Question: What has this to do with 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'?

Question (cont.): Seeing as by Sadeh Mikneh there is a Gezeirah Shavah to learn a fifth from Sadeh Achuzah, whereas by Makdish there is not (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer #1: Perhaps here, where the Pasuk writes "ve'He'erich" by Makdish, it is as if it had written "ve'Chishav".

Answer #2: Or perhaps one can say that "ve'Chishav" is not a proper Gezeirah Shavah, even though the Gemara refers to it as such ...

Precedent: As we find in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 6b) where, in connection with 'It says "Sadeh" earlier and it says "Sadeh" later' - although it calls it a Gezeirah Shavah, the Ri explains thas it is not a proper Gezeirah Shavah.

Answer #3: Or perhaps one can answer because it says "Kodesh" by Makdish Sadeh Achuzah and it writes "Kodesh" by Makdish Bayis- and "Kodesh" "Kodesh" is a genuine Gezeirah Shavah ...

Conclusion: That explains why the Gemara refers to it as 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'.

Clarification: The Gemara in Kesuvos (Daf 40b) defines 'P'gam' - One assesses how much a person would pay for a Shifchah who is a virgin more than for a Be'ulah, in irder to marry her off to an Eved who has given him sarisfaction.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one of them was first intimate with her she'lo ke'Darkah, and then the other one, ke'Darkah, so that she was still a Besulah, who is subject to K'nas ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And people will say that the one who was Bo'el a Pegumah, where there is less shame should pay fifty Sela'im, and if he were to be Bo'el a complete Besulah outside of this case, he will also pay only fifty Sela'im.

Follows Precedent: Rashi follows his own reasoning in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 73b), where he explained that, according to the opinion that he only pays at the end of the Bi'ah - 'because he takes away her virginity' ...

Follows Precedent (cont.): Implying that removing a girl's virginity is required in order to be subject to K'nas.

Refutation: This is not correct however - since the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 9b) that - 'If nine men have relations with her and she is still a Besulah' (i.e. where they were intimate with her she'Lo ke'Darkah), Rebbi rules that the first one is Chayav Sekilah, and the others, Chenek' ...

Refutation (cont.): And Rebbi Zeira explains that even Rebbi concedes that they must all pay K'nas.

Explanation #2: So the Ri explains that 'people will say that the one who was Bo'el a Pegumah pays fifty' refers to the one who was Bo'el last ke'Darkah [and the one who was Bo'el a Sh'leimah also pays fifty - that is the one who was Bo'el first she'Lo ke'Darkah, when she was still a Besulah.

Observation: According to both explanations however, the one who was Bo'el she'Lo ke'Darkah was the first to be Bo'el.

Observation (cont.): In spite of the fact that the Gemara first mentions 'Ba'al ke'Darkah' first (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: According to the Ri the Kashya arises why does the Gemara not say that both men were intimate with her she'Lo ke'Darkah?]

Question: How could Yisrael of that generation be so low in Emunah as to believe that Hash-m would perform miracles for Egypt to take them from their country across the Yarden into Eretz Yisrael?

Answer: 'Rebbi' quoting his father R. Shmuel explains that explains that Yisrael did not traverse the Sea across its width, from one side to the other ...

Proof: Because if they had, they would soon have hurried to go to Eretz Yisrael ...

Answer (cont.): But they traversed it along its length (in a semi-circular route) until they left it on the same side as they entered ...

Reason: Because they were unable to move in any direction without crossing the Sea, since the Egyptians were to their right and to their left ...

Answer (cont.): Hence they crossed it using a semi-circular route until they 're-entered the desert on the same side ...

Answer (cont.): And this is what they meant when they declared 'Just as we came up on this side' and entered the desert, 'so too, did the Egyptians "come up" further along the desert, and they will now chase after us and overtake us! ...

Reason: Because they thought that the Egyptians did not cross the Sea at all, but that they would come from another direction.

Proof: And with this we understand what the Pasuk writes (in Bamidbar 33) "They traveled from Marah ... and they encamped by the Yam-Suf" ...

Proof (cont.): Now if they traversed it across the width to the other side, how could they arrive at the Sea again? Did they travel backwards? ...

Proof (concl.): So we see that after thy traveled along the Sea, and they left it still along the length, to the south of Egypt ...

Clarification: Because Egypt too, was south of Eretz Yisrael, close to its southern border to the west; and the Nile separated between Egypt and Eretz Yisrael; and the Sea was to the south of Egypt, from east to west ...

Answer (cont.): And they entered the Seashore on the north of the Sea, which is the South of Egypt, and they emerged, after traversing a semi-circular route, still on the north section of the Sea - which is south of the land of Edom east of Egypt.

Conclusion: They then traveled for a few days till they arrived in Marah, at which point they were still next to the Sea ...

Conclusion (cont.): And when they were ready to go to Eretz Yisrael, they did not need to cross the Sea, but to go circumvent the land of Mo'av, which was south of Eretz Yisrael, and east of Egypt.

Clarification: Regarding Egypt the Torah writes (in Sh'mos 14) "Six hundred chosen chariots" and regarding Sisro (in Shoftim 4) "Nine hundred chariots" ...

Implied Question: And even though it adds (in Sh'mos 14) "and all the chariots of Egypt" ...

Answer: It only reckons with the captains ...

Answer (cont.): Because the chariots of Egypt were under the command of the six hundred, as were the the kings that joined Sisro secondary to the nine hundred iron chariots ...

Conclusion: And if the army of men added to the spoil, the Gemara is not concerned with that.

Clarification: Some commentaries explain - 'Don't read Mimenu" without a Dagesh (a dot in the second 'Mem'), but read "Mimenu" with one.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since every "mMimenu" in the Torah contains a Dagesh ...

Refutation (cont.): And one cannot change one for the other ... (See Avodah Berurah)

Precedent: Similarly we find in the Sifri - 'It does not write 'Lo Nas Leichoh' but "Lo Nas Leichoh" (See Avodah Berurah DH 've'Ayein').

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they wanted more - implying that the quails had not stopped.

Explanation #2: Whereas ha'Rav R. Yosef Karo explains that the first quails - "and the rabble in their midst desired ... " - had stopped

Explanation #2 (cont.): "And the rabble in their midst desired ... " precisely bedcause they did not have quails; so the quails fell for the second time.

Text: The text reads 'Amar' and not 've'Amar' ...

Reason: Because Resh Lakish did not say anything before.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is tongue of the third person - the tale-bearer who reveals secrets.

Explanation #2: Tosfos found another written explanation: 'the third tongue' - Inasmuch as Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu covered it (speech) with one cover of bone (the teeth), one of flesh (the lips) and it (the tongue) is the third item in between them.

Clarification: In a case such as 'Where is fire available?' - which has connotations of not being meant as Lashon ha'Ra ...

Clarification (cont.): But if one says something that slanders one's friend, it is considered Lashon ha'Ra even where he says it in his presence.

Reason: Based on its location.

Clarification: The Avneit itself is a very long kind of linen belt.

Source: The Medrash too, explains that - the Kohen would it around himself twice in the vicinity of a person's heart.