(a)The Chachamim did not protest when the men of Yericho grafted date-palms all day, were Korchin al Shema or harvested and piled up their crops before the Omer had been brought. What is wrong with grafting palms? When is this speaking?
(b)The Chachamim did however, protest when they permitted the Gamzi'os of carob and Shikmah (a sort of fig-tree)-trees of Hekdesh. What are 'Gamzi'os of Hekdesh'?
(c)Why did the Chachamim protest when the men of Yericho ...
1. ... ate fruit that had fallen from the date-palms on Shabbos?
2. ... left Pe'ah for the poor in the vegetable fields?
(a)The men of Yericho grafted date-palms all day - on the fourteenth of Nisan.
(b)'Gamzi'os of Hekdesh' - are newly-grown branches of carob and Shikmah trees which their fathers had declared Hekdesh.
(c)The Chachamim protested when the men of Yericho ...
1. ... ate fruit that had fallen from the tree on Shabbos - because fruit that fell from a tree on Shabbos is forbidden (in case one comes to pick fruit that is still attached).
2. ... left Pe'ah in the vegetable fields - because the poor will assume it to be real Pe'ah, which is Patur from Ma'aser (when in fact it is not).
(a)Why did Chizkiyah ...
1. ... drag his father's remains on a bed of ropes?
2. ... grind the copper snake that Moshe had made?
3. ... hide the book of all cures?
(b)The Chachamim consented to the above three. Why did they did not however, agree with the fact that he ...
1. ... cut down the doors of the Heichal and sent them to the King of Asyria as a bribe to stop him from attacking Yehudah?
2. ... stopped-up the waters of the Upper-Gichon, to deprive the Asyrians of a source of water?
3. ... declared a leap-year after Nisan had already entered?
(c)Why did he do that?
1. ... dragged his wicked father's remains on a bed of ropes - as an atonement for his many misdeeds, and to teach the remaining Resha'im a lesson.
2. ... grind the copper snake that Moshe had made - because people were beginning to worship it.
3. ... hide the book of all cures - because the purpose of every illness is to prompt one to do self-introspection and then to repent for one's sins; however, due to the book of cures, people were relying on the book, without bothering with the introspection (see also Perush ha'Mishnayos l'ha'Rambam).
(b)The Chachamim did not however, agree with the fact that he ...
1. ... cut down the doors of the Heichal and sent them to the King of Asyria as a bribe to stop him from attacking Yerushalayim - because he should have had more faith in Hash-m, who had already told him that He would protect Yerushalayim.
2. ... stopped-up the waters of the Upper-Gichon, to deprive the Asyrians of a source of water - for the same reason as in the previous answer.
3. ... declared a leap-year after Nisan had already entered - because of the Pasuk in Bo "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh" from which Chazal derive 'Zeh Nisan, v'Ein Acher Nisan' (see Berachos 10b, where it is explained that in fact, Chizkiyah declared a leap-year on the thirtieth of Adar, a day that was fit to be Nisan, and not the first of Nisan itself).
(c)The reason that he did this was in order to give the many people who had not yet had a chance to become Tahor (from the Tum'os that was the legacy of his wicked father Achaz - in order to bring the Korban Pesach b'Taharah).
(a)To graft the date-palm, they took a mixture made from wet myrtle leaves, berries from a laurel-tree and barley-flour that had been lying in a vessel for not more than forty days. What did they then do with it?
(b)What is the alternative explanation?
(c)According to Rav Yehudah, Korchin al Shema means that they did not lengthen the 'Daled' of "Echad" (which is also how Rebbi Meir explains it in a Beraisa). How does Rava explain it?
(d)Rebbi Yehudah has a third explanation. Some say that, in his opinion, they omitted 'Baruch Shem' altogether. What is the other version of his opinion?
(a)They would take a mixture made from wet myrtle leaves, berries from a laurel-tree and barley-flour that had been lying in a vessel for not more than forty days - heat it up and pour it into the heart of the date-palm.
(b)Alternatively, they would take a young branch from a male date-palm (which does produce fruit) and place it into a cleft in a branch of a female palm (which does not), thereby causing it to produce fruit.
(c)According to Rava, Korchin Al Shema means that they would read "ha'Yom Al Levavecha", as if to say that it is only today that these words should be on your hearts, but not tomorrow (and really, the word "ha'Yom" belongs to the previous words ("Asher Anochi Metzavecha Ha'Yom").
(d)According to the second version of Rebbi Yehudah's explanation, the men of Yericho would recite the Pasuk of "Baruch Shem" aloud.
(a)Why do we say 'Baruch Shem' after the Pasuk of Shema? What is the source for this?
(b)So why do we say it quietly? What parable does the Gemara give?
(c)According to Rebbi Avahu, the Chachamim instituted saying it aloud; but in Neherda'a, they continued to say it quietly. Why was that?
(a)The source for saying 'Baruch Shem' after the Pasuk of Shema - is the story related in the Shema, where the Shechinah left Yakov Avinu as he was about to tell his sons when Mashi'ach was due to come. He then expressed his fear this happened because his sons were guilty of Avodah-Zarah (and that he was no different than his grandfather Avraham, who had a son called Yishmael, and his father Yitzchak, who had a son called Esav). When his son heard of his fears, they reassured him with the words "Shema Yisrael" ... , to which he responded "Baruch Shem ... .
(b)We say it quietly, because Moshe did not insert it in the Torah. It can be compared, says the Gemara, to a princess, who smelt the delicious aroma of spiced meat wafting across from the kitchen. She badly wanted to taste some of it; however she was in a quandary, whether she should belittle herself by asking for some, or whether she should suffer and go without. So her servants, seeing her dilemma, brought her some on the quiet.
(c)The Chachamim instituted that one should say "Baruch Shem" aloud, because of the heretics, who would be certain to accuse us of saying something improper after the Shema. In Neherda'a however, where there were no heretics, this was not necessary, so they continued to say it quietly.
(a)According to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa, the men of Yericho harvested the crops with the Chachamim's consent, but piled it up without their consent. What is the meaning of the former statement? Is this not at least an Isur d'Rabanan?
(b)Then why did they not give their consent in the latter case?
(c)Why did the men of Yericho make breaches in their fences?
(d)What is it about Rebbi Meir's text that Rebbi Yehudah objects to, and how does he amend it?
(a)According to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa, the men of Yericho harvested the crops with the Chachamim's consent. Min ha'Torah there is nothing wrong with that - since Yericho was a location from which the Omer could anyway not be brought; nor did the Rabanan decree an Isur, since Chadash is an Isur from which one anyway keeps away (see Sugya above, 11a).
(b)Nevertheless, the Chachamim did not give their consent to piling up the crops before the Omer - because, since there is no loss involved, they were afraid that, if this was permitted, people would, in the course of their work, come to eat it (before the Omer has been brought).
(c)The men of Yericho made breaches in their fences - to feed the poor the fruit that fell from their trees.
(d)If the men of Yericho grafted their trees etc. with the consent of the Chachamim, then why was it only the men of Yericho who did it? Why did everyone else follow their example? Consequently, he changes the text to read like our Mishnah: namely, that the first three things which he men of Yericho did, may not have evoked a protest from the Chachamim, they were nevertheless, not done with their consent.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah includes 've'Kotzrin v'Godshin Lifnei ha'Omer' in the list of things against which the Chachamim did not protest. What is the problem with this from the Mishnah in Menachos, and how do we know that the author of that Mishnah must be Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)We resolve this problem by erasing 'Kotzrin' (which Rebbi Yehudah permits) from the list of things in the Beraisa (which he forbids). How do we know for sure that this answer is correct?
(a)How can Rebbi Yehudah include 've'Kotzrin v'Godshin Lifnei ha'Omer' in the list of things which were done without the Chachamim's consent - when we have learnt in a Mishnah in Menachos 'Anshei Yericho Kotzrin Lifnei ha'Omer bi'Retzon Chachamim, v'Godshin ... she'Lo bi'Retzon Chachamim, v'Lo Michu Bahem Chachamim'? And we know that the author of that Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, since he is the one to make an issue of 'Michu' and 'Lo Michu Chachamim'.
(b)We know for sure that it is correct to erase 'Kotzrin' from the list of things that Rebbi Yehudah forbids - because otherwise, we will have four things with which the Chachamim disagreed (Markivin, Korchin, Kotzrin, and Godshin), and not three, as specified.
(a)'u'Matirin Gamzi'os shel Hekdesh' ... . But the Chachamim protested. What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b)Ula quoting Resh Lakish, establishes the Machlokes between the men of Yericho and the Chachamim (regarding the dates that fell on Shabbos), when the dates are caught among the clusters of dates on top of the tree, but not when they are caught near the foot of the tree. What is their Machlokes, and what is the reason for this distinction?
(c)What problem does Rabah have with that?
(a)The men of Yericho hold 'Ein Me'ilah b'Gidulin'; whereas the Chachamim maintain that nevertheless, there is an Isur d'Rabanan on the branches that grow from a Hekdesh tree.
(b)According to Ula quoting Resh Lakish - everybody agrees that dates caught at the foot of the tree are permitted, because this will not cause him to pick fruit from the top of the tree. And it is by fruit at the top of the tree that they argue: the men of Yericho, who permitted it, were not concerned with the likelihood that one may climb the tree and pick the fruit that is still attached there; whereas the Chachamim were.
(c)Rava asks on this that even the dates at the foot of the tree are intrinsically forbidden. Why? Because, since they were still attached when Shabbos entered, they are Muktzeh for the whole of Shabbos, even after they have fallen on the ground.
(a)Why might the dates that were attached when Shabbos entered not be Muktzeh?
(b)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Im Lo Hayesah Neveilah me'Erev Shabbos Asurah, Lefi she'Einah Min ha'Muchan'. How do we attempt to substantiate Rabah's Kashya (that they are in fact, Muktzeh) from there?
(c)How does refute that proof? Why are the two cases different?
(d)Ravin quoting Resh Lakish, establishes the Machlokes between the men of Yericho and the Chachamim by dates that were caught at the foot of the tree, but if they were caught at the top, they both agree that the fruit is forbidden, because of the suspicion that he may climb the tree. What is now the basis of their Machlokes?
(a)The dates that were attached when Shabbos entered might not be Muktzeh - because they were fit for his ravens (assuming that he rears ravens - a sign of prestige in those days).
(b)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Im Lo Hayesah Neveilah me'Erev Shabbos, Asurah, Lefi she'Einah Min ha'Muchan'. We try to prove Rabah right from there - because, if something that is prepared for humans is not considered prepared for animals, how much more so should something that is prepared for animals not be considered prepared for humans.
(c)Ula refutes Rabah's proof on the grounds that, whereas something that is fit for humans, the owner will certainly not designate for animals (so it remains Muktzeh for animals), something that is fit for animals, he will designate for humans (since a person thinks first and foremost of himself, before he thinks of animals).
(d)According to Ravin quoting Resh Lakish - the men of Yericho did not decree fruit that is found at the foot of the tree because of fruit that is found at the top; whereas the Chachamim did.
(a)What does the Mishnah in Pe'ah come to exclude, when, describing what exactly is Chayav b'Pe'ah, it says ...
1. ... 'Kol she'Hu Ochel'?
2. ... 've'Nishmar'?
3. ... 've'Gidulo min ha'Aretz'?
4. ... 'u'Lekitasan k'Achas'?
5. ... 'u'Machniso l'Kiyum'?
(b)Then why did the men of Yericho leave Pe'ah from vegetables?
1. 'Kol she'Hu Ochel' - comes to preclude wild seeds of dyes, which are not edible (cultivated ones are) from Pe'ah.
2. 've'Nishmar' - ... Hefker from Pe'ah.
3. ... 've'Gidulo min ha'Aretz' - ... mushrooms from Pe'ah.
4. ... 'u'Lekitasan k'Achas' - ... figs from Pe'ah.
5. ... 'u'Machniso l'Kiyum' - ... vegetables from Pe'ah.
(b)The men of Yericho did not leave Pe'ah from all vegetables - but only from the heads (i.e. the leaves) of turnips, which would be preserved together with the turnip itself (which does not have the Din of a vegetable in this regard).
(a)The first Beraisa reads 'Barishonah, Hayu Nosnin Pe'ah l'Lefes, v'li'Keruv; Rebbi Yosi Omer, Af l'Kaplut'. The second Beraisa reads 'Hayu Nosnin Pe'ah l'Lefes v'la'Kaplut; Rebbi Shimon Omer, Af li'Keruv'. There appear to be three opinions here - the two opinions of the two Tana Kamas, and that of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, who appear to agree. How is it possible to explain that there are really only two opinions in the two Beraisos, and not three?
(a)It is possible to explain that there are really only two opinions in the two Beraisos, and not three - by establishing the Tana Kama of the Rebbi Shimon's Beraisa to be Rebbi Yosi and vice-versa, and to explain it like this: In the first Beraisa - 'Barishonah, Hayu Nosnin Pe'ah l'Lefes, v'li'Ke'ruv; Rebbi Yosi Omer, Af l'Kaplut', Rebbi Yosi is not adding a third species to the Tana Kama, but re-placing the Tana Kama's 'Ke'ruv', with 'Kaplut' (thus making him the Tana Kama of Rebbi Shim'on's Beraisa). And in the second Beraisa - 'Hayu Nosnin Pe'ah l'Lefes v'la'Kaplut; Rebbi Shimon Omer, Af li'Ke'ruv', Rebbi Shimon is not adding a third species either; he is re-placing the Tana Kama's Kaplut with Keruv (making him the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yosi's Beraisa).