Question: Did the Satan not know of Matan Torah?!

Answer: It says in the Midrash "Lefanav Yelech Davar" - Hash-m distracted the Mal'ach ha'Maves at the time of Matan Torah, lest he prosecute and say "a nation that will sin with the [golden] calf after 40 days, do You give to them Torah?!"

The Satan is the Mal'ach ha'Maves, like it says in Bava Basra (16a).

Support: We say in Sanhedrin (26b, that Torah is called) "Toshiyah", for it was given covertly, due to the Satan.

Explanation (Rashi): The day that Moshe ascended is not counted [towards 40]. He told them 40 full days, i.e. each day, its night (the night before) with it, and the day that he ascended, its night was not with it;

He ascended on Sivan 7. It turns out that day 40 was the 17th of Tamuz.

Rebuttal #1 (and Explanation #2 - Rivam): It explicitly connotes in Yoma (4a) that the day that he ascended is part of the count;

Citation (4a): It says there "granted, according to R. Akiva we find that on the 17th of Tamuz the Luchos were broken. [Moshe was on Har Sinai] 24 days in Sivan, and 16 in Tamuz complete the 40 days. He descended on the 17th.

Inference: It counts the day he ascended. There are 40 days and 40 nights, when you count the night after the day.

Rebuttal #2: If you do not count the day that he ascended, the 40 final days do not finish until after Yom Kipur, and [really,] they finished on Yom Kipur, for then Hash-m said to Moshe "Salachti ki'Dvarecha"!

Explanation (Rashi, Shemos 33:11): Moshe ascended [to ask forgiveness for Chet ha'Egel] on the 19th of Tamuz.

Question (Ri): If so, you will not find that the last 40 days finish on Yom Kipur!

Note: The Ri assumes that also the middle and last 40 days were complete days. He could have directly challenged what this same Rashi said, that on Rosh Chodesh Elul, Hash-m told Moshe "ascend in the morning", i.e. Elul 2! It seems that "Rosh Chodesh Elul" must refer to the previous night. Rashi must hold that the last 40 days were not complete, and Elul had 30 days. Moshe ascended on Tamuz 19, and descended 40 days later, on the last day of Av (e.g. if also Tamuz or Av was 30 days). The next night, Hash-m said "ascend in the morning."

Question (Ri): You are forced to say that Midbar Tzin is not Midbar Paran, for Midbar Tzin is at the beginning of the south of Eretz Yisrael, like it says in Mas'ei ("v'Hayah Lachem Pe'as Negev mi'Midbar Tzin Al Yedei Edom", and it says "v'Nasav Lachem ha'Gevul mi'Negev... v'Hayu Totz'osav mi'Negev l'Kadesh Barne'a";

Kadesh Barne'a is Paran, for it says about sending the Meraglim "va'Yishlach Osam Moshe mi'Midbar Paran", and in Yehoshua it is written that Kalev said "bi'Shlo'ach Osi Moshe mi'Kadesh Barne'a Leragel Es ha'Aretz."

Support: Also in Devarim (1:19) it says "va'Navo Ad Kadesh Barne'a", and immediately afterwards it explains sending the Meraglim.

Strengthening of question: Also, there were many journeys from Midbar Paran until Midbar Tzin, for in Bamidbar (12:16) it says "v'Achar Nas'u ha'Am me'Chatzeros va'Yachanu b'Midbar Paran, and in Bamidbar (33:18) it says "va'Yis'u me'Chatzeros va'Yachanu b'Rismah";

If so, Rismah is Paran, and the Torah recounts many (18) journeys until Midbar Tzin!

Strengthening of question: It is 11 days journey between Paran and Sinai, like it says "Achad Asar Yom me'Chorev Derech Har Se'ir Ad Kadesh Barne'a." If so, Midbar Tzin, Paran and Sinai are not all the same!

Answer (Ri): It is all one big Midbar. You are forced to say that Sinai is Paran, for it says "Hofi'a me'Har Paran", and in Bava Kama (38a) we expound that from Paran, Hash-m was Hofi'a (permitted) others' property to Yisrael, regarding a Yisrael's ox that gored a Nochri's ox. He is exempt.

Assertion: In Avodah Zarah (2b), the text does not say "what was [Hash-m] doing in Se'ir, and what was He doing in Paran?", which would connote that it is another nation, just like Se'ir. Rather, it says "what was He doing in Se'ir, and what was He doing in Teiman?"

Answer (cont.): Also Sinai is Midbar Tzin, for it says "Midbar Tzin Hi Kadesh", and Sinai is called Kadesh, for it says in Tehilim "Kol Hash-m Yachil Midbar Yachil Hash-m Midbar Kadesh." This connotes that it was at the time of Matan Torah.

Question (Ri): Midbar Kedmus is east of Eretz Yisrael, for it is written "va'Eshlach Mal'achim mi'Midbar Kedmus El Sichon Melech Cheshbon...", who was east of Eretz Yisrael, for it says "b'Ever ha'Yarden Mizrachah Shemesh";

Midbar Tzin and Paran is in the south, like the verses that I brought connote. How is it possible [for our Gemara to say] that Kedmus is Midbar Sinai?! (Maharsha - these are not all one place. Rather, Tzin, Kadesh and Kedmus refer to what was taught in Sinai, in the Ohel Mo'Ed, and in Arvus Mo'av, respectively.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [An example of different Shemos and one Min] is a long pepper, a white pepper and a black pepper.

Consequence: If so, what was taught in the Seifa "R. Shimon says, two Shemos and one Min or two Minim and one Shem do not join", we find two Minim and one Shem like we find below (90a) two kinds of aloe.

Question: Why should they join more because they have one Shem? How does the Shem help to cause joining, since they are two Minim and different tastes?!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Three Isurim, e.g. Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem, and Asheirah and of Ir ha'Nidachas are called three Shemos, like we say "the Shem (Isur) that brings him to lashes is not [the Shem] that brings him to payment", and in Bava Metzi'a (111a) "he transgresses all of these Shemos."

Support: The Yerushalmi explicitly connotes like this. A Mishnah teaches that Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser, Terumah of Demai, Chalah and Bikurim are Batel in 101 and join with each other;

The Gemara says that this is needed according to R. Shimon. Even though R. Shimon says that two Shemos do not join, here he agrees that all of them are Shem Terumah.

Explanation #1: Seemingly, since it taught "Asurim", and it taught further "they join", Asurim is to forbid the pot, and "they join" is for lashes.

Even though regarding Chiyuv Chatas, we said above (81a) that Chelev, Pigul, and Nosar do not join, they join for lashes.

Reference: In Avodah Zarah (66a), Abaye and Rava argue. Abaye holds that it depends on taste;

Abaye said "what is my source? A Mishnah teaches that spices of two or three Shemos... Granted, if it depends on taste, all have the same taste. However, if it depends on Shemos, they are different Shemos!

Rava said, [that Mishnah] is like R. Meir, who says that all Isurim in the Torah join, for it says "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah" - everything that I made abominable (forbade) to you, one may not eat it.

Inference: According to Abaye, it is even like Rabanan of R. Meir. Even though you are forced to say that at least they argue about lashes, Abaye holds that they argue only about two species, but not two Isurim and one species.

Implied question: Reish Lakish said in Zevachim (78a) that if one blended Pigul, Nosar and Tamei with each other and ate them, he is exempt. It is impossible that one species is not the majority over another, and is Mevatel it;

He discusses lashes, for there is no Chatas for eating Tamei [Kodshim].

Strengthening of question: Also, since it taught there "this shows that Hasra'as Safek (it is not known which Isur is the majority) is not considered warning", and since they are Mevatel each other, this connotes that two Isurim, according to Rabanan of R. Meir, do not join!

Answer: We must say that even though they are Mevatel each other, when he blended them, they join for lashes.

Support: It is proven like this in Me'ilah (17b). A Mishnah teaches that Pigul, Nosar and Tamei do not join, and the Gemara says that this is only to be Metamei the hands, but for eating, they join.

Implied question: [R. Eliezer] needed to bring a verse to show that they join for eating from "Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem" - everything that is Pasul for Kodesh, there is a Lav for eating it. I.e. because one Lav teaches them, they join!

Answer: It is needed only according to R. Shimon, who says that two Shemos do not join. He agrees about Kodesh, due to R. Eliezer's verse. However, according to Rabanan, even in general they join.

Observation: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (18a) teaches that Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem join. This is properly like Rabanan, according to Abaye.

Implied question: According to this, "they join" in the Reisha is unlike "they do not join" of R. Shimon. The joining of R. Shimon is for Isur. It cannot be for lashes, for R. Shimon holds that one is lashed for any amount!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "They are forbidden and they join" totally refers to joining to forbid the pot, and not for lashes.

Alternatively, "they are forbidden" if they give taste, i.e. when they fell into a pot, and "they join" to forbid in a dry mixture, [even] without giving taste.

Support: Now, "they join" is like "they do not join" of R. Shimon in the Seifa.