(a)The same Beraisa states 'Bo'el Nidah k'Tamei Mes'. Why can the Tana not be coming to teach us that the duration of Tum'ah of a Bo'el Nidah is seven days, like that of a Tamei Mes?
(b)Then what is the Tana coming to teach us?
(c)In what way is a Tamei Mes stricter than a Ba'al Keri?
(d)Yet a Ba'al Keri is like a Zav with regard to into which Machaneh he is permitted. Which Machaneh is that, and why should it be more stringent than a Tamei Mes in this regard?
(a)'Bo'el Nidah k'Tamei Mes'. The Tana cannot be coming to teach us that the duration of Tum'ah of a Bo'el Nidah is seven days, like that of a Tamei Mes, because this is written explicitly in the Torah by the one, no less than by the other.
(b)The Tana is coming to teach us that a Bo'el Nidah is permitted in Machaneh Leviyah, just like a Tamei Mes.
(c)A Tamei Mes is stricter than a Ba'al Keri, inasmuch as he is Tamei for seven days, whereas the Ba'al Keri is Tamei for only one day.
(d)A Ba'al Keri, like a Zav, is permitted only in Machaneh Yisrael. He is more stringent than a Tamei Mes in this regard, because the Tum'ah comes from his body.
(a)"v'Yatza El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Shechinah'. "Lo Yavo El Toch ha'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Leviyah'. What is wrong with this Derashah (according to the Gemara's first Lashon)?
(b)How do we then Darshen the two Pesukim?
(c)How do we know that both Pesukim do not refer to the Machaneh Shechinah, one in the form of an Aseh, the other, in the form of a Lo Sa'aseh?
(a)"v'Yatza El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Shechinah'. "Lo Yavo El Toch ha'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Leviyah'. Someone who leaves the Machaneh Shechinah must pass through the Machaneh Leviyah on his way out of the Beis Hamikdash. In its second statement, the Torah should therefore have told the Ba'al Keri to leave the Machaneh Leviyah, not 'not to enter it'!
(b)We therefore Darshen the Pasuk like this: "v'Yatza El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Leviyah'. "Lo Yavo El Toch ha'Machaneh" - 'Zu Machaneh Shechinah'.
(c)If both Pesukim were referring to the Machaneh Shechinah, one in the form of an Aseh, the other, in the form of a Lo Sa'aseh - then the Torah should have written "v'Yatza El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh, Lo Yavo". The words "El Toch ha'Machaneh" are superfluous - unless they are coming to add a second Machaneh, as we explained.
(a)'Michuy Keravav' may mean 'making a hole' in the stomach (to remove dirt from the insides), or 'the removal of the liquids'. What else might it mean?
(b)How does the second interpretation tie up with Rav Yosef's Targum of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "v'Charvos Mechim Gerim Yochelu"?
(c)This phrase is the continuation of the Pasuk "u'Re'u Kevasim k'Dabram (ki'Medubar Bam)." Why is the Seifa of the Pasuk not simply an elaboration of the Reisha?
(d)Then what is the Reisha teaching us?
(a)'Michuy Keravav' - can also refer to the scraping away with a knife of thick fluids that line the animal's stomach.
(b)Rav Yosef's Targum translates "v'Charvos Mechim Gerim Yochelu" - as 'And the property of the wicked, the righteous will inherit', from which we can see that Mechim (Michuy) is connected with something unpleasant.
(c)The Seifa of the Pasuk might have been no more than an elaboration of the Reisha - had the Navi written "Charvos Mechim Gerim Yochelu" (without the 'Vav'). However, now that he wrote "ve'Charvos Mechim' ... with a 'Vav', it is clearly coming to tell us something else.
(d)In fact, the Reisha is coming to teach us that, in time to come, the Tzadikim will all be able to revive the dead (which Rav Chananel quoting Rav learns from a Gezeirah Shavah from a Pasuk in Michah).
(a)What do we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah "Od Yeshvu Zekeinim u'Zekeinos bi'Rechovos Yerushalayim v'Ish Mish'anto b'Yado" ... (Zecharyah) and "v'Samta Mish'anti Al P'nei ha'Na'r" (Melachim)?
(b)How do we reconcile the two Pesukim ...
1. ... "Bila ha'Maves Lanetzach" (Yeshayah) and "Ki ha'Na'r ben Mei'ah Shanim Yamus"? What will non-Jews be doing in Olam ha'Ba?
2. ... "v'Chafrah ha'Levanah u'Voshah ha'Chamah" (Yeshayah), and "v'Haya Or ha'Levanah k'Or ha'Chamah, v'Or ha'Chamah Yihye Shiv'asayim k'Or Shiv'as Yemei Bereishis"?
(c)According to Shmuel (who holds that the only difference between this world and the era of Mashi'ach will be 'Shi'bud Malchiyos) both Pesukim refer to Olam ha'Ba. How does he resolve the discrepancy?
(d)How does Rava explain the two Pesukim in Ha'azinu "Ani Amis va'Achayeh" and "Machatzti va'Ani Erpah"? Why do we need the latter statement, which appears to be obvious in light of the former one?
(a)The "Ish Mish'anto b'Yado" in the Pasuk in Zecharyah, like the "v'Samta Mish'anti Al Pnei ha'Na'ar" in that of Melachim, refers to the ability to revive the dead, and is a further proof for what we wrote earlier - namely, that the Tzadikim will all have the power to revive the dead in time to come.
1. ... "Bila ha'Maves la'Netzach" applies to Jews, and "Ki ha'Na'ar ben Me'ah Shanim Yamus" to non-Jews, who will tend to our sheep and farm for us.
2. ... "v'Chafrah ha'Levanah u'Voshah ha'Chamah" refers to Olam ha'Ba, where the sun and the moon will be embarrassed i.e. their light will be insignificant, due to the light of the Shechinah, which will shine then. Whereas "v'Haya Or ha'Levanah k'Or ha'Chamah, v'Or ha'Chamah Yihye Shiv'asayim k'Or Shiv'as Yemei Bereishis" refers to the days of Mashi'ach that will precede it.
(c)According to Shmuel (who holds that the only difference between this world and the era of Mashi'ach will be 'Shi'bud Malchiyos) - both Pesukim refer to Olam ha'Ba, the former Pasuk to the Camp of the Shechinah (where the sun and the moon will not shine), the latter, to that of the Tzadikim (where it will).
(d)Rava explains the two Pesukim in Ha'azinu "Ani Amis va'Achayeh" and "Machatzti va'Ani Erpah" - that just as the latter Pasuk is obviously speaking about the same person, so too, is the former - leaving us with a hint from the Torah for Techi'as ha'Meisim.
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa offers a second interpretation of the above Pesukim, making one issue out of the two phrases. What is it?
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa explains first Hash-m will bring the dead back to life. However, the dead will come back to life just as they were when they died - lame, blind etc. And it is then that He will cure them.
(a)What did Rebbi Shimon announce with regard to the burning of the Chalavim of the Pesach when the fourteenth fell on a Shabbos?
(b)The Tana of our Mishnah forbids cutting a wart from a Korban Pesach on Shabbos. The Tana of the Beraisa permits it in the Beis Hamikdash. Why specifically in the Beis Hamikdash?
(c)Some establish both Beraisos by hand. How do they then explain the discrepancy?
(a)When the fourteenth fell on a Shabbos, Rebbi Shimon announced (with regard to the burning of the Chalavim of the Pesach) - 'Come and see how precious is a Mitzvah in its right time! The burning of the Chalavim and the limbs may be performed the entire night, yet they did not wait for nightfall (Motzei Shabbos), but burnt them immediately (even on Shabbos - due to the Pasuk "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato")!
(b)The Tana of the Beraisa permits cutting a wart in the Beis Hamikdash, even on Shabbos - because the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan, and 'Ein Shevus ba'Mikdash'.
(c)Those who establish both Beraisos by the removal of the warts by hand, establishes the Beraisa that forbids it by a wet wart (which the Rabanan forbade), and the Beraisa that permits it by a dry one (which they did not).
(a)Alternatively, both Tana'im speak about cutting a wet wart, but one by hand, the other, using an instrument. Why does this opinion reject the first explanation, that it is only a dry wart that may be removed by hand on Shabbos?
(b)And why does the first opinion not want to establish the Mishnah which forbids the removal of the wart, by means of an instrument?
(c)So how does the second opinion explain the fact that our Mishnah appears to duplicate the Beraisa?
(a)Those who establish the Beraisa (which permits the removal of a wart in the Beis Hamikdash), by the removal of a wet one by hand - disagrees with the first opinion, which establishes it by a dry one, since a dry wart just breaks off, so that the term 'cutting' used by the Tana is inappropriate.
(b)On the other hand, the first opinion does not want to establish the Mishnah (which forbids the removal of the wart), by means of an instrument - because the Beraisa itself (which permits it), specifically adds the prohibition of using an instrument.
(c)The reason that the Tana of our Mishnah appears to duplicate the Beraisa (and to forbid the cutting of a wart by using an instrument) - is in order to introduce the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua (the Tana who forbids it) and Rebbi Eliezer (who permits it), a fact that we would not know from the Beraisa.
(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah asks Rebbi Yehoshua how he can prove Mitzvah (Achilas Gavo'a - the Korban Pesach) from Reshus (Achilas Hedyot - Simchas Yom-Tov). What does Rebbi Yehoshua reply to that, and how does he learn this from the two Pesukim "Atzeres la'Hashem Elokecha" (Re'eh) and "Atzeres Tihyeh Lachem" (Pinchas)?
(b)How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the apparent discrepancy between the two Pesukim?
(c)In which case does he agree that Simchas Yom-Tov is a Mitzvah, and why is that?
(d)What do we learn from ...
1. ... "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" (Yeshayah)?
2. ... "Yemei Mishteh v'Simchah" (Megilas Esther)?
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua replies to Rebbi Eliezer (who asked him how he can prove Mitzvah (Achilas Gavo'a - the Korban Pesach) from Reshus (Achilas Hedyot - Simchas Yom-Tov) - that, in his opinion, Simchas Yom-Tov is also a Mitzvah (and not Reshus). He learns this from the two Pesukim "Atzeres la'Hashem Elokecha" and "Atzeres Tihyeh Lachem", which he Darshens to mean that one should divide Yom-Tov half for Hash-m (Davening and learning Torah) and half for oneself (eating and drinking).
(b)Rebbi Eliezer explains the two Pesukim to mean either all for Hash-m or all for oneself.
(c)He agrees that Simchas Yom-Tov is a Mitzvah (i.e. it is forbidden to fast) - on Shavu'os, since the Torah was given on that day.
(d)We learn from ...
1. ... "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" - that on Shabbos too, it is forbidden to fast.
2. ... "Yemei Mishteh v'Simchah" - that it is also forbidden to fast on Purim.
(a)On which three days in the year did Mar Brei d'Ravina not used to fast?
(b)What Derashah did he make from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Inisem es Nafshosechem b'Tish'ah la'Chodesh"?
(c)What did Rav Yosef used to say on Shavu'os?
(a)Mar Brei d'Ravina fasted every day of the year except for Shavu'os, Purim and Erev Yom-Kipur.
(b)Seeing as there is no Mitzvah to fast on the ninth of Tishri, "v'Inisem es Nafshoseichem b'Tish'ah la'Chodesh" must be coming to teach us that if someone eats and drinks on the ninth (in preparation for the forthcoming fast), it is considered as if he had fasted on both the ninth and the tenth.
(c)Each Shavu'os, Rav Yosef used to instruct his family to prepare for him a third-born calf (in Eruvin Rashi explained 'Egla Tilsa' to mean a calf that is only a third-grown) for Se'udas Yom-Tov, because 'Were it not for that this day (due to which he became a great Talmid-Chacham), there are many Yosefs walking the streets'.
(a)What did Rav Sheshes used to do every thirty days?
(b)It appears that he learnt entirely for his own benefit. How do we reconcile this with the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu, which clearly states that the Torah keeps the entire world going?
(a)Every thirty days, Rav Sheshes would revise all that he had learnt, lean against the door-post and say 'Rejoice, My Soul, rejoice, My Soul; it is for you that I learn Tanach, and it is for you that I learn Mishnah'!
(b)Initially, one learns for one's own benefit. Eventually however, it is the entire world that benefits from one's Torah-learning.
(a)The Gemara asks that, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, in whose opinion Simchas Yom-Tov is optional, we ought to say that, if Yom-Tov, where the optional Melachah is permitted, yet the accompanying Shevus is not, how much more so Shabbos, where they only permitted Melachah shel Mitzvah, should the accompanying Shevus be forbidden. How does Rebbi Eliezer answer this Kashya?
(a)To answer the Kashya (that, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, in whose opinion Simchas Yom-Tov is optional, we ought to say that, if Yom-Tov, where the optional Melachah is permitted, yet the accompanying Shevus is not, how much more so Shabbos, where they only permitted Melachah shel Mitzvah, should the accompanying Shevus be forbidden) - the Gemara explains that Rebbi Eliezer holds the exact opposite: that the Shevus of a Mitzvah is stronger than an optional one.