1)

(a)From the switch in Lashon by Amon, where the Torah writes in Devarim "Al Tetzureim ve'Al Tisgar Bam", to Mo'av, where it adds the word "Milchamah", we extrapolate that - although Yisrael were forbidden to start up with Amon at all, the prohibition against Mo'av was confined to engaging them in battle (but did not extend to raiding their territory).

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains that this is because - Mo'av's mother (the elder daughter of Lot), called him by a name which publicizes what she did ('me'Av', from my father), whereas her sister chose a less suggestive name for her son Amon. And Hash-m rewards a person for refined speech.

(c)Mo'av preceded Amon in joining K'lal Yisrael by four generations (Oved, Yishai, David and Shlomoh), because whereas Rus married Bo'az (Oved's father), Na'amah ha'Amonis married Rechavam, Shlomoh's son.

(d)Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah attributes this - to the fact that the older daughter of Lot preceded the younger one by one night (to lie with her father in order to have children from him).

2)

(a)The Pasuk in Vayikra "me'Am ha'Aretz" comes to preclude - a Kohen Gadol and a Nasi from bringing a Kisbah or a Se'irah by Shig'gas Ma'aseh.

(b)We need a Pasuk to preclude a Kohen Gadol - because we only know that his Korban consists of a Par when there has been He'elam Davar (but not by Shig'gas Ma'aseh, where in fact, he is Patur altogether, as we have already learned).

(c)This answer is not adequate to explain why we need a Pasuk for a Nasi - since he is Chayav to bring a Sa'ir by Shig'gas Ma'aseh alone, as we have already learned.

3)

(a)To explain the Miy'ut by Nasi, Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava initially establishes the case where he ate a k'Zayis of Cheilev when he was still a Hedyot, but only realized that he had, after he was crowned king. And the Pasuk is coming to teach us that - the sinner's Chiyuv is determined by his status at the time that he realizes that he sinned, and not by his status at the time that he sinned ...

(b)... like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ...

(c)... leaving us with a Kashya on the Rabbanan.

4)

(a)Rav Z'vid therefore amends Rava's answer to conform to the Rabbanan - by establishing the case where the Nasi ate half a ke'Zayis when he was still a Hedyot, and another half after he was crowned, and it was then that he became aware of both half-ke'Zeisim.

(b)We would have thought that he is Chayav to bring a Kisbah or Se'irah - because seeing as he ate the first half ke'Zayis when he was a Hedyot, the second half ke'Zayis combines with the first.

(c)We conclude however - that it doesn't.

(d)... and it is for the same reason that he does not bring a Sa'ir (because the first half ke'Zayis combines with the second.

(e)We explain the basic Pasuk with regard to the Kisbah O Se'irah of a Hedyot, rather than with regard to the Sa'ir of a Nasi - because that is what the Pasuk is talking about.

5)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Sheishes what the Din will be if a Nasi ate a piece of Safek Cheilev before he was crowned king, but realizes what he did only afterwards - according to Rebbi Shimon (because according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious that he will be Chayav, just like any other Yachid.

(b)The She'eilah is that - seeing as (unlike a Vaday, where his Korban changes when he becomes king) he brings the same Korban (Asham Taluy) whether he is a Hedyot or whether he is a king, perhaps he will not be subject to the P'tur.

(c)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

6)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "me'Am ha'Aretz", 'P'rat le'Mumar'. Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah Ve'ashem" (Ibid) that - a sinner only brings a Korban for a Shogeg from which he will retract once he knows he knows that what he is doing is forbidden.

(b)The problem with this Machlokes is that - they seem to be saying the same thing (seeing as a Mumar is a prime example of someone who will not retract, even if he knows that what he is doing is forbidden).

(c)Rav Hamnuna suggests that they argue over whether a Mumar to eat Cheilev needs to bring a Korban for drinking blood - in which case the Tana Kama will exempt him from a Korban (since he is a Mumar), whereas Rebbi Shimon bar Yossi will obligate him (seeing as he will retract, once he knows that he is drinking blood).

(d)We refute Rav Hamnuna's explanation however, due to a statement by Rava, who says that - according to all opinions, someone who is a Mumar to eat Cheilev is not considered a Mumar to bring blood.

7)

(a)So we establish the Machlokes by a Mumar who eats Neveilah for pleasure, but on this occasion, he actually intended to eat Shuman, and after eating it, he discovered that it was Cheilev - in which case, according to the Tana Kama, he is considered a Mumar (seeing as he does to tend eat Isur on purpose) and he will be Patur; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yossi, since he retracts when he has Heter, he is considered 'Shav mi'Yedi'aso', and is therefore Chayav to bring a Korban.

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan amends a jumbled Beraisa by differentiating between a Mumar and a Tzedoki (or a Miyn [a heretic]). The Tana defines ...

1. ... a Mumar - as someone who eats Cheilev (which some people enjoy eating) for pleasure.

2. ... a Tzedoki - as someone who eats it to anger Hash-m (even when there is Shuman available.

(c)The Halachic distinction between them is that the Shechitah of the latter has the Din of Avodas-Kochavim. Others add that one may even throw him into a deep pit and remove the ladder.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan then explains the continuation of the Beraisa 'Achal Neveilah, u'Tereifah (see Mesores ha'Shas), Shekatzim u'Remasim' to mean that - in all of these cases, which are considered inedible, he is considered a Tzedoki (even S'tam).

(e)The Tana add to the list - someone who drinks Yayin Nesech.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah considers someone who wears Kil'ayim - even Kil'ayim de'Rabbanan, a Mumar, whereas the Tana Kama considers a Mumar only someone who wears Kil'ayim d'Oraysa.

(b)Kil'ayim ...

1. ... d'Oraysa is - a thread of wool that is woven fully into a linen garment (or vice-versa, in that they are 'Shu'a (combed together), Tavuy (spun together) ve'Nuz' (woven together).

2. ... de'Rabbanan is - where a thread is either Shu'a or Tavuy or Nuz.

(c)Rav Acha and Ravina argue over the definition of a 'Mumar' and a 'Tzedoki'. One of them learns like the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa. The other one considers both definitions to fall under the category of Mumar; whereas a Tzedoki in his opinion, is - someone who worships idols.

(d)The Beraisa calls someone who eats a beetle or an ant - a Mumar.

(e)To reconcile this with the first opinion above (which considers eating insects to be a Tzedoki) - we establish the Beraisa by someone who is simply trying out the taste of every conceivable Isur (and whose intention therefore, is for pleasure and not to anger Hash-m).

9)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hash-m Elokav" "Hash-m Elokav" ("mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m Elokav" [in Vayikra, in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi] from "Lema'an Yilmad Le'yir'ah es Hash-m Elokav" [in Shoftim, in connection with a king]) that - just as the latter is speaking about a king (ever whom no-one but Hash-m has jurisdiction), so too does the former.

(b)When Rebbi (who was the supreme authority in Eretz Yisrael) asked Rebbi Chiya whether, in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, he (Rebbi) would be Chayav to bring a Sa'ir for a Chet - the latter replied in the negative, because the Resh Galusa (in Bavel) was his superior.

(c)We reconcile Rebbi Chiya with the Beraisa 'Malchei Yisrael u'Malchei Beis David Eilu Mevi'im le'Atzmam, ve'Eilu Mevi'im le'Atzmam' - by pointing out that neither was under the jurisdiction of the other (in the way that Rebbi was under the jurisdiction of the Resh Galusa).

(d)According to Rav Safra's version, Rebbi Chiya, based on a Pasuk in Vayechi, answered Rebbi 'Hasam Sheivet, Hacha Mechokek', by which he meant that - whereas the heads of Eretz Yisrael ruled with their brains ("Mechokek" means Chochmah), the heads of Bavel ruled with their brawn ("Sheivet" means a stick [a symbol of authority]).

(e)The former pertains in particular - to Hillel and his descendants.

10)

(a)The Tana'im in this Masechta refer to the Kohen Gadol as 'Mashu'ach' - anointed with the anointing oil, which comes to preclude a Merubeh Begadim (the Kohanim Gedolim who were inaugurated by wearing the eight garments of a Kohen Gadol, with reference to those who lived in the era of the second Beis-Hamikdash (when the bottle of Sheman ha'Mishchah was hidden).

(b)Our Tana presents - only the current difference between a Kohen Mashu'ach and a Merubeh Begadim, which obligates the former to bring a Par He'elam Davar, but not the latter (who brings a Kisbah or a Se'irah like any other Yachid).

(c)A Kohen she'Avar (as opposed to a Kohen ha'Meshamesh) is - a Kohen Gadol who deputized for the Tamei Kohen Gadol on Yom-Kipur, and stood down upon his return.

(d)The two differences between them are - the Kohen Gadol's bull of Yom Kipur and his bi-daily Minchas Chavitin (consisting of a tenth of an Eifah of flour), which were confined to the former.

11)

(a)Both the Kohen she'Avar and the Kohen Meshamesh are eligible to perform the Avodah on Yom Kipur. They are both ...

1. ... obligated to marry - a virgin (assuming they are not already married).

2. ... forbidden to marry - a widow (and of course, a divorcee and the other Pesulei Kehunah).

(b)Besides the fact that both of them are eligible to perform the Avodah on Yom-Kipur and are forbidden to bury even their close relatives - they are also forbidden to rent their clothes or let their hair grow (in mourning for their deceased relatives), and if either of them die, the murderers in the cities of refuge are permitted to leave.

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, when Moshe manufactured the anointing oil in the desert, he actually boiled all the ingredients (listed in Ki Sisa) in the oil. Rebbi Yossi objected to that - because, he claimed, there was not sufficient oil even to soak the large quantity of spices that were required, let alone to boil them together.

(d)Rebbi Yossi therefore explains - that they first boiled the other ingredients in water (with which they became satiated), and then poured the oil on top (to absorb the aroma of the spices), before skimming it off.

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah countered Rebbi Yossi's argument - by ascribing the oil's quantative power to a miracle, by virtue of the fact that it lasted forever, even after they had used it (a mere twelve Lugin) to anoint, on seven consecutive days, the Mishkan and all its vessels, plus Aharon and his sons. And if one miracle can occur, why can't another?

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yih'yeh Zeh Li le'Doroseichem" that - although it only comprised twelve Lugin (the numerical value of "Zeh"), it was destined to last forever.

(c)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah adds an additional aspect to the miracle of the oil remaining intact - pointing out that (apart from the proportion of the oil to the spices and the number of people and objects it anointed) one would have expected the caldron, the spices and the fire to absorb some of it (which evidently it didn't).

(d)The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol - who requires anointing (in order to be eligible to perform the Avodah) and a Melech ben Melech - who doesn't.

13)

(a)In spite of what we just said, they saw fit to anoint Shlomoh, Yo'ash and Yeho'achaz (who all succeeded their fathers on the throne) - because of Adoniyahu (Sh'lomoh's brother), Asalyah (the current Queen) and Yehoyakim (Yeho'achaz's brother), who would otherwise have usurped (or who did usurp) the throne.

(b)We learn that a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol requires Meshichah (in the Pasuk in Naso "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav") - from the word "ha'Mashi'ach".

(c)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov and Rav Papa, respectively, learn from the words ...

1. ... "Hu u'Vanav" (in the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim Hu u'Vanav") that - the kingship is an inheritance that is handed down from father to son, as a result of which the son of a king does not require anointing.

2. ... "be'Kerev Yisrael" (Ibid.) that - the above only applies when there is peace among the people, but when there is strife, then the chosen king must be anointed, to strengthen his hand and avert Machlokes (as we just learned).

14)

(a)Rava learns from the Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with the anointing of David Hamelech) "Kum Mashcheihu, ki Zeh Hu"that - only kings of Malchus Beis-David need to be anointed, but not of Malchus Yisrael.

(b)Nevertheless, they anointed Yeihu ben Nimshi (who was King of Malchus Yisrael) - only to prevent Yoram the son of Achav from rebelling against him.

(c)To answer the Kashya how they could be Mo'el with the anointing oil by using it to anoint someone who was not from Malchus Beis-David, we cite Rav Papa who will say later (in answer to a similar Kashya) that - in order not to be Mo'el with the Shemen ha'Mishchah, they used Afars'mon (balsam) oil to anoint kings who were not from Malchus Beis-David (and not the Shemen ha'Mishchah, which consisted of olive oil).

15)

(a)We just learned that they anointed Yeho'achaz, son of Yoshiyahu because of Yehoyakim, who was his senior by two years. With reference to the Pasuk "u'Venei Yoshiyah ha'Bechor Yochanan, ha'Sheini Yehoyakim, he'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu, ha'Revi'i Shalum", Rebbi Yochanan comments that - Shalum and Tzidkiyahu were one and the same person, and so were Yochanan and Yeho'achaz (see Agados Maharsha).

(b)To reconcile this with what we just said (that Yehoyakim was older than Yeho'achaz), we interpret B'chor as - the first in line to rule.

(c)They crowned Yehoram son of Yehoshafat, king because he was the oldest sibling - due to the fact that he was a worthy successor of his father (since he was still a Tzadik at that time), whereas Yehoyakim was not. Note, we will then have to say that Yeho'achaz (like Yehoram), whom the Pasuk describes as evil, was still a Tzadik when he became king, and only changed afterwards).

16)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement (that Shalum, Tzidkiyahu, Yochanan and Yeho'achaz were one and the same person) is from the Pasuk itself - which specifically writes "ha'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu, ha'Revi'i" Shalum (so how could they be one and the same person)?

(b)We therefore explain "Shelishi" and "Revi'i" in the Pasuk to mean that - Tzidkiyahu was the third son (after Yehoyakim and Yeho'achaz), and Shalum (the same person), the fourth to rule (since his nephew Yechonyah, son of Yehoyakim) ruled before him.

(c)The Beraisa, corroborating Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement, explains why Tzidkiyahu had two additional names. His real name was - Matanyah.

(d)He was called ...

1. ... Shalum (according to the first version) - because he was perfect in his deeds (see last Agados Maharsha).

2. ... Shalum (according to the second version) - because the reign of Beis David came to an end in his days.

3. ... Tzidkiyahu - because that was what Nevuchadnetzar called him. warning him that Hash-m would be Matzdik on him the Din (would judge him accordingly) if he broke the oath (not to rebel against him) that he made when he crowned him.

(e)In the end - he abrogated his oath, and Nevuchdnetzar attacked and destroyed the Beis-ha'Mikdash.