Benayahu ben Yehoyada judged Yo'av for the murder of - Avner and Amasa.

When Yo'av claimed that he killed Avner because he was the Go'el ha'Dam of Asa'el his brother, whom Avner had killed, Benayahu countered - that Asa'el was chasing Avner, who therefore acted in self-defense.

Yo'av countered that by arguing that - Avner could have saved himself by stabbing him to incapacitate him, without actually killing him.

And when Benayahu claimed that Avner was under pressure and therefore unable to aim with such precision - Yo'av quoted the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Yakehu Avner ... el ha'Chomesh" (the fifth rib). Now if Avner was able to aim at that vulnerable spot with such precision, Yo'av argued, he could certainly have incapacitated him without actually killing him!

Rebbi Yochanan explains the location of the fifth rib as - the point on the flank where the gall and the liver meet.

After Benayahu conceded that as far as Avner was concerned, Yo'av was innocent, the latter attempted to justify his having killed Amasa - because, he claimed, he was a Mored be'Malchus, since the king had ordered him to return from a mission within three days, and he came after the time had expired.

When Benayahu rejected Yo'av's argument on the grounds that Amasa Darshened 'Achin ve'Rakin', he meant that - he extrapolated from the word "Rak", in the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Rak Chazak ve'Ematz" that Hash-m said to Yehoshua during the early stages of his leadership - that he does not have the authority to cause Bitul Torah ...

... and it was because Amasa found the people studying Torah that he was delayed.

In fact, Benayahu concluded, Yo'av himself was Moreid be'Malchus - for having joined ranks with David's son Adoniyahu, when he rebelled against his father shortly before the latter's death.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains the Pasuk "Ki Yo'av Natah Acharei Adoniyah ve'Acharei Avshalom Lo Natah" to mean that - he really wanted to join Avshalom's rebellion too, only he was prevented from doing so, as we shall now see.

Rebbi Elazar attributed Yo'av following Adoniyah but not Avshalom to the fact that 'Adayin Lachluchis shel David Kayemes', by which he meant that - Yo'av was afraid to join Avshalom, since David was still able to fight, which was not the case in the time of Adoniyahu, when he was already old and bed-ridden.

According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, it was because of a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who described the four hundred sons of David - all sons of Y'fos To'ar, who grew long hair in order to inspire fear, who went at the head of the troops and whom David used as a sort of private police force, to intimidate evil-doers.

During Avshalom's rebellion it appears - these four hundred men were still in operation, and it explains why Yo'av declined to join Avshalom. He joined Adoniyahu, only because they were no longer operational.

Rebbi Aba bar Kahana disagrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav. According to him, prior to Adoniyah's uprising, Yo'av worked in complete harmony with David (including the period of Avshalom's rebellion) ...

... as is evident in his interpretation of the Pasuk in Shmuel "Vay'hi David Oseh Mishpat u'Tzedakah le'Chol Amo, ve'Yo'av ben Tzeruyah al ha'Tzava", which he understands to mean that if David had not studied Torah in the Beis-Hamedrash, Yo'av would not have been able to win the battles, and if Yo'av had not fought the battles, David would not have been able to sit in the Beis-Hamedrash and study Torah.

With regard to the Pasuk there "va'Yeitzei Yo'av ... va'Yishlach Mal'achim Acharai Avner va'Yashivu oso mi'Bor ha'Sirah", Rebbi Aba bar Kahana interprets ...

... 'Bor' - with reference to the pitcher of water that David took from behind Shaul's head whilst King Shaul and his entire camp slept, and which Avner claimed one of the boys had handed to him (see also Agados Maharsha)

... 'Sirah' - with reference to the piece of Shaul's coat that David had cut off whilst the former was relieving himself in the cave where he (David) was hiding, and which Avner claimed had been torn-off by a thorn-bush, and David had found there.

Avner's motive in both of these cases was - to prevent Shaul from making peace with David (presumably because, as Chazal explain, he maintained that David, who descended from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, was Pasul).

Yo'av tricked Avner - by asking him how a woman without hands makes Chalitzah. Then, as the latter bent down to demonstrate how one performs Chalitzah with his teeth, he struck him on the fifth rib.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns this from the word "ba'Sheli" (in the Pasuk "va'Yatehu ... le'Daber ito ba'Sheli") - which he interprets as 'a shoe' (based on the Pasuk on Sh'mos, where Hash-m said to Moshe (at the burning bush) "Shal Ne'alecha me'Al Raglecha" (remove your shoes from your feet).

And Rebbi Yochanan learns from the beginning of the Pasuk "Vayatehu Yo'av el Toch ha'Sha'ar" - that Yo'av judged Avner as a Beis-Din would have judged him (even though it appears that he simply took the law into his own hands - see Aruch la'Ner [though it is not clear who gave Yo'av the mandate to act on his own]).

The Pasuk explains that Hash-m arranged for Yo'av to receive the death he deserved for having "murdered two men who were more righteous than him" - because they both Darshened 'Achin ve'Rakin', which he did not.

We have already explained how Amasa Darshened them. The occasion that ...

... Avner Darshened them too was - when Shaul ordered the 'boys' (among them Avner) to kill the Kohanim who lived in Nov, and they refused.

... Yo'av failed to Darshen them was - when he followed David's instructions to see to it that Uriyah was sent to the front line alone, to be killed in battle.

Avner and Amasa both refused to obey orders - even though they were issued verbally (directly); whereas Yo'av obeyed his instructions - even though they were only issued in writing.

Rav explains that Amasa was not wary of the sword in Yo'av's hand - because he did not suspect him of planning him harm.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains that what the Pasuk "va'Yikaver be'Veiso ba'Midbar" means is (not that that was where Yo'av lived, but) that - his house was Hefker like a Midbar (meaning that it was open to the poor at any time).

Alternatively, we might Darshen that - theft and adultery were absent from Yo'av's house, just as they are not to be found in a desert.

Rav Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "ve'Yo'av Yechayeh es Sha'ar ha'Ir" - that he would send to the poor of his town even fine foods and luxuries, such as various kinds of little fish.

The Tana Kama of our Mishnah lists the four Misos Beis-Din as 'Sekilah, S'reifah, Sayaf ve'Chenek'. Rebbi Shimon lists them as - 'S'reifah, Sekilah, Chenek ve'Sayaf'.

The Tana concludes the Mishnah with the words 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin' - because he is now about to deal with Sereifah, Sayaf and Chenek.

Rava Amar Rav Sechorah Amar Rav Huna explains that a list of items that appears in the Mishnah need not generally be taken seriously - except for the Mishnah in Nidah, which lists seven ingredients that are needed to examine the blood-stain of a Nidah.

The seven ingredients are 'the spit of someone who has not yet eaten, the juice or beans that were chewed, urine, Neser (a kind of earth), a herb called Boris (used as a detergent), Kemulya and Ashlag (a mineral found in the holes in which pearls sit)' - which will remove Dam Nidah only if they are rubbed into it in that order, but not if the order is changed ...

... or even - if they are applied simultaneously.

Rav Papa the elder citing Rav adds our Mishnah to the exceptions to Rav Huna's rule. He knows that their order is crucial - from the fact that Rebbi Shimon argues.

Rav Huna himself did not cite it - because it involves a Machlokes Tana'im, and he is only referring to Mishnayos that are unanimous.

The ramifications of the order of the four Misos Beis-Din is - in a case where someone is Chayav two Misos Beis-Din, where he receives the more stringent sentence.

Rav Papa adds to the exceptions the Mishnah in Yuma, which describe the Avodah on Yom Kipur, and about which the Mishnah there specifically writes ' ... Im Hikdim Ma'aseh la'Chavero, Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum'. Rav Huna himself not cite it - because he is only concerned with cases where one item is more stringent (or effective) than the other, whereas the Avodah on Yom-Kipur is not a matter of precedence, but of the stringency of the day.

Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua adds the Mishnah in Tamid (with reference to the order of the various Avodos connected with the Korban Tamid). Rav Papa did not add that to the list of exceptions - because, in his opinion, the order there is not crucial, and Bedieved, the Kohanim are Yotzei even if they change it.

When Rava ... Amar Rav Huna said 'Kol Makom ... ' (besides that of the Bigdei Kehunah) - he meant to include - the order of Chalitzah, (as we shall now see).

When the Yavam and the Yevamah first enter the Beis-Din the judges advise the Yavam against making Yibum - assuming their ages are totally incompatible (if one of them was old and the other one, young).

After the Yevamah has said 'Me'en Yevami ... ', the Yavam says - 'Lo Chafatzti Lekachtah' ...

... after which, the Yevamah takes off his shoe and spits in his direction.

The Yevamah's final words are - 'Kachah Ye'aseh la'Ish asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv'.

The Mishnah in Yevamos - requires all of the above to be said in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Yarkah be'Fanav" that - the Yevamah's spit has to be visible to the Dayanim.

The point Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is making when he states 'Mitzvas Chalitzah ... ', and lists the five stages that are clearly described in the Mishnah is that - the order in which they are performed is only a Mitzvah, but not crucial.

The original case included in Rav Huna's statement is that of Bigdei Kehunah. The four ...

... garments of a Kohen Hedyot are - the Kutones (the shirt), the Michnasayim (knee-breeches), the hat and the Avnet (the belt).

... additional garments worn by a Kohen Gadol are - the Choshen (the breast-plate), the Eifod (a form of apron worn at the back), the Me'il (a coat or cloak) and the Tzitz (a golden band worn on the forehead).

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "u'Michnesei Bad Yih'yu al Besaro" - the first garment the Kohen puts on is the Michnasayim.

The Mishnah switches the order (listing the Kutones before the Michnasayim), because it takes its cue from the Pasuk, which gives precedence to the Kutones to place the Kutones first - because it covers the entire body.

The source we initially cite for Sekilah's stringency over S'reifah, according to the Rabbanan is - the fact that this is the sentence meted out to someone who curses Hash-m or who serves idols, the worst sins, inasmuch as they constitute 'Poshet Yad be'Ikar' (starting up with Hash-m Himself, Kevayachol).

We might on the other hand, have thought that S'reifah is the more stringent of the two (like Rebbi Shimon) - since the Torah sentences a bas Kohen who commits adultery to S'reifah (even though a bas Kohen who is an Arusah already receives Sekilah, and clearly, the Torah is coming to be more stringent with a bas Kohen, not more lenient).

What makes the Din of a bas Kohen more stringent is - the fact that she desecrates her father's name (as we shall see later).

We refute the latter suggestion, according to the Rabbanan - in that the Rabbanan confine the Din of a bas Kohen to a Nesu'ah. An Arusah remains Chayav Sekilah (like she was before).

We know that an Arusah is more stringent than a Nesu'ah - from the fact that an Arusah bas Yisrael is subject to Sekilah, whereas a Nesu'ah is only subject to Chenek.

Consequently, having just concluded that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah is subject to S'reifah, whilst an Arusah is subject to Sekilah - the Rabbanan prove that Sekilah is more stringent than S'reifah.

In fact, there is no specific proof that a bas Kohen Arusah is not also subject to Sereifah (like a Nesu'ah). They ultimately learn that ...

... a 'Nesu'ah (bas Kohen) receives Sereifah, but not an Arusah' - from the fact that Sekilah is more stringent than S'reifah (in which case it would no sense to give an Arusah the more lenient punishment of S'reifah).

... Sekilah is more stringent than S'reifah - from the fact that it is given to a Megadef (someone who curses Hash-m) and to idolaters.