Explanation: There were two Chachamim named Rav Hamnuna. One was the Talmid of Rav Chisda, like it connotes here, and in Kidushin (25a) regarding the elders of Nizunya. Rav Chisda told Rav Hamnuna to rebuke them [for not coming to Rav Chisda's lecture].

There was another [Rav Hamnuna] who was a Talmid of Rav, like above (54a). Rav said to Rav Hamnuna "my son, if you have money to benefit yourself, do so."

Assertion: It seems that they burned Ketores on the outer Mizbe'ach, and it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a special Heter for something needed at the time), like we find regarding the Ketores of the Nesi'im, like we say in Menachos (50b);

If they burned on the inner Mizbe'ach, what relevance does this Drashah have to there? Fire did not descend from Shamayim to the inner Mizbe'ach for the sake of Ketores!

Note: The Ra'avad says that they erred, and equated the inner Mizbe'ach to the outer. Tosfos understands that their only mistake was ruling in front of Moshe.

We hold (Yoma 33a) that the second woodpile on the outer Mizbe'ach was for the Ketores! (We take coals from it to burn the Ketores.)

Question: However, in Toras Kohanim, it connotes that they entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim to burn, and they were burned there. This requires investigation.

Implied question: Why is he called Ira ha'Ya'iri? He was a Kohen! (Ya'ir was Menashe's son.)

Answer: Perhaps his father was from Aharon, and his mother was from Menasheh, like it says in Megilah [about Mordechai] his father was from Binyamin, and his mother was from Yehudah.

Remark: The simple meaning of the verse "Kohen l'David" does not literally mean a Kohen, rather, a noble, like it says "u'Vnei David Kohanim Hayu" (Shmuel 2:8:18).

Implied question: It says "Al Sha'ul v'Al Beis ha'Damim"! (The famine was because Sha'ul was not eulogized properly, and because he killed the Giv'onim - Yevamos 78b.)

Answer: Both of these caused the famine. The Gemara expounds adjacent verses [to teach that it was also due to giving all Matanos to one Kohen].

Explanation: This is the [correct] text. The text says also "this teaches that he went in the depth of Halachah."

[This verse] is written regarding the war with Ai. In that Parshah another verse is written "va'Yalen [Yehoshua ba'Laylah ha'Hu]" (8:9), but there it is written "b'Soch ha'Am."

Observation: "Miyad" is not literally immediately. Rather, when he had free time, he went in the depth of Halachah. It was long after the episode of [seeing] the angel (which was in Perek 5. He went in the depth of Halachah in Perek 8.)

Question (Ri): Regarding the episode with Uriyah, the Aron was not in its place, for it says "ha'Aron v'Yisrael vi'Yhudah Yoshvim ba'Sukos va'Adoni Yo'av v'Avdei Adoni Chonim Al Pnei ha'Sadeh va'Ani... v'Lishkav Im Ishti";

It connotes that others were permitted to have Bi'ah, but Uriyah was stringent for himself, because Yisrael were in affliction, for David said to him "Reid l'Veischa"!

Also, we say in Sanhedrin (107a) about David that he reversed [Bi'ah] at night to [have Bi'ah also] during the day. (He knew that he will be tested regarding Arayos. He thought that it will help to satiate himself with Heter.) He forgot the Halachah [that satiating the Ever with Bi'ah increases craving for it.] This connotes that it was permitted at night!

Answer (Ri): There were two Aronos. The broken Luchos were kept in one, and they used to take it in war, like a Beraisa in Sifri teaches;

"V'Aron Bris Hash-m Nose'a Lifneihem Yomam" is the Aron that goes with them to war. It is the wooden Aron that Moshe made when he alighted on Sinai, like it says for the Luchos Acharonos in Sefer Devarim "v"Asisa Lecha Aron Etz";

At first he put in it also the latter Luchos, like it says "v'Asim Es ha'Luchos b'Aron Asher Asisi", until Betzalel's gold Aron was made. Then he put the latter Luchos in it (Betzalel's Aron), like it says "v'Nasata El ha'Aron Es ha'Edus Asher Eten Elecha", and so he did, like it is written in Vayakhel.

Here it discusses that [Aron]. Bi'ah was forbidden when it was not in its place. They did not normally take it to war, like it says [when they took the Aron from] Shilo "Mi Yatzilenu mi'Yad ha'Elokim ha'Adirim ha'Eleh Ki Lo Haysah ka'Zos mi'Tmol Shilshom" (the Plishtim feared that now Yisrael will overpower them, for they brought the Aron, unlike the previous days);

They did not normally take [this Aron]. When they took it, [they were punished;] they were stricken (the Plishtim defeated them) and it was taken, like it explains there.

Implied question: Why was it with them in Yehoshua's war (against the kings of Eretz Kena'an)?

Answer: He did everything based on prophecy (Hash-m told him to do so. It was a Hora'as Sha'ah.)

Implied question: We expound in Bava Basra (14a) "Ein ba'Aron Rak..." to teach that the Luchos and the broken Luchos were in the Aron, i.e. the Aron that Betzalel made, like it connotes that there [in Melachim 1:8. It says that the Aron had Keruvim. Tosfos said above that Betzalel's Aron had the broken Luchos, and Moshe's Aron had the latter Luchos!]

Answer: This verse is written about the Beis ha'Mikdash of Shlomo. (Then, both the Luchos and the broken Luchos were put in Betzalel's Aron.)

Implied question: There is an opinion that expounds from "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron" [that also the broken Luchos were put in the same Aron. It must be Moshe's Aron, for Hash-m said this before Betzalel built his Aron!]

Answer: [The verse refers to] when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built. [Then ,the Luchos and the broken Luchos] are in the Aron permanently. (Ritva - then, Moshe's Aron was put in Genizah.)

Reference: There is an argument in Yerushalayim about this. Some say that there was one Aron;

Citation (Yerushalmi): A verse supports R. Yehudah, i.e. who says that there were two Aronos. It says "ha'Aron v'Yisrael Yoshvim ba'Sukos" - the Aron was in Tziyon! (Rather, this shows that there were two Aronos);

Citation (cont.): How do Rabanan, who say that there was one Aron, explain the verse? It had a roof over it before the Beis ha'Mikdash was built.

Explanation: This that [the verse] says ba'Sukos does not mean that the Aron was with them in war. Rather, it had a roof of Chulin above it that is not the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Implied question: This does not forbid Bi'ah. Also Uriyah himself married Bas Sheva. If so, he was not stringent for himself to refrain from a woman due to the Aron not being in the Mikdash!

Answer: Even so, since there were two Re'usos - Yisrael were dwelling in Sukos in war, and the Aron was not in the Mikdash, he wanted to be stringent for himself.

Remark: If the text of the Yerushalmi would say "it was not covered", i.e. rather it was within curtains, this would be better. "Kiruy" (covering) does not connote that it is Chulin.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says Haman.

Implied question (Rashi): They are forbidden to take out from their Chatzeros to the Mavuy, like the Mishnah says "if they gave their Reshus to him, he is permitted and they are forbidden!" (How does Bitul help?)

Answer #1 (Rashi): It helps them at least to carry in the entire Mavuy Kelim that were Shoves in it, and Kelim that were Shoves in the house of the one to whom they were Mevatel their Reshus;

If not for this (Bitul), it would be forbidden for them to carry in it, like it says in Shabbos (130b);

Citation (130b): A Mavuy in which Shituf was not made, if the Chatzeros were Me'arev with the houses, one may carry only within four Amos. If the Chatzeros were not Me'arev with the houses, one may carry in all of it. (Rav taught this.)

Explanation: When the Chatzeros were Me'arev with the houses, Kelim of the houses are common in the Chatzer, and we decree lest one take them from the Chatzer to the Mavuy. Therefore, one may carry only within four Amos;

However, when they were not Me'arev, Kelim of the houses are not common in the Chatzer. There is no reason to decree.

Implied question: We should decree lest one carry Kelim that were Shoves in the Chatzer to the Mavuy!

Answer: Rav teaches [in Shabbos, that we decree only when they were Me'arev] like he taught elsewhere. Below (91a), he said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, who says that Chatzer, Karfef and Mavuy are one Reshus. This is if they were not Me'arev, like Rashi explained there.

Objection #1 (Ri): Presumably, these cases in our Sugya, the Chatzeros were Me'arev with the houses, and they were Mevatel only Reshus of the Mavuy;

If they were not Me'arev, if so they lost all the Chatzeros. They would not be able to take to them Kelim from the houses;

It would be better for them to be permitted in the Chatzeros, and all be forbidden in the Mavuy, than to all be forbidden in the Chatzeros and Mavuy, for the sake of the one who was permitted!

Since they were Me'arev in the Chatzeros, if so we cannot explain like Rashi that Bitul helped to carry in the entire Mavuy Kelim that were Shoves in it, and Kelim that were Shoves in the house of the one [to whom they were Mevatel]. Since the Chatzeros were Me'arev with the houses, one may carry [in the Mavuy] only within four [Amos]!

Objection #2: We hold like R. Yochanan, who says below (91a) that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, who says that Chatzer, Karfef and Mavuy are one Reshus, whether or not they were Me'arev. We do not hold like Rav said in Shabbos. If so, also initially it was permitted to carry in all of it!

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): However, regarding the house of the one [to whom they were Mevatel], surely Bitul helps, and it helps even to join the others' houses, so that the one to whom they were Mevatel their Reshus can take Kelim of their houses to the Mavuy. The Eruv makes them like one house;

Also, if the Chatzeros are open to each other and they were Me'arev, the one can take out of all of the houses and the Chatzeros to the Mavuy, for they all became one through Eruv.

Distinction: In any case, through Eruv they are not considered an individual (i.e. living with) a Nochri [so that he will not forbid them], for if so, there would never be a need to rent!

Suggestion: Since they are permitted through Bitul, he would not need to rent any more.

Rejection: Surely, they will need [to rent], for Bitul permits only the one, but the rest are forbidden. If they take out, they are Machazik (repossess) their Reshus that they had in the Mavuy before Bitul, and the Bitul is nullified through this, and they are many [Yisraelim] in place of a Nochri.

Question: Since all the Chatzeros become one, likewise the houses become one through Eruv when they are Mevatel the Mavuy to the one. Why should they be forbidden?

If two people live in one house, and people of the Chatzer are Mevatel their Reshus to one of the two, is it permitted only for him to take out of the house to the Chatzer, and his friend who lives with him is forbidden, and the Bitul will not help for him?!

Answer #1: This is not difficult at all. If we want, we can say that this is true!

Answer #2: We need not say so. Even if we will say that it is impossible that this one is forbidden and this one is permitted, rather, the Bitul works equally for both of them, even though they were Mevatel only to one, we can give a great reason for this;

Two in one house are like one person, and also regarding to be like an individual [Yisrael] in place of a Nochri;

However, through Eruv they do not become like an individual in place of a Nochri, and the same applies to Bitul, (i.e. we do not) say that just like Bitul helps for the one to whom they were Mevatel, it helps for his colleagues, that they are considered only like one person.

Answer #3: Also, here it is impossible to permit all of them due to the Bitul, like two who live in one house;