(a)What did Rav Yehudah ask his Rebbi, Shmuel, when he failed to respond to the cries of the woman to save her from oppressors?
(b)What was Shmuel's reply? What is the meaning of 'Reishach bi'Keriri, Reisha de'Reishach ba'Chamimi'?
(c)What did Rebbi Si'mon answer Rebbi Zeira, when he instructed him to rebuke the exilarch's family?
(d)Why did Rebbi Zeira not accept Rebbi Si'mon's answer?
(a)When Shmuel failed to respond to the cries of the woman to save her from oppressors - Rav Yehudah quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei "Otem Ozno mi'Za'akas Dal, Gam Hu Yikra ve'Lo Ye'aneh"!
(b)Shmuel replied that it is not he who was responsible for the woman's woes - since he was helpless to assist her (presumably the people who were oppressing her were powerful people over whom Shmuel had no jurisdiction). However Mar Ukva, who was Av Beis-Din, and who did have the authority (and to whom the woman had evidently also turned) would be taken to task for not coming to her aid. 'Reishach bi'Keriri' - 'Your Rebbe (Shmuel himself) is in cold water'; 'Reisha de'Reishach' - 'but your Rebbe's Rebbe (Mar Ukva) is in hot water'!
(c)When Rebbi Zeira instructed Rav Si'mon to rebuke the exilarch's family - he replied that there was no point in doing so, since they would not listen anyway.
(d)Rebbi Zeira however, did not accept this answer. He told him that this did not absolve him from rebuking them - since he could not possibly know with certainty that they would not listen.
(a)What was the significance of the 'Tav' of ink on the one hand, and the 'Tav' of blood on the other, that Hash-m at first told Gavriel to write?
(b)On what grounds did the Midas ha'Din object?
(c)How do we know that Hash-m conceded to the Midas ha'Din's argument?
(d)How does the Tana of Rav Yosef's Beraisa amend the Pasuk "u'mi'Mikdashai Tacheilu", and to whom does it then refer?
(a)The one 'Tav' represented 'Tichyeh', the other 'Tamus'.
(b)The 'Midas ha'Din' objected - on the grounds that the Tzadikim were accessories to all the sins of the Resha'im, because they failed to rebuke them.
(c)We know that Hash-m conceded to the Midas ha'Din - because, after warning the Destructive Angel to leave all those with the Tav of 'Tichyeh' alone, the Pasuk continued "u'mi'Mikdashi Tachelu. va'Yachelu ba'Anashim Asher Lifnei ha'Bayis".(This is, in fact, the only time ever that Hash-m retracted from a good decree, to turn it into a bad one.)
(d)The Tana of Rav Yosef's Beraisa amends the Pasuk "u'mi'Mikdashai Tacheilu" - to "u'mi'Mekudashai" referring to the Tzadikim who kept the entire Torah from 'Aleph' to 'Tav'.
(a)The Navi describes how six men arrived at the copper-Altar. Who were the six men?
(b)Why can the copper-Altar not be understood literally?
(c)What then, does it mean? What is then the message in this statement?
(d)Rav learns that one 'Tav' initially stood for 'Tichyeh', the other, for 'Tamus'. We give four other possible interpretations of the two 'Tavs': 'Tamah Zechus Avos' (Shmuel); 'Tachon Zechus Avos' (Rebbi Yochanan); 'Chosamo shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu Em*es* (Resh Lakish). What does Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini say?
(a)The Navi describes how six men arrived at the copper-Altar. The six men says Rav Chisda, were - 'Ketzef, Af, Cheimah, Mashchis, Mashber and M'chaleh' - who were of course, angels, and not men.
(b)The copper-Altar not be understood literally - because it had been hidden by Shlomoh ha'Melech, over four hundred years earlier.
(c)Allegorically, the 'copper altar' - refers to the place where the Levi'im stood and played with their copper instruments. What the Navi is teaching us is that the massacre began with the Levi'im.
(d)Rav learns that one 'Tav' initially stood for 'Tichyeh', the other, for 'Tamus'. We give four other possible interpretations of the two 'Tavs': 'Tamah Zechus Avos' (Shmuel); 'Tachon Zechus Avos' (Rebbi Yochanan); 'Chosamo shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu Em*es* (Resh Lakish). Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini says - 'Eilu B'nei Adam she'Kiymu es ha'Torah Kulah me'Alef' ve'ad 'Tav'.
(a)'Zechus Avos' (incorporating 'B'ris Avos'. See also Tosfos DH 'u'Shmuel') came to an end in the period of the prophets. Quoting supporting Pesukim, we give four possibilities as to when this happened: In the days of the Navi Hoshei'a (Rav), or of Chaza'el, King of Syria (Shmuel). What are the other two possibilities?
(b)If 'Zechus Avos' came to an end in the days of Eliyahu, then how is it that Hash-m remembered it for Yisrael in the days of Chaza'el, King of Syria, which took place later?
(a)'Zechus Avos' (incorporating 'B'ris Avos'. See also Tosfos DH 'u'Shmuel') came to an end in the period of the prophets. Quoting supporting Pesukim, we give four possibilities as to when this happened: In the days of 1. the Navi Hoshei'a (Rav); 2. Chaza'el, King of Syria (Shmuel) - 3. Eliyahu ha'Navi (Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi); 4. Chizkiyahu ha'Melech (Rebbi Yochanan).
(b)Even though Zechus Avos had already come to an end in the days of Eliyahu, Hash-m revived it after that, in the days of Chaza'el, King of Syria, by virtue of His mercy. (This probably means that initially, Zechus Avos was guaranteed to shield over Klal Yisrael; whereas once Zechus Avos terminated, it was no longer guaranteed, but depended upon the mercy of Hash-m - upon those occasions when He saw fit to reinstate it).
(a)What does Rav Ami derive from ...
1. ... the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ha'Nefesh ha'Chota'as Hi Tamus"?
2. ... the Pasuk in Tehilim "u'Fakadti be'Sheivet Pish'am, u'vi'Nega'im Avonam"?
(b)What does Rav Ami then do with the Beraisa, which quotes Hash-m as saying to the angels "Mikreh Echad la'Tzadik ve'la'Rasha" (Koheles) - both to the Tzadik (like Moshe and Aharon, who did not sin), and to the Rasha (be'Dino, like Adam ha'Rishon, who did)?
(a)Rav Ami learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Nefesh ha'Chota'as Hi Tamus" - that 'Ein Misah be'Lo Chet" (even be'Shogeg - Tosfos DH 'Ein').
2. ... "u'Fakadti be'Shevet Pish'am" etc., that 'Ein Yisurin be'Lo Avon (be'Meizid - ibid)" (which incidentally, is not disproved, as the former statement is).
(b)Rav Ami is unperturbed by the Beraisa which ascribes death to Moshe and Aharon even though they did not sin - because he holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says in a Beraisa, that Moshe and Aharon too, died because of their sin - i.e. a lack of faith (or, according to others, for not implanting faith in Yisrael).
(a)The Tana, in a third Beraisa, lists four people who died - 'be'Ityo shel Nachash'. Who were they?
(b)What does 'be'Ityo shel Nachash' mean?
(c)How does this Beraisa leave us with a Kashya on Rav Ami?
(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'Amasa ben Ish ... Asher Ba el Avigayil bas Nachash"?
(a)The Tana, in a third Beraisa, lists four people who died 'be'Ityo shel Nachash' - Binyamin ben Ya'akov, Amram, Moshe's father, Yishai, David's father and Kilav, his son.
(b)'be'Ityo shel Nachash' means - that he did not sin, and that the reason that he nevertheless died is only because of the original decree ('the plot of the snake'), where it was ordained that everybody has to die.
(c)The Tana of the third Beraisa does not include Moshe and Aharon in the list of those who died 'be'Ityo shel Nachash', which means that the author must be, not the Tana of the first Beraisa, but Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who is the author of the second; yet he holds 'Yesh Misah be'Lo Chet'. It therefore transpires that there is no Tana who holds 'Ein Misah be'Lo Chet', like Rav Ami does.
(d)How can the Pasuk "ve'Amasa ben Ish ... Asher Ba el Avigayil bas Nachash" ... refer to Avigail (David's sister, not the wife of Naval ha'Karmeli, whom he would later marry) as the daughter of Nachash, when really, she was the daughter of Yishai (David's father)? The Pasuk refer to him as Nachash however - to teach us that Yishai did not sin, and died only 'be'Ityo shel Nachash.
(a)What do we learn, with regard to Reuven, from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "va'Yihyu B'nei Ya'akov Sh'neim-Asar"?
(b)What is our second proof from Har Eival?
(c)What then, was Reuven guilty of doing?
(d)Why did he do that?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "va'Yihyu B'nei Ya'akov Sheneim-Asar" - that Reuven cannot have been guilty of the adultery of which the Pasuk seems to accuse him, because he is compared here to his eleven brothers, to teach us that just as his eleven brothers did not sin, neither did he.
(b)The second proof of Reuven's innonence is - that, had Reuven been guilty of adultery with Bilhah, then Hash-m would not have chosen him to be among those to stand on Har Eival - to embarrass him by making him pronounce a curse on anyone who commits adultery with his father's wife.
(c)In fact, Reuven sinned by meddling in his father's personal affairs, when he switched the beds - removing Bilhah's bed from Ya'akov's tent, to replace it with his mother, Leah's.
(d)It was bad enough, he claimed, for his mother (who was Ya'akov's first wife) to be a rival-wife to Rachel, but that she should now have to be the rival-wife of Bilhah Rachel's maidservant, in whose tent Ya'akov placed his bed following the Rachel's death, was too big an insult to bear.
(a)In the Pasuk in Vayechi "Pachaz ka'Mayim Al Tosar", "Pachaz" is an acronym. What do the following two interpretations have in common ...
1. ... 'Pazta, Chavta, Zalta' (Rebbi Eliezer) and 'Pasa'ta al Das, Chatasa, Zanisa' (Rebbi Yehoshua)?
2. ... 'Pilalta, Chalta, Zarchah Tefilascha' and 'Za'zata 'Hirsa'ta, Parchah Chet Mimcha' (Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i)?
(b)All of the above interpretations are those of Tana'im. Only one acronym is given by an Amora (Rava or Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba), in which the 'Zayin' and the 'Ches' stand for 'Zacharta Onesh shel Davar, Chalisa Atzmecha Choli Gadol', respectively. What does the 'Pey' stand for?
(c)To which of the above two groups does this final explanation then belong?
(a)In the Pasuk in Vayechi "Pachaz ka'Mayim Al Tosar", "Pachaz" is an acronym. What the two following interpretations have in common ...
1. ... 'Pazta, Chavta, Zalta' and 'Pasa'ta al Das, Chatasa, Zanisa' is - that they both maintain that Reuven did commit adultery.
2. ... 'Pilalta, Chalta, Zarchah Tefilascha' and 'Za'zata, Hirsa'ta, Parchah Chet Mimcha' is - that they both maintain that he did not.
(b)All of the above interpretations are those of Tana'im. Only one acronym is given by an Amora (Rava or Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba), in which the 'Zayin' and the 'Ches' stand for 'Zacharta Onesh shel Davar, Chalisa Atzmecha Choli Gadol', respectively - the 'Pey' stands for 'Perashta mi'Lachto'.
(c)This final explanation belongs with the second group - in whose opinion Reuven did not, in fact, commit adultery.
(a)Which sin (besides the degradation of Kodshim) does the Navi ascribe to Chafni and Pinchas (Eli ha'Kohen's sons)?
(b)Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan maintains that it is a mistake to take that Pasuk literally. If they were not really guilty of that sin, then to which sin is the Navi referring?
(c)How does Rav prove that Pinchas cannot possibly have been guilty of adultery?
(d)How does Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolate that Chafni did not sin either?
(a)The Navi writes that Chafni and Pinchas committed adultery with the women who came to the Mishkan.
(b)Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan maintains that it is a mistake to take that Pasuk literally - the sin to which the Navi is referring is that of delaying the bringing of the Korbanos, when they would delay bringing the Korban Yoledes of the women who had recently given birth and who had come with their bird-offerings. These women were waiting to go home to their husbands, and refused to leave before their (bird) Korban had been sacrificed. And because Chafni and Pinchas caused a delay in the women's inter-marital relations (thereby delaying the possibility of their becoming pregnant again), the Pasuk considers it as if they had committed adultery with them.
(c)Rav proves that Pinchas cannot possibly have been guilty of adultery - from the fact that the Pasuk writes in Shmuel "ve'Achyah ... ben Pinchas, ben Eli ha'Kohen", which, in view of the Pasuk in Mal'achi, which testifies that Hash-m will cut off anyone who is guilty of adultery, and that if he is a Kohen, he will not have sons who bring a Minchah to Hash-m. Consequently, when the Navi testifies that Pinchas had descendants who served as Kohanim, it is clear that he did not commit adultery.
(d)Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolates that Chafni did not sin either - from the fact that the Navi compares them "Chafni u'Pinchas"; just as Pinchas was free of (that) sin, so too, was Chafni.
(a)How will Rav (who clears Pinchas from sin but not Chafni) explain the plural used in the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Asher Yishkevun ha'Nashim", ?
2. ... "Al Banai, Ki Lo Tovah ha'Shemu'ah" (spoken by Eli)?
3. ... "Anochi Shomei'a es Am Hash-m Ma'avirim ... " (which we take to mean 'declared them to have sinned')?
4. ... "B'nei Beli'a'al"?
(b)What problem so we have with the answer on "Ma'avirim". On what grounds can Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua not have said it?
(c)How then, do we dispense with the Gemara's initial Kashya?
(a)Rav (who clears Pinchas from sin but not Chafni) will explain the plural used in the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Asher Yishkevun" - by pointing out that it is written without a 'Vav' (which reads "Yishke*van*"), suggesting that it was only one of them who was guilty of adultery, and not both.
2. ... "Al Banai' - because it too, can be read "Al B'ni", in the singular, says Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.
3. ... "Anochi Shomei'a es Am Hash-m Ma'avirim ... " (which we take to mean 'declared them to have sinned') - because it is also written without a 'Yud', implying that they declared him to have sinned, explains Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua.
4. ... "B'nei Beli'a'al" - not because Pinchas was guilty of adultery like his brother was, but because he did not rebuke him (like we learned in the Mishnah on Daf 54b.).
(b)Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua cannot possibly have said this however - since, in our text, the word "Ma'avirim" is written with a Yud. (see also Tosfos, DH 'Ma'aviram').
(c)We dispense with the Gemara's initial Kashya (which must have been inserted erroneously) - by interpreting "Ma'avirim" to mean that the people were 'spreading a bad name' about them (and not that they declared them to have sinned).