What is the significance of building palaces in a place where there is no water or earth?

Maharal: Man is formed in the womb. Hash-m forms man in a place of Tohu (non-existence). All the more so He can make man from earth, which is not Tohu. Everything is found there! Even if it is difficult to picture Techiyas ha'Mesim based on current nature, it will not be according to current nature. If one did not know that man is formed in the womb, it would be harder for him to believe it than to believe that he is formed from the ground. This shows that Techiyas ha'Mesim is not intrinsically difficult, just nature will be different.

About what did R. Ami say 'if you do not believe me'?

Rashi: That Hash-m can make life from earth.

Is a mouse half flesh and half-earth?

Rashi: This is a special kind of mouse that is not born. (It spontaneously generates.)

Margoliyos ha'Yam: Tiferes Yisrael (Chulin 9:6) cites a Nochri scientist who saw such a creature in Egypt.

R. Ami's parable is for Techiyas ha'Mesim - granted, it will be from [bodies that decayed and became] earth. What is the relevance of water?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): In the future, Techiyas ha'Mesim will be via dew.

What is the Chilazon?

Rashi: It is a worm that leaves the sea once in 70 years. They make Techeles dye from its blood.

Iyun Yakov: We learn Techiyas ha'Mesim from the Chilazon and glass. Both of these were in Zevulun's portion, like it says in Megilah 6a. (NOTE: It says that Zechuchis Levanah (crystal) was in his portion. Surely all Shevatim had regular glass, which is made from sand! - PF) It says "Semach Zevulun b'Tzeisecha v'Yisachar b'Ohalecha" - Zevulun fed Yisachar [and shared in his reward]. It seemed that ignoramuses would not live [in the world to come], until we found "You who cling to Hash-m are all alive today" - this is one who benefits Chachamim (Kesuvos 111b). Therefore, these two matters were in Zevulun's portion.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 4: Tzafnas Pane'ach (on Rambam Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2) - only the first Chilazon on the mountain is Kosher for Techeles. Those born on the mountain are called Tola'as Shani. A Tosefta in Menachos Perek 6 says that Tola'as Shani is not the mountain. Toras Kohanim Parshas Metzora says that Shni Tola'as is second of the worms.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pardes Yosef ha'Chadash, Beha'alosecha: Here, Rashi says that it comes from the sea. In Menachos (44a), he wrote that it comes from the land! Ramah says that there are two kinds of Chilazon; we can say that one comes from the land, and one from the sea. (This does not resolve Rashi, who says that also here we discuss the Chilazon used for Techeles! - PF)

Rashi writes that they make Techeles dye from a worm's blood. We find that skin only of Tahor species is Kosher for work of Shamayim (Shabbos 28a)! We can ask similarly about Tola'as Shani!

Ramah: This Chilazon is not what is used for Techeles. (a) The Techeles Chilazon is not found in the mountain. If you will say that they came via rain clouds, what is the proof that Techiyah can be fast? Perhaps all the Chilazonim came from the sea, and not from the one! (b) How can we bring a proof from something that occurs only once in 70 years? This is more difficult according to the latter Perush of Rashi, that they come from eggs of the first. If so, this is not connected to Techiyas ha'Mesim! Rather, this is a different Chilazon formed from earth and water.

Margoliyos ha'Yam: Sefer Eldad ha'Dani says that they seed flax and grow Tola'as Shani. R. Bechayei (Parshas Terumah) says that Tola'as Shani is not from the worm, rather, from seeds in which are worms. This is unlike Yerushalmi Kil'ayim 9:1, which says that Tola'as Shani is [from] something with Ru'ach Chayim!

How do we learn from the Chilazon that Techiyas ha'Mesim can come quickly from earth? Perhaps only a trifling being can be created quickly, but man, an important creation, will require much time!

Maharal: In the future, Hash-m will revive. For Him, there is no difference between important and trifling. When the time is ready, His will is fulfilled immediately!

Why did each of them tell the other 'woe to you Resha'im...'?

Maharsha: We say (107b-108a) that some Resha'im will not be revived, and not judged, e.g. Dor ha'Mabul - "Lo Yadun Ruchi va'Adam l'Olam" - there will be no Din (judgment), and no Ru'ach. Some Resha'im will be revived and judged for their evil, e.g. Anshei Sedom, who were "Ra'im v'Chata'im" - Ra'im in this world, and Chata'im in the world to come. The heretic said, woe to you, who say that the dead will live - if so, you will be judged for your sins. It would be better for you to say, the living die - will the dead live?! If so, you would not be judged! Gaviha answered, just the contrary, woe to you Resha'im, who deny the world to come - you have no share in the world to come! It would be better for you to say, those who never lived come to life, and all the more so those who already lived! Then, you would merit the world to come after receiving your punishment! Also the Resha'im who are judged in the world to come, afterwards they receive the world to come!

Why did he say 'if I will rise, I will kick you...'?

Ya'avetz: If I will be revived... People will be revived with their blemishes [and then healed]. The heretic could not kick him now, due to fear of the kingdom.

Iyun Yakov: Your Kal va'Chomer (those who were never alive come to life, and all the more so those who already lived) is invalid. If so, if one kicks a straight person, he becomes crooked. If one kicks a crooked person, he should become more crooked. I will refute this - I will kick you and straighten your crookedness! Gaviha replied, surely you cannot do so. If one kicks a straight person, he becomes crooked!

Why does the Beraisa teach the date on which the marauders' claims were silenced?

Rashi: This is in Megilas Ta'anis. It is a Yom Tov; one may not fast or eulogize on the day, due to the miracle.

Who are Bnei Africa?

Maharsha: They are Girgashi (one of the Kena'ani nations). It says in our Perek that Hash-m gave to them a land like Eretz Yisrael. (NOTE: The Magihah says that we do not find so in our Perek; Yerushalmi (Shevi'is 6:1) applies to Africa "a land like yours." - PF) Our Gemara is unlike Bereishis Rabah 37:1, which says that Gomer and Magog are Africa. They are Bnei Yefes - here, they said 'Kena'an is our father!'

Margoliyos ha'Yam 7: Minchas Yehudah on the Midrash says that this is Africa in Asia. A support is that it was Shevi'is, and Yisrael relied on the Peros. This implies that it was close to Eretz Yisrael! (NOTE: Eretz Yisrael is also close to Africa - it is where three continents meet! Perhaps it is known that Egypt and Kush occupy the part of Africa close to Eretz Yisrael, but there are places in Asia close to Eretz Yisrael that could be called Africa.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 8 citing R. David Bonafid: Only the Girgashi came to claim, for Yehoshua defeated the other nations and acquired their portions via conquest.

Why did he say 'if they defeat me, you can say that they defeated a commoner. If I win, you can say that Toras Moshe defeated them'?

Maharsha #1: This was amidst humility, not to attribute victory to himself.

Maharsha #2: It is the way of debaters to defeat the opponent in the same matter, without diverting the discussion to another matter. He said, 'from where do you bring a proof - from the Torah? Also I will bring a proof from the Torah! Therefore, the Torah defeated them.

What was their claim from "Eretz Kena'an li'Gvuloseha"? If they believe in the Torah, there are many verses that say that Hash-m gave Eretz Kena'an to Yisrael, and commanded to kill all the Kena'anim! The Torah began with Bereishis, to teach that the world is Hash-m's; He took Eretz Kena'an from them, and gave it to us (Rashi, Bereishis 1:1, from Yalkut Shimoni 187)!

Maharsha: It seems that Bnei Africa's claim was that indeed, due to our sins, Hash-m took the land from us and gave it to you - "b'Rish'as ha'Goyim ha'Eleh Hash-m Elokecha Morisham Mipanecha." However, now you sinned like all the nations around you (this was at the beginning of Bayis Sheni; Alexandrus was in the days of Shimon ha'Tzadik). Hash-m expelled you in Churban Bayis Rishon, like He expelled us. You are no better than us to get the land back. We inherited it before you!

Iyun Yakov: Since the land is called on Kena'an's name, surely it was not given permanently to Yisrael, rather, only to the Avos and their seed, but not permanently.

Gaviha's answer "Arur Kena'an Eved Avadim Yihyeh l'Echav" properly refuted them. However, Alexandrus could have claimed that if so, it is partially his - he is from Yefes, the other brother of Kena'an's father Cham!

Maharsha: Gaviha answered, indeed, we are slaves under Alexandrus. Even so, Hash-m made you slaves of slaves (i.e. of us, now) - "Eved Avadim Yihyeh l'Echav."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Baruch Hash-m Elokei Shem vi'Yhi Chena'an Eved Lamo; Yaft Elokim l'Yefes va'Yishkon b'Ahalei Shem vi'Yhi Chena'an Eved Lamo" - [also the latter] vi'Yhi Chena'an Eved Lamo applies to what is closest to them (Shem), and not to Yefes; Kena'an is a slave only of Shem. It says "Eved Avadim Yihyeh l'Echav" (plural) because they are slaves to Shem and his descendants.

NOTE: Why did he need to say twice that Kena'an will be a slave to Shem? (PF)

Anaf Yosef citing Ramas Shmuel: "Arur" includes Niduy and Cherem; Stam Cherem is for Kohanim, and Yisrael are called "Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh."

Margoliyos ha'Yam 8 citing R. David Bonafid: Gaviha's point was that Kena'an are slaves, and it is not proper that they receive inheritance. Hash-m did not want to steal other nations' portions to give them to Yisrael. He took Kena'an's, for they never acquired it for themselves. It belonged to Yisrael from creation - "b'Hanchel Elyon Goyim b'Hafrido Bnei Adam Yatzev Gevulos Amim l'Mispar Bnei Yisrael." Kena'ani dwelled in it to work the land for Yisrael, the owners.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 9 citing R. Y. Z Morgenstern: Toras Moshe (Lech Lecha) explains "veha'Kena'ani Az ba'Aretz" - they were conquering it from Shem's seed. Noach apportioned it to Shem; Kena'an stole it. In Dor ha'Flagah, when they all wanted to dwell together in Bavel, they were Mafkir their land elsewhere, and also their share in the servitude of Kena'ani, except for Avraham, who was not part of their counsel. He kept his share of mastery over them, and acquired also the share of Bnei Yefes and the rest of Bnei Shem (who were Mafkir their share)! This is the Rambam's source that a Ben Noach can sell his son to be a slave - we find that Noach made Kena'an a slave!

What is the significance that the year was Shemitah?

Maharsha: Shemitah does not apply in Africa. Bnei Africa occupied fields in Eretz Yisrael by force, until they came in front of Alexandrus for judgment.

Iyun Yakov: Maharsha erred. They left their fields in Africa. It was Shemitah in Eretz Yisrael, and they did not have food, so they ate the Peros of their fields in Africa.

NOTE: 'They fled, leaving their fields and vineyards planted' implies that their fields were in the place of the judgment. 'The claims were removed from Yehudah and Yerushalayim' implies that this was in Eretz Yisrael, like Maharsha, who says that their fields were in Eretz Yisrael!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 13 citing Kol Yehudah: Yisrael wanted to take Bnei Girgashi for slaves. This would strengthen their claim that Bnei Girgashi are their slaves! Some slaves are not worth the food that they eat (Bava Metzi'a 64); one may tell them 'work for me, and I will not feed you.' However, in famine years, the slave can say 'feed me or free me, so [Yisraelim] will have mercy on me [and feed me].' The Rambam says that Shemitah is like a famine year. Therefore, Yisrael did not seek to take them for slaves.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 13: This supports the Rambam's calculation of when is Shemitah. It is known that Alexandrus came to Eretz Yisrael in the year 3448, exactly 1000 years after Yetzi'as Mitzrayim. This is why they agreed to date documents from then, for it is like dating from Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, just 1000 is omitted.

NOTE: What is the source that they came for judgment the same year that Alexandrus came to Eretz Yisrael, before Tishrei? (PF)

What was the Egyptians' claim? The Torah said that Bnei Yisrael should request from them?

Maharsha: They said that they should have returned the loan.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 12, citing Kusnos Ohr (Bo): Shishak Melech Mitzrayim took back what Yisrael took from them (Pesachim 87b, Midrash Mishlei 23)! Gaviha answered them based on their claim, from what is explicit in the Torah. Tzafnas Pane'ach (2:1:3) says that Shishak took back only Bizas Yam Suf. They claimed what Yisrael borrowed from them.

NOTE: The Rashbam and R. Yonah (Shemos 12:36) explain that "va'Yash'ilum" means that Yisrael requested gifts. Gaviha answered them according to their misunderstanding that it was a loan. (PF)

Iyun Yakov: Their claim was based on the previous answer. One who stole and left the theft to his children, the original owner has a claim against the children only if they inherited land from their father (Bava Kama 10:1). Initially, we thought that Eretz Yisrael was not Muchzak to Yisrael from their Avos. Now that you say that it is Muchzak, we have a claim!

How could he say that they worked for 430 years? The entire stay in Egypt was 210 years, and they did not make them work as long as Yosef was alive!

Maharsha: Indeed, he merely said like the verse, which says 430 years (NOTE: the verse counts from Bris Bein ha'Besarim - PF); it was not precise.

What was the claim of Bnei Yishmael and Bnei Keturah? Many verses that say that Hash-m gave Eretz Kena'an to Yisrael!

Maharsha: They said that the gift was on condition that they guard the Torah and its Mitzvos, like the Torah says many times. After you sinned, and also now you are in this punishment under the kingdoms, you are no better than us! Your claim to Eretz Yisrael is the inheritance of your first father Avraham - also we have this merit!

Iyun Yakov: Their claim was based on the previous answer. Initially they had no claim to inherit, for they did not pay the 'debt' of slavery in Egypt. However, now that you say that you kept the gold and silver as payment for the slavery, we have a claim!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Parshas Derachim asked, even a Goy does not receive capital and monetary punishment for one sin. Why did the Egyptians lose their lives and money? Derech Sichah answered, the money was payment for labor, so Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei does not apply.

It says that Bnei Yishmael and Bnei Keturah came. The verse that they brought "v'Eleh Toldos Yishmael ben Avraham" does not mention Bnei Keturah!

Maharsha: Bnei Yishmael had the primary claim. They came to inherit a double portion, for Yishmael was the Bechor. It says in Bereishis Rabah (61:7) "Es ha'Bechor Ben ha'Senu'ah Yakir Lases Lo Pi Shenayim." (NOTE: There were six Bnei Keturah (Bereishis 25:2). Even if Yishmael gets a double portion, in all, Bnei Keturah get three times as much! - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam (15): Bnei Yishmael brought Bnei Keturah with them, lest Yisrael say 'you are Bnei Shifchah; you have no claim.' Bnei Keturah were born after she was freed!

Here we learn that Avraham gave all his property to Yitzchak from "va'Yiten Avraham Es Kol Asher Lo l'Yitzchak." Rashi (Bereishis 24:36, based on Bereishis Rabah), learns from "v'Chol Tuv Adono b'Yado", that Eliezer had a document in which Avraham gave everything to Yitzchak!

Maharsha: The Gemara explains simply, that Eliezer had gold rings and bracelets, so they would agree to give Rivkah, but not a document.

Be'er Sheva: It would not suffice to bring from "v'Chol Tuv Adono", for it implies that Yitzchak did not receive Avraham's inferior property.

One who said that the Bechor will inherit like a regular son, it has no effect (Bava Basra 130b)!

Etz Yosef: One may not change inheritance; one may give a gift.

Why did Avraham give all his property to Yitzchak? One should not transfer inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son!

Maharsha, Be'er Sheva: Yishmael was a Ben Shifchah. He was conceived before Hagar was freed; he does not inherit. Even though Keturah was freed, her sons are called "Bnei ha'Pilagshim"; they do not inherit with Yitzchak, the son of the wife.

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m told him "v'Yitzchak Yikarei Lecha Zara."

Etz Yosef: One should not transfer inheritance, lest the bad son will have good descendants. Avraham saw with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that there will not be proper seed from his other sons. (NOTE: Yisro was from Midyan, one of Bnei Keturah! Below (94a), Etz Yosef said 'perhaps Yisro did not descend from Midyan' to explain why he was not already circumcised. Based on his answer here, he must say that Yisro was not from Midyan! - PF) Also, Hash-m told him "heed all that Sarah tells you", and she said that Yishmael will not inherit with Yitzchak.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (16): We should say 'do not engage in Hash-m's secrets' (Berachos 10a; do not neglect your obligation based on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh)! R. Y. Engel answered, that applies to Torah obligations. Before Matan Torah, Avraham fulfilled everything based on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh (what the Mitzvos will be); he could rely on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh also for this (to transfer inheritance). I brought many source that "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi" is after we received the Torah from Moshe; beforehand, one could rule based on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rosh (Bereishis 25:5) says that Yishmael was a Ger Ben Ger; he does not inherit even mid'Rabanan. Chochmas ha'Torah (Toldos) says that the Isur applies to wealth due to oneself. Avraham's wealth was in the merit of Sarah - Avraham was secondary to her in Nevu'ah - therefore, it is proper to transfer the wealth only to her sons.

What was the question 'what Matanos did he give?'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One could have said that it is the [extra portion of the] Bechorah, and "veli'Vnei ha'Pilagshim Nasan Matanos" means that he gave to them like regular sons. However, now that we say that he gave everything to Yitzchak, what are Matanos?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 17 citing Milchamas Mitzvah (of Rashbatz, 11): It is difficult, for after saying that he gave everything to Yitzchak, it says that he gave Matanos to Bnei ha'Pilagshim.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 17 citing Be'er Sheva: Avraham knew that Bnei Keturah serve idolatry. "Lo Sechanem" (do not give to them free gifts) applies. We find that Avraham did not give gold and silver to Yishmael when he expelled him, for he hated him, for he did evil (Rashi, Bereishis 21:14)! (NOTE: What is the support from Yishmael? If "Lo Sechanem" applied to him, why did Rashi need to say that he hated him? And why was he allowed to give to him bread and a flask of water? - PF)

What is Shem Tum'ah?

Rashi: It is witchcraft and acts done via Shedim.

Maharsha: Even though witchcraft is forbidden, he was permitted to teach them; 'you may learn to understand and give rulings, just you may not learn to do' (above, 68a). Rashi holds that our Sugya is like the opinion that Bnei Noach are permitted witchcraft. If not, he would not teach it to them, due to Lifnei Iver!

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps Bnei Noach are commanded about witchcraft only in Eretz ha'Kodesh, for it is an abomination to the land - "uvi'Glal ha'To'avos ha'Eleh Hash-m Elokecha Morish Osam Mipanecha." In another land, they are not commanded.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Rashi learned from the Seifa - "va'Yishlachem me'Al Yitzchak Bno Kedmah El Eretz Kedem." The east is the source of witchcraft and Ma'asei Shedim, and the 'fathers' of all witches are from there, like the Zohar says.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 18: Gur Arye says that he taught them how to dispel witchcraft and Ma'asei Shedim.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing citing Merafsin Igra (Chayei Sarah): Imposing Shevu'os via names of Tum'ah is not included in witchcraft. This is not forbidden; via it, Bnei Keturah would be able to satiate their masters.

Maharsha: We can say that it is only Ma'asei Shedim, and not witchcraft. The Rosh holds that all permit them; they are not included in witchcraft.