesuvos).