We just established 'Ma'aser Sheini ... Yiganezu' ( in our Mishnah) by food that was purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money and that entered Yerushalayim from an Ir ha'Nidachas and which became Tamei. We query this however, from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini. What does the Tana Kama of the Mishnah there rule, with regard to redeeming what is purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money if it became Tamei?
And we answer that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yehudah say there?
What problem do we have with establishing the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini Tamei according to Rebbi Yehudah?
So we establish it by Ma'aser Tahor and even according to the Rabbanan, like Rava. What distinction does Rava draw between Yerushalayim when there are no Mechitzos (walls) with regard to eating Ma'aser there, and the prohibition of subsequently redeeming it once it has entered ('Mechitzos Lik'lot')?
How does this explain 'Ma'aser Sheini Yiganezu' in our Mishnah?
We just established 'Ma'aser Sheini ... Yiganezu' (in our Mishnah) by food that was purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money and that entered Yerushalayim from an Ir ha'Nidachas and became Tamei. We query this from the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini however - who permits what is purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money to be redeemed again if it became Tamei.
And we answer that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah - who rules there 'Yikaver'.
The problem with establishing the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini Tamei according to Rebbi Yehudah however, is - that, in such a case, this Din would apply even if it was not a case of Ir ha'Nidachas.
So we establish it by Ma'aser Tahor and even according to the Rabbanan, like Rava, who draws a distinction between Yerushalayim when there are no Mechitzos (walls) with regard to eating Ma'aser there - which is Asur min ha'Torah, and the prohibition of subsequently redeeming it once it has entered ('Mechitzos Lik'lot') - which is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
This explains 'Ma'aser Sheini Yiganezu' in our Mishnah- which must now be placed in Genizah mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas min ha'Torah, it would have had to be burned
We establish that the author of our Mishnah which rules 'Kisvei ha'Kodesh Yiganezu' cannot be Rebbi Eliezer. Why is that? What does Rebbi Eliezer say about an Ir ha'Nidachas that has even one Mezuzah in it?
Why is that?
We establish that the author of our Mishnah which rules 'Kisvei ha'Kodesh Yiganezu' cannot be Rebbi Eliezer - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, a town cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas, even if it contains just one Mezuzah ...
... because one would be contravening the La'av of 've'Ibadtem es Sh'mam min ha'Makom ha'Hu ... Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokeichem" (Parshas Re'ei).
What does Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'i say about a 'K'lal ba'Asei and a P'rat be'Lo Sa'aseh'?
Assuming that the Machlokes in our Mishnah, as to whether one is permitted to turn an Ir ha'Nidachas into gardens and orchards (Rebbi Akiva) or not (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili), is connected with Rebbi Avin's principle, how will we explain the Pasuk "ve'Haysah Teil Olam, Lo Sibaneh Od" ...
... according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili?
... according to Rebbi Akiva?
If, as we conclude, both Tana'im hold of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'i's principle, what will be the basis of their Machlokes? On what grounds will Rebbi Akiva then permit it?
Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'i rules that a 'K'lal ba'Asei and a P'rat be'Lo Sa'aseh' - are not considered a 'K'lal u'P'rat'.
Assuming that the Machlokes in our Mishnah, as to whether one is permitted to turn an Ir ha'Nidachas into gardens and orchards (Rebbi Akiva) or not (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili), is connected with Rebbi Avin's principle, then the Pasuk "ve'Haysah Teil Olam, Lo Sibaneh Od" ...
... according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - will constitute an Asei not to plant gardens and orchards and a La'av not to build residential quarters.
... according to Rebbi Akiva - the two will be connected (not like Rebbi Avin) and "Lo Sibaneh Od" will serve as a a'Davar she'Hayah bi'Ch'lal Veyatza min ha'K'lal Lelamed ... ', to teach us that "ve'Haysah Teil Olam" is confined to building residential quarters, but precludes gardens and orchards from the prohibition.
If, as we conclude, both Tana'im hold of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'i's principle, Rebbi Akiva will permit gardens and orchards - because the word "Od" qualifies the prohibition to rebuilding it the way it was, but not in the form of gardens and orchards; whereas according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, "Od", like 'Le'olam Va'ed, means forever (or under any circumstances).
On what grounds does the Beraisa permit the attached trees of an Ir Miklat?
What is the Tana referring to when he adds 'shel Ir Acheres, bein Telushin bein Mechubarin Asur'? How does Rav Chisda interpret 'Ir Acheres'?
The Beraisa permits the attached trees of an Ir Miklat - because the Torah writes "Tikbotz ve'Sarafta", incorporating whatever requires gathering and burning, but precluding whatever requires detaching as well.
When the Tana adds 'shel Ir Acheres, bein Telushin bein Mechubarin Asur', says Rav Chisda, he is referring to - the prohibition of rebuilding the city of Yericho.
On what basis is Yericho forbidden to be rebuilt?
What did Yehoshua declare would happen to whoever rebuilt it?
Who, in this connection were Chi'el ha'Eli and Aviram and S'guv, respectively?
What if Chi'el had rebuilt Yericho, but given it a different name?
Yericho is forbidden to be rebuilt - due to a curse by Yehoshua.
Yehoshua declared that whoever rebuilt it - would lose his B'chor as he laid the foundation-stone, and his youngest son as he put up the gates.
When, many years later - Chi'el ha'Eli laid the foundation-stone, his oldest son Aviram died, and as he was putting up the gates, his youngest son S'guv, died.
If Chi'el had rebuilt Yericho, but renamed it - the same thing would have happened.
If it was not Yericho itself that Chi'el rebuilt, then which town was it?
How do we initially interpret the Beraisa 'ba'Aviram B'no Lo Hayah Lo Lil'mod, bi'Seguv Tze'iro Hayah Lo Lil'mod' (see Agados Maharsha)?
For lack of evidence that Aviram was a 'Rasha', how do we amend the Beraisa?
And what do we learn from the fact that the Torah found it necessary to mention that S'guv was Chi'el's youngest son, when in fact, it is obvious?
It was not Yericho itself that Chi'el rebuilt - but another city which he named Yericho (see Agados Maharsha).
Initially, we interpret the Beraisa 'ba'Aviram B'no Lo Hayah Lo Lilemod, bi'Seguv Tze'iro Hayah Lo Lil'mod' to mean that, seeing as Aviram was a Rasha, there was no indication when he died, that it was due to Chiel's sin. That only became apparent, with the death of S'guv, who was not a Rasha.
For lack of evidence that Aviram was a 'Rasha, we amend the Beraisa to read - that when Aviram his firstborn died, that Rasha should have realized what was destined to happen to S'guv.
And from the fact that the Torah found it necessary to mention that S'guv was Chi'el's youngest son, when in fact it is obvious, we learn - that he buried one son after the other, to conclude with S'guv his youngest, just as Yehoshua had forecast.
What was Chi'el's connection with King Achav?
Achav and Eliyahu met at the Bei Timya of Chi'el. What is 'Bei Timya'?
Why do some people refer to it is 'Bei Ta'ama'?
Chi'el was - a friend of King Achav.
Achav and Eliyahu met at the Bei Timya of Chi'el. 'Bei Timya' (which literally means 'a house of bones') - is a Beis Aveil (a mourner's house).
Some people refer to it is 'Bei Ta'ama' - because that is where one looks for reasons to comfort the mourners.
What did Achav ask Eliyahu on that occasion? Why was he surprised that Yehoshua's curse materialized so precisely?
How did Eliyahu respond?
How did he ensure that his oath would stand?
Why did Hash-m instruct Eliyahu to travel eastwards to the River K'ris?
On that occasion, Achav asked Eliyahu - why, seeing as he had worshipped Avodah-Zarah on every mound, yet the curse of Moshe (that there would be no rain if Yisrael worshipped Avodah-Zarah [like we read in the Sh'ma]) had not materialized, why should the curse of Moshe's Talmid Yehoshua, have materialized so precisely?
Eliyahu responded - by swearing to Achav that there would be no rain for the next few years.
He ensured that his oath would stand - by asking Hash-m for the key to rain (which Hash-m gave him).
Hash-m instructed Eliyahu to travel eastwards to the River K'ris - to escape from Achav (and his wicked wife Izevel (Jezebel).
What did the ravens feed Eliyahu each morning and evening?
From where, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, did they obtain it?
When did Hash-m instruct Eliyahu to go to the town Tzorfas?
How did Hash-m then force Eliyahu to return the key of rain?
Chazal list three keys that Hash-m usually keeps under his own jurisdiction. Which is the third?
The ravens fed Eliyahu each morning and evening - bread and meat ...
... which they obtained, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains - from Achav's kitchens.
Hash-m instructed Eliyahu to go to the town Tzorfas - when He saw the suffering of the starving people.
Hash-m forced Eliyahu to return the key of rain - by giving him the key of Techi'as ha'Meisim, to revive the woman from Tzorfas' son, and it would not be correct for him to have the use of two of Hash-m's keys in his possession, leaving Hash-m with only one.
Chazal list three keys that Hash-m usually keeps under his own jurisdiction. The third - is that of childbirth.
What did that Galile'an mean when in front of Rav Chisda, he compared the above to someone who locked the door and lost the key?
Why did Eliyahu not visit Rebbi Yossi in Tzipori for three days?
How did Rebbi Yossi prove that he was right?
When in front of Rav Chisda, that Galile'an compared the above to someone who locked the door and lost the key - he was referring to Eliyahu, who 'locked the door of rain', and refused to open it (until Hash-m himself retrieved the key and opened it).
Eliyahu did not visit Rebbi Yossi in Tzipori for three days - because the latter called him a 'Kapdan' (someone who becomes angry [because he reacted to Achav's observation with anger]).
Rebbi Yossi proved that he was right - from the very fact that Eliyahu did not visit him because he called him a Kapdan.
How does Rav Yosef connect the Pasuk (regarding the destruction of the Ir ha'Nidachas) "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah" with our Mishnah's comment 'because as long as there are Resha'im in the world, there is anger in the world'? What sort of Resha'im must the Tana be referring to?
What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei ...
... "be'Va Rasha Ba Gam Buz, ve'Im Kalon Cherpah"?
... "u'ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah"?
Based on the Pasuk in Bereishis "Zeh Yenachamenu mi'Ma'aseinu u'me'Itzvon Yadeinu", what does the Beraisa say about a Tzadik who ...
... passes away?
... comes into the world?
In connection with whom is the Pasuk speaking? Who is meant by "Zeh"?
Rav Yosef connects the Pasuk (regarding the destruction of the Ir ha'Nidachas) "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah" with our Mishnah's comment 'because as long as there are Resha'im in the world, there is anger in the world' - 'because as long as there are Resha'im in the world, there is anger in the world' - inasmuch as the Resha'im referred to by the Tana, are those who 'steal' from the spoil of the Ir ha'Nidachas (in spite of the Torah's prohibition).
The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Mishlei ...
... "be'Va Rasha Ba Gam Buz, ve'Im Kalon Cherpah" - that the arrival of a Rasha into the world inspires the Divine wrath.
... "u'ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah" - that the death of a Rasha brings goodness (and therefore songs of praise) in its wake.
Based on the Pasuk in Bereishis "Zeh Yenachamenu mi'Ma'aseinu u'me'Itzvon Yadeinu", the Beraisa states that when a Tzadik ...
... passes away - a spate of evil befalls the world.
... comes into the world - goodness comes with him.
The word "Zeh" in the Pasuk refers to - No'ach.