1)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, the 'Nunin' before and after the Parshah of "Vayehi bi'Neso'a ha'Aron" are signs that these two Pesukim do not really belong there. Rebbi maintains that the Parshah does in fact, belong here, and that the Nunin - indicate that those two Pesukim constitute an independent Seifer, turning Bamidbar into three Sefarim. Consequently, the Torah consists of seven Sefarim, rather than five.

(b)Rebbi's explanation is based on a Pasuk cited by Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, namely - "Chatzvah Amudehah Shiv'ah".

(c)We establish the Tana Kama as Raban Simon ben Gamliel. Even though, in his opinion, these Pesukim do not belong here, the Torah nevertheless inserts them here - in order to break between two Parshiyos of punishments.

(d)The first sin was that they grumbled about having to travel. The second is contained in the words "Vayis'u me'Har Hash-m", which Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina interprets to mean - that they strayed from Hash-m by asking for meat (see Tosfos, DH 'Pur'anus').

(e)Eventually, he maintains, the Parshah is destined to be returned to its rightful place, which Rav Ashi considers to be - after the Parshah of the four camps in Bamidbar.

2)

(a)We ask whether one may save the margins of a Sefer from a fire on Shabbos (to a Mavoy she'Eino Mefulash). We try to resolve it from the Beraisa which rules that a Sefer that does not contain eighty-five letters cannot be saved - despite the fact that it contains margins, implying that one may not save the margins.

(b)We refute this proof however on the grounds that - since the Beraisa is speaking about a Sefer where the letters faded, presumably, the parchment of the margins wore out too (whereas the She'eilah pertains to margins that are intact).

(c)We refute a similar proof from the Beraisa which issues the same ruling with regard to a Sefer where the letters were erased - by differentiating between the blank spaces where the letters were (which were only sanctified in order to write on them (and which therefore lose their sanctity once the writing is erased), and the margins which were meant to be left blank (which may well retain their sanctity even after the writing has worn out).

(d)There is no proof from ...

1. ... the spaces on top and at the bottom, between the Parshiyos and the columns, at the beginning of the Sefer and at the end of the Sefer - because the Tana is speaking when all of these were cut out, and only the parchment containing the actual letters remained.

2. ... the Beraisa, which specifically states that all these margins are Metamei the hands - because the Tana is speaking about a complete Sefer, where the margin is Metamei the hands together with the Sefer, but that is not necessarily the case when the writing is Pasul.

3)

(a)Initially - we explain the margins (in the Beraisa, 'ha'Gilyonin, ve'Sifrei Minin Ein Matzilin' [otherwise a proof that one is not permitted to save the margins]) with reference to the Sifrei Minin (and not of Sifrei-Torah, like we first thought).

(b)We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds - that if may not save the Sefarim of Minim themselves, it is obvious that is not permitted their margins.

(c)So how do we finally amend it to read - 've'Sifrei Minin, Harei Hein ke'Gilyonin'.

(d)In fact - one burns the Sifrei Minim, together with the Names of Hash-m that they contain.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yossi agrees with the Tana Kama that one burns a Sefer-Torah written by Minin. He argues with him however - regarding the names of Hash-m that one cuts out from the Sefer-Torah of a heretic. In his opinion, they must be placed into Genizah.

(b)Rebbi Tarfon maintains that ...

1. ... a Sefer-Torah written by a heretic - must be burnt together with the Names of Hash-m that it contains.

2. ... someone who is being chased by an assailant or by a snake - should rather escape into the house of a gentile idolater than of a heretic.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael learns Rebbi Tarfon's initial Din from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Sotah - where one erases Hash-m's Holy Name in order to make peace between man and wife. If so, how much more so a Name written by heretics (which is not Holy), should be destroyed.

(d)In addition to save Sifrei Minin from a fire, Rebbi Yishmael adds - t hat may also not save them from an earthquake, from water or from anything else that destroys them (see Tosfos. DH 'Kach Ein Matzilin').

5)

(a)Minin are worse than plain idolaters - inasmuch as, unlike the latter, who do not know better, they know Hash-m and deliberately rebel against him.

(b)David Hamelech declared in Tehilim - that he hates the Minin (those that hate Hash-m), and that he will dispute those who arise against Him), that he bore them an intense hatred and that they were his enemies.

6)

(a)Rav Yosef bar Chanin asked Rebbi Avahu about saving the Sefarim of Bei Avidan - which comprised the books that the priests used to write which they used to stage religious disputations with the Jews (Bei Avidan was the location where these disputations took place).

(b)His response was - 'In ve'La'av, ve'Rafya bi'Yedeih' (meaning that Rebbi Avahu was not sure what the Din was; one day he said 'Yes'! and the next day he said 'No'!)

(c)Rav refused to enter both the Bei Avidan and the Bei Nitzr'fo - which is the place of worship of the idol by the name of 'Nitzr'fo'.

(d)As for Shmuel - he refused to go to Bei Nitzr'fo, but not to Bei Avidan.

7)

(a)Rava was afraid to go to Bei Avidan - for fear that, in the course of the disputations, they would get worked up and kill him.

(b)He would therefore excuse himself for not ...

1. ... attending the disputations - because there was a date-palm whose bulging roots prevented him from passing.

2. ... chopping it down - because the ensuing hole would have the same effect (or because he had tried to do so but could stand the smell.

(c)Mar bar Yosef was not afraid of attending the Bei Avidan - because, he claimed, he was on good terms with them. In spite of that, it happened once that they almost killed him.

(d)The Minim referred to their books as 'Ungila'. Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yochanan therefore called them - 'On Gilon' (with an 'Alef', meaning the strength of Gilon), and 'Avon Gilon' (the sin of Gilon) respectively.

8)

(a)Eima Shalom was - Rebbi Eliezer's wife and Raban Gamliel's sister.

(b)She and Raban Gamliel decided to test that philosopher - who was purported not to take bribes; so they set out to prove that this was untrue.

(c)Eima Shalom tested him by discreetly handing him a golden lamp (as a bribe), and demanded to share her father's inheritance with her brother.

(d)He responded ...

1. ... to that by taking the lamp and ruling in her favor.

2. ... to her query that, according to Torah law, only the sons inherit and not the daughters, he replied - that since Yisrael went into exile, a new Torah was handed to them (with reference to the New Testament), in which it is written that a son and a daughter inherit equally.

9)

(a)The following day, Raban Gamliel came with his counter-claim - with a Lubian donkey which he gave him on the quiet.

(b)The philosopher replied - that he had no intention of detracting from the words of the Torah of Moshe or of adding to it, and that at a later point in the new Torah it was written that a daughter does not inherit when there is a son.

(c)'Your light shines like a lamp', Eima Shalom commented (for all to hear what she had given him). To which Raban Gamliel added 'Came the donkey and kicked the lamp' (hinting why he had won the case).

10)

(a)Rav confines the Mishnah prohibiting the reading of Kesuvim to the time that the community are in Shul (before the Shabbos meal). Shmuel - establishes it either way.

(b)We query this however, from the prevalent Minhag in Neherda'a (where Shmuel was a Rav) - where they used to read the Haftarah from Kesuvim at Minchah on Shabbos afternoon.

(c)The Derashah was delivered before the Se'udah, and not afterwards - before the Rav may have drunk wine during the Se'udah, forbidding him to issue rulings.

(d)We therefore restructure the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel so that - Rav confines the prohibition to the location of the Beis-Hamedrash. whereas Shmuel extends it even to other locations, but only during the time that they are in Shul (but not afterwards, in keeping with his own local Minhag).

11)

(a)Rav Ashi reinstates the original version, establishing Shmuel's initial ruling (forbidding the reading of Kesuvim outside the time of the Derashah) like Rebbi Nechemyah. The reason that Rebbi Nechemyah gives for the prohibition of reading Kisvei Kodesh on Shabbos is - to reinforce the prohibition of reading financial documents and letters (see Tosfos DH 've'Kol she'Kein') on Shabbos (which is forbidden the entire Shabbos), and not because of Bitul Beis-Hamedrash.

(b)He does however permit - learning Medrash of Kesuvim and Darshening them.

(c)Shmuel nevertheless permitted Kesuvim to be read in his Beis ha'Medrash at Minchah - according to the Chachamim.

12)

(a)Should a fire break out on Shabbos - one is indeed permitted to save the bag in which the Sefer-Torah is kept, and the Tefilin-bag together with the Tefilin, even if there is money in it.

(b)The Chachamim permit saving all of the above to a cul-de-sac which opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim. According to Ben Beseira - one mat even carry them to an alley-way which opens at both ends into a street.

13)

(a)According to Rebbi Yishmael, the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, one is permitted to strip the Pesach (starting from the hind-legs) only as far as the chest - because that is as much as is necessary to remove the innards, which will otherwise go bad, if left inside the animal's body. Beyond that, Mafshit is a Melachah and is forbidden.

(b)The Rabbanan - permit the completion of the stripping process.

(c)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan learn this from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Kol Po'al Hash-m Lema'anehu". Rav Yosef learns that it is to prevent the meat from smelling. According to Rava, it is to prevent Kodshei Shamayim from being left lying like carcasses.

(d)One of the two differences between them is there where the lamb is placed on a golden table, the other 'Yoma de'Ist'na. According to ...

1. ... the first difference - Rava will forbid stripping the animal completely (since it is not lying in disgrace [but Rav Yosef will still permit it]).

2. ... the second one - Rav Yosef will be the one who forbids it, because the north-wind, which is moderate (and not the south-wind, because it is cold, as some explain), will prevent the flesh from going bad (but Rava will still permit it).

14)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah interprets "Kol Po'al Hash-m Lema'anehu" with regard to not removing the innards before the animal has been skinned. which Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan explains would not be Kevod Shamayim - because otherwise, some of the hairs of the skin might become stuck to the flesh.

(b)The Rabbanan initially prove their opinion from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from our Mishnah, which permits saving the bag of the Sefer together with the Sefer; how much more so should one be able to strip the Korban Pesach for Hash-m's honor, to which we object - on the grounds that the former involves only Tiltul (Muktzeh), whereas our Sugya is talking about a Melachah.

(c)Rav Ashi overrules the objection however, by establishing their Machlokes in two points - meaning that besides arguing over skinning the Pesach, the Tana'im also argue about moving the skin (which is Muktzeh) together with the flesh from the sun to the shade.

15)

(a)The problem with this comparison is - that whereas in the latter case is a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Mutar' (since the Sefer is not Muktzeh, in the former, the skin is a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur' (since the flesh is Asur to eat until after Shabbos).

(b)We therefore amend the proof from 'Matzilin Tik ha'Sefer im ha'Sefer' - by adding 've'Af-al-she'Yesh be'Yado Ma'os'.

(c)But the problem remains that the bag containing the Sefer as well as money is a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur u'le'Davar ha'Mutar, whereas in our case, the skin is a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur alone. To resolve that, we amend the Beraisa once more to read - that if one may bring a bag with money in order to save the Sefer Torah, then one should certainly be permitted to move the skin together with the Basar.

(d)We reject this latter explanation too however - on the grounds that there is no proof from the Heter to save the Sefer with the bag which also contains money, that one may also bring a bag with money into which to place the Sefer - because whereas in the former case, we do not obligate throwing out the money first in case the Sefer-Torah before one has a chance to do so, in the latter case, there is no reason why he should not throw out the money before he arrives on the scene of the fire.