Rebbi maintains in a Beraisa that the Torah was actually given in K]sav Ashuris.

When they sinned (towards the end of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash period), they forgot how to read Ashuris and wrote the Torah in Ivris. And when ...

... they returned to Hash-m after the rebuilding of the Second Beis-ha'Mikdash, the Nevi'im reminded them how to read Ashuris and they started writing the Torah in Ashuris once again.

It is called 'K'sav Ashuris' - because it is the richest of all the scripts.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i also agrees that the Torah was given in Ashuris, but he adds that it was never changed, and he learns it from the Pasuk ...

... "Vavei ha'Amudim" - where the Torah compares the 'Vavin' (the hooks which were shaped like 'Vavin') to the planks of the Mishkan, which remained forever, as we learned in Yoma).

... "ve'el ha'Yehudim, ki'Chesavam ve'chi'Leshonam" - based on the Torah's comparison of the language (which was Lashon ha'Kodesh throughout) to the script (which didn't change either).

And he interprets the Pasuk "ve'Chasav lo es Mishneh ha'Torah ha'Zos" to mean that - the king had to wrote two Sifrei-Torah, as we explained earlier.

From the juxtaposition of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Shivisi Hash-m Lenegdi Tamid" to that of "Ki mi'Yemini bal Emot", Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ... learns - that the king arranged the Seifer-Torah like a Kame'a, and hung it on his arm (as we explained earlier).

The other Tana (see Maharshal and Maharsha) explains "Shivisi Hash-m Lenegdi Tamid" like Rav Chana bar Bizna Amar Rebbi Shimon Chasida, who learns from there - that when one Davens one should consider it as if he was standing in front of the Shechinah.

"Mene Mene Tekil u'Farsin'(the writing that appeared on the wall of Beltshatzar's palace) means that - 'Hashem has weighed your (Beltshazar's) deeds and found you lacking. So he torn your kingdom from you (twice, once from you personally, and once to give it away to Persia and Medes).

According to the Amora'im, the words appeared in code (which is the reason that they were unable to read it. According to ...

... Rav, 'Yetes Yetes Edich Pugchemat' - is the 'Atbash' of the intended words (where 'Alef = 'Tav', 'Beis' = 'Shin' and 'Gimel = 'Resh' ... ).

... Shmuel ('Mamtus Nankefi E'elran') - each subsequent letter (of "Mene Mene ... ") belongs to the next word, so that the 'Mem' forms the first letter of 'Mamtus', the 'Nun', the first letter of 'Nank'fi' and the 'Alef', the first letter of 'E'elran'; then the 'Mem' (of the next word ['Mene']) forms the second letter of 'Mamtus', and the 'Nun', the second letter of 'Nankefi', and so on.

... Rebbi Yochanan ('Enem Enem Liket Nisrafu') - each of the four words ("Mene Mene ... ") appeared on the wall backwards.

... Rav Ashi - ('Neme Neme Ketil Pursin') the first two letters of each word are inverted.

Our Mishnah forbids one to ride on the king's horse, to sit on his throne - or to use his scepter (incorporating any of his moveable objects).

Besides not seeing him whilst he is having his haircut, one may not see him - when he naked or in the bath-house.

The source of all these Halachos is - the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Som Tasim Alecha Melech", which teaches us to hold the king in awe.

Avishag ha'Shunamis was - the girl who was designated to keep David Hamelech warm, when in his old age, clothes no longer served that purpose.

According to Rav Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan she was permitted to Shlomoh but forbidden to Adoniyah - because Shlomoh was a king (and one king may use the scepter of another king), whereas Adoniyah was a Hedyot (to whom it is forbidden).

When Avishag asked David why he did not marry her - he replied that he already had eighteen wives.

When Avishag gave the parable of a thief who cannot find anything to steal, and who therefore makes himself out to be transformed - she meant to suggest that David made himself out to be a righteous man who would not contravene the Halachah, when, in reality, his refusal was based on the fact that, due to his age and physical weakness, he was no longer able to perform Tashmish.

David refuted Avishag's suggestion - by calling in bas-Sheva and being intimate with her thirteen times consecutively.

The reason that he did not simply divorce one of his eighteen wives was - because the Chachamim did not allow him to (because divorcing one's wife is a terrible thing [in spite of the fact that the alternative was ...

... to permit the Isur of Yichud with a Besulah, which had only just been decreed]).

Rebbi Elazar declared that when someone divorces his first wife - even the Mizbe'ach sheds tears.

And Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk ...

... "ve'Im Ein l'cha Le'shalem, Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha" that - a man's wife dies when he fails to pay his debts.

... "ben Adam, Hin'ni Loke'ach Mim'cha es Machmad Einecha ba'Mageifah ... va'Tamas Ishti ba'Erev" and the Pasuk "Hin'ni Mechalel es Mikdashi Ge'on Uzchem Machmad Einechem" that - the death of a man's first wife is akin to the Beis-Hamikdash being destroyed in his life-time.

Rebbi Alexandri learns from the Pasuk in Iyov "Or Choshech be'Ohalo ve'Neiro alav Yidach" that - with the death of a man's first wife, his world becomes dark.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from a Pasuk that his steps become shorter, and Rebbi Avahu, from the continuation of the same Pasuk "va'Tashlichehu Atzaso" that - his ability to counsel is affected, too.

Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan compares matching a man and a woman to the splitting of the Reed Sea. On the other hand, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains how - forty days before a baby boy is born, a Heavenly Voice announces 'So-and-so's daughter is reserved for so-and-so!'

We reconcile the two statements - by establishing the first one by the second marriage (which is arranged according to one's merits), and the second one by the first marriage, which depends on one's Mazal (which is preordained).

Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni lists - a wife as the only thing that has no substitute.

When Rav Yehudah quoted his son Rav Yitzchak the Pasuk "Y'hi Mekorcha Baruch u'Semach, me'Eishes Ne'urecha", he was telling him that - a person only derives satisfaction from the wife of his youth (his first wife).

When Rav Yitzchak asked his father to cite a practical example - he pointed to his mother (Rebbi Yehudah's own wife).

We reconcile this with the fact that Rav Yehudah also cited his wife as a practical example of the Pasuk in Koheles "u'Motze ani Mar mi'Maves, es ha'Ishah ... " - by confining the former to suppressing her Yeitzer-ha'Ra, in which she excelled, even though basically, she was a difficult person to live with.

When Rav Shmuel bar Uni'ah in the name of Rav, describes a woman as a 'Golem', he means to say - that she is incomplete, like an unfinished vessels,.

And it is the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ki Bo'alayich Osayich" which teaches us that - it is her first husband, the man who first has relations with her, who completes her (and it is with him that she forms a covenant).

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

... in Rus "Va'yamas Elimelech Ish Naomi" - that when a man dies, it is his wife who bears the brunt of the loss.

... in Va'yechi "va'Ani be'Vo'i mi'Padan, Meisah alai Rachel" (said by Ya'akov) - that when a woman dies, it is her husband who suffers.

The Beraisa discusses the hair-cutting obligations of a king and a Kohen Gadol. The source of the ruling that requires the king to have a haircut every day is - the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Melech be'Yofyo Techezenah Einecha".

One cuts the hair of ...

... a Kohen Gadol - once a week, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains, in time for the change of Mishmaros each Shabbos (so that he should look smart when the Kohanim of the new Mishmar arrive).

... a Kohen Hedyot - once a month.

We learn from the word "Yih'yeh", in the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with a Nazir) "Kadosh Yih'yeh Gadeil Pera" - that S'tam Nezirus is thirty days ...

... from the fact that the Gematriyah of "Yih'yeh" is thirty.

From the Gezeirah-Shavah "Pera" (in Yechezkel, in connection with Kohanim) "Pera" (in the above Pasuk in Naso) we now learn that - a Kohen is obligated to cut his hair every thiryt days.

Abaye learns from the Lashon "Pera Lo Yeshalechu" that - the Kohanim are forbidden to have long hair. Had the Torah written "Lo Yeshalchu Pera", he would not have allowed them to grow their hair t all (as Rav Papa suggested(see also Tosfos DH 've'Eima').

When Rav Papa asked Abaye why this prohibition does not apply nowadays, he replied 'like wine' - meaning that just as wine is only prohibited at a time when the Kohen actually goes to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash (because the Torah writes there "be'Vo'am el he'Chatzer ha'Penimis"), so it is with regard to growing long hair.

The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules - that a Kohen who knows ...

... only to which of the twenty-four groups he belongs - may not drink wine during the week that his group is due to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash.

... to which Beis-Av he belongs as well - may not drink wine on the day that his Beis-Av is due to serve (though he may on the other days of that week).

... neither of them - may never drink wine at all.

Rebbi declared that strictly speaking, Kohanim ought to be forbidden to drink wine permanently, but that he cannot forbid them, since 'Takanaso Kalkalaso' ...

'Kalkalaso Taknaso' means that - the Churban ha'Bayis, which upset the entire order of the Mishmaros (during which time they were forbidden to drink wine during their Mishmar, but not at other times), permits them to drink wine nowadays, since we are not afraid that the Beis-Hamikdash will be built suddenly (and catch them by surprise).

Abaye said that Kohanim who drink wine any time nowadays - rely on Rebbi's Heter.

The reason for the Tana Kama's reason for forbidding Kohanim to drink wine nowadays is that they are afraid that the Beis-Hamikdash will be built suddenly, and any Kohen who drank wine will be unfit to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash.

They nevertheless permit a Kohen to have long hair - because it is immediately rectifiable, by having a haircut.

They do not, on the other hand, rely on Rav Acha, who permits a Kohen to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash if he drank wine, as long as he walks a Mil or sleeps a little (making it equally easy to rectify), because of a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who said that if someone drank more than a Revi'is - not only will walking and sleeping not dissipate his drunkenness, but it will cause him to become even more drunk.

Rav Ashi bases the above distinction on - the fact that whereas a Kohen who serves in the Beis-ha'Mikdash after drinking wine defiles the Avodah, one who serves with long hair does not.

We learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht atah u'Vanecha ve'Lo Samusu" that a Kohen who drinks wine and serves in the Beis-Hamikdash is Chayav Misah. The Beraisa learns that he is also Chayav Misah for serving with long hair - from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which compares the two by juxtaposing them.

This poses a Kashya on Rav Ashi (which will remain unanswered) - because, by the same token, based on the principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah', we ought also to compare a Kohen who serves with long hair to one who drinks wine and serves (with regard to desecrating the Avodah (see Hagahos ha'G'ra).

The problem Ravina has with the Hekesh from Yechezkel comparing serving with long hair to sering after having drunk wine is - from where they knew that a Kohen who serves with long hair is Chayav Misah, before Yechezkel revealed it.

Rav Ashi ultimately answers that - it is really 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', only Yechezkel supported it with a Pasuk.

Yechezkel also supported - the prohibition of an Areil Basar and an Areil Leiv (someone who serves idols) serving in the Beis-Hamikdash, which is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, as well.

The Pasuk in Yechezkel, with reference to the hair-cut of a Kohen, uses the Lashon "Kasom Yiks'mu es Rasheihem", which the Tana compares to the haircut of Lulianus - where the tip of one hair reaches the root of the next one.

When Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel described it as 'Tisporta Yechida'ah', he meant that - this is a unique haircut.

When they asked Rebbi about the haircut of a Kohen Gadol, he pointed at ben El'asha - who was his son-in-law.

In connection with the huge sum of money that ben El'asha invested to learn how to give such a haircut, Rebbi commented - that he did it only in order to demonstrate the hair-cut of a Kohen Gadol.