Moshe said that six Zekeinim will be chosen from 10 tribes and five Zekeinim from 2 tribes. Why were the Zekeinim not chosen from 13 tribes, since Efraim and Menashe are usually counted separately?

Iyun Yaakov: Efraim and Menashe are only considered to be separate for inheritance, but not for other things.

Tosfos Chachmei Anglia: Efraim and Menashe were counted separately, but Levi was not included, since they were involved in the service of the Mishkan and with singing the Shir there.

Sanhedri Ketana: Levi were not included because the Pasuk states (Bamidbar 11:16), "...Gather for Me seventy of the elders of Israel whom you know to be the people's elders and officers, and you shall take them to the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with you". The Zekeinim that were chosen had been the Jewish overseers in Mitzrayim and had taken the beatings that should have been give to the slaves under them. Since the tribe of Levi were not part of the servitude and did not serve as overseers, they could not become the Zekeinim.

What is the connection between the three prophecies (Moshe will die, the quails and Gog u'Magog)?

Maharsha citing Tosfos Yeshanim: All three are expounded from the word 'Bamachaneh' - 'in the camp' (Bamidbar 11:26). The first opinion says that it alludes to Yehoshua, who will lead Bnei Yisrael 'in the camp'. The second opinion says that it alludes to the quails, as the Pasuk states (Bamidbar 11:31), "and spread them over the camp". The third opinion says that it alludes to Gog u'Magog, as the 'great camp' of Gog u'Magog will come.

Ramas Shmuel: All three are related to death - the death of Moshe, the death that came to those that ate the quails; and the death in the war of Gog u'Magog.

How did the Chachamim know that they prophesied specifically about these three things?

Ein Eliyahu: The Midrash (Parshas Yisro) tells us that all of the prophecies given by the prophets will be 'received' from Moshe Rabbeinu, who received them from Hash-m. However, Eldad and Meidad received their prophecy directly from Hash-m. This is indicated in the Pasuk there when Moshe said to Yehoshua (Bamidbar 11:29), "...If only all of Hash-m's people were prophets, that Hash-m will bestow His spirit upon them.' Thus, each of the three opinions were giving a prophecy that would not have been given through Moshe. The first opinion holds that the prophecy of 'Moshe will die and Yehoshua will bring in' was certainly not given through Moshe. The second opinion, that they prophesied about the quails, would not have been through Moshe, as Moshe did not want that the negative effect of meat should come through him. Rav Nachman's opinion, that they prophesied about Gog u'Magog, also could not have been through Moshe, as Moshe thought that he would bring them into Eretz Yisrael. There would then be the true and permanent correction ('Tikkun') and no need for the war of Gog u'Magog.

The Pasuk concerning Eldad and Meidad states that they were prophesying 'במחנה' - 'in the camp' (Bamidbar 11:26). What can be expounded from that word?

Chanukas haTorah: One could explain Derech Remez - Why did the Pasuk say that Paroh's daughter gave Moshe his name is, 'כי מן המים משיתיהו'? It could have said 'כי ממים משיתיהו' - 'for I drew him out of the water'. Why were the extra letters נ' and ה' added? The answer is that the word ממים would have been an acronym for 'משה מת ויהושע מכניס'. The letters נ' and ה' were therefore added. But the Pasuk states about Eldad and Meidad that they were prophesying 'במחנה'. This can be understood as במח-נה - that they wanted to 'מח' - 'erase' the נ and ה, so that the word should become ממים which is the acronym for 'משה מת ויהושע מכניס'.

According to Abba Chanin, why did they say the phrase 'Arise quail' twice?

Ramas Shmuel: The Gemara in Yoma 75b expounds the word שליו to allude both to 'Shalav', meaning tranquility and 'Slav', meaning a thorn. The righteous will eat from it and have tranquillity. The evil will eat from it and it will be for them like thorns. The repetition of the phrase 'Arise quail' refer to these two types of people.

Why was Yehoshua upset?

Rashi #1: He thought that, since they had withdrawn and not been appointed Zekeinim, they did not have the authority to prophesy.

Ramban #2: He thought that they were prophesying from the 'Atzilus' of Moshe, together with the seventy elders, in which case they should have prophesied beside the Ohel Mo'ed, like the seventy did. Instead, they were prophesying independently in the camp.

Seforno: Because he suspected them of deliberately withdrawing from the lottery in order to show that they could prophesy independently, without 'Atzilus' from Moshe.

Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Rosh: Hash-m said that there would be only seventy Nevi'im. Yehoshua thought that they were not among them, in which case, they must be false prophets.

Moshav Zekenim: Although a Navi who withholds his prophecy is Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim (Sanhedrin 89a), that is only if Hash-m instructs him to publicize it. Otherwise, it is understood that since he has not been told to publicize it, it is improper to do so.

Maharsha: Yehoshua thought that they were presenting themselves as prophets on the level of Moshe, as a result of haughtiness. He recommended that they be given community needs and be among the Elders, so that all will see that they are not true prophets.

One of the attributes is 'men of old age'. But the Gemara further on (36b) states that one does not appoint a Dayan who is in his old age?

R' Yona/ Meiri: That Gemara refers to one who is particularly old. Here, R. Yochanan is requiring 'men of old age', meaning not young men. Just as a very elderly person has forgotten the pain of bringing up children, so too a young man has not yet experienced it.

What is the meaning and significance of being able to purify a Sheretz from Torah law?

Tosfos - R' Tam: It does not mean that he can permit eating a Sheretz. (That would be ridiculous, as it is false.) It is referring to him purifying it from Tumas Neveilah, that a K'zayis that is carried by a person does not make him Tamei. This Halacha is indeed true and he is demonstrating his mastery in learning by proving it.

Maharsha: He is demonstrating his ability to defend and find merit for one who is liable. (Purifying a Sheretz is also a form of finding merit.) Ohr Yaakov explains that this is of even greater significance in the following case. The Halacha is that if, for example, in a murder case, all of the Dayanim rule that the accused is guilty, we do not put him to death (as Rav Kahana several lines earlier on 17a). But if there is a Dayan who is a great expert and can find merit for the offender, it will become a regular case of following the majority and we will be able to punish the offender.

Yaaros Dvash (9th Adar Drush 8): It is not a ridiculous way of learning (as Tosfos said). It is a true law at the right time. There are laws that currently are prohibited, but will become permitted in the future.

How does the second Beraisa about the Torah scholar add a further six people?

Rashi: The charity fund, which is collected by two and distributed by three, adds a further five people. Then there is the doctor, the bloodletter, the scribe and the teacher who are all the same person.

Yad Ramah: The charity fund's collection and distribution is done by three people. The other three are the butcher, the doctor and the scribe. (But bloodletter is the doctor and the teacher is one of the 'ten unoccupied men' who sit in the Shul.)

Why is 'a butcher' removed from the text according to some commentators?

Ein Eliyahu: It is not a basic necessity to have a butcher, since one could bring in meat from outside of the city. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to eat meat (as the Gemara in Bava Basra 60b teaches that after the destruction of the second Beis haMikdash, there were those who completely stopped eating meat as a display of mourning).