1)

(a)The maximum age of an Eglah Arufah is - one year.

(b)A Parah Adumah - has no minimum age.

(c)We attempt to learn a 'Kal va'Chomer from Parah Adumah, where a blemish disqualifies even though age does not, that a blemish should certainly disqualify a calf from being used as an Eglah Arufah, where age does disqualify.

(d)We reject that 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Parah Adumah) "Asher Ein Bah Mum" - which implies that a blemish only disqualifies by a Parah, but not by an Eglah (thereby overriding the 'Kal va'Chomer').

2)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a Parah Adumah which has a bundle of sacks placed on its back. He learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with an Eglah Arufah) "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol" - that it only becomes disqualified if it actually walked with the load.

(b)We initially assume his source for disqualifying a Parah on such a basis, even though the Torah writes "Ol" (and this is not an Ol) to be - a Kal va'Chomer from Eglah.

(c)Based on what we just said - how can Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learn such a 'Kal va'Chomer', in spite of the word "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" which precludes a Parah Adumah from the Din of Eglah.

(d)We answer that Parah is not learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer', but from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Ol" "Ol") from Eglah. Nevertheless, we do not also learn Eglah from Parah, to disqualify an Eglah Arufah with a blemish - because the Torah writes "Bah" by Parah, to preclude an Eglah (and there is nothing else that we can learn from this word).

3)

(a)Even though the Torah also writes "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" in connection with Eglah Arufah, as we explained earlier, we do not learn from it to preclude Parah from other Avodos - because we have an alternative, to preclude Kodshim from the Psul of having been worked with ...

(b)... which we would have otherwise have disqualified - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, where a blemish does not disqualify but work does (how much more so Kodshim, where even a blemish disqualifies).

(c)We are concerned specifically with Kodshim whose age is restricted (otherwise we could not even think of learning them from Eglah, whose age is restricted), involving - the Korban Pesach and a Chatas (both of which must be brought within their first year).

4)

(a)We extrapolate from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Averes O Shavur ... Lo Sakrivu Eleh la'Hashem" - that these (blemishes) are Pasul, but not Kodshim with which work has been performed.

2. ... "u'mi'Yad ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu Eleh la'Hashem" - that these are Pasul, but not Kodshim with which forbidden work has been performed.

(b)The second Derashah comes to add that even Kodshim with which work that entailed a sin was performed may be sacrificed - such as working with them on Shabbos or an ox which one used for plowing together with a donkey.

(c)In spite of these Pesukim, we need "Asher Lo Ubad Bah to preclude Kodshim from the Psul of Avodah - even if work is performed with them after they have been declared Kodshim (whereas the previous Pesukim speak when work was only performed with them before they were declared Hekdesh).

5)

(a)We learn other Avodos by Parah from "Ol" "Ol" from Eglah. We cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, because Eglah is subject to age, which Parah is not (as we explained earlier). We cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah (which is not disqualified with a blemish like Parah is), because Eglah is subject to age, which Parah is not (as we explained earlier). We also refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kodshim - which do not become disqualified through work, even though they do through a blemish.

(b)The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who disqualifies a Parah that carried a pile of sacks on its back even though it did not move, whereas an Eglah only becomes Pasul when it walks with them. The problem with this is - seeing as we learn other Melachos by Parah from Eglah, why do he does not learn Parah from Eglah in this regard too?

(c)We answer that he holds like the Tana who learns Parah from its own Pasuk (and not from "Ol" "Ol"). He learns from "Asher Lo Alah Alehah ... " - to include other Melachos (besides pulling a yoke).

(d)And the Torah adds the word "Ol" - to teach us that whereas pulling a yoke disqualifies the cow even if it was placed on it not whilst it is working, other Melachos only disqualify it if they are performed whilst it is working.

6)

(a)We ask that "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" should be a 'Klal' and "Ol" a 'Prat' - in which case, (based on the principle 'Klal u'Prat, Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah sheb'Prat') the Din would be confined to pulling an Ol and no other Melachah.

(b)We refute this Kashya - by pointing out that "Asher" is a Ribuy which comes to include all other Melachos.

(c)The Tana makes exactly the same Derashos with regard to Eglah, learning "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" and "Ol" as it did "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" and "Ol" by Parah. He refutes the Kashya that "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" should be a 'Klal' and "Ol" a 'Prat' - in exactly the same way as we did the Kashya on Parah: by establishing "Asher" as a Ribuy, that includes all other Melachos.

7)

(a)They asked Rebbi Yochanan what distance the Eglah must pull the yoke in order to be disqualified, to which he replied - 'Ki'Melo Ol' (the distance of the yoke).

(b)The two possible interpretations of 'Ki'Melo Ol' - are the length of the yoke or its breadth.

(c)Rebbi Yakov resolves the dilemma by quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself, who told him that he meant the width, which is a Tefach.

(d)Having established the width of a yoke as one Tefach, Rebbi Yochanan said 'Ki'Melo Ol' rather than a Tefach - to teach us that the standard width of a yoke, which will result in a false sale, in the event that someone sells his friend a yoke of a different width.

8)

(a)The Torah prescribes for this Mitzvah to bring a calf to a strong valley - because Hash-m said 'Let them bring something which did not produce fruit and have its neck broken in a location which does not produce fruit, to atone for the person whom they did not allow to produce fruit'.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul quoted Hash-m as referring to 'a person who was not allowed to produce fruit', he could not have meant that he was unable to have children - because what would we then say in the case of an old or sterile man?

(c)What he really meant was - that they prevented him from performing Mitzvos.

9)

(a)

1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Eisan Moshavecha" interprets "Nachal Eisan" to mean - a strong valley (i.e. one with virgin soil).

2. Acheirim, based on the Pasuk "Nochri Eisan Hu Nochri Me'olam Hu" interprets it to mean - that its earth has always been there (and not one to which earth has been transported).

(b)Our Mishnah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Chatas ha'Of - that one kills the Eglah Arufah from the back of its neck.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yoshiyah interprets "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo v'Lo Yizarei'a" to mean that the valley has never been worked. According to Rebbi Yonasan - it means that it may never be worked.

(b)According to Rava, both Tana'im agree that it pertains to the future. Rebbi Yoshiyah learns that it pertains to the past as well - from the fact that the Pasuk adds the word "Asher".

(c)Rebbi Yonasan's restricts the Pasuk to the future - because "Asher Lo Ye'aved" is the future tense.

(d)According to him, the Torah writes ...

1. ... "Asher" - to include other Avodos (besides sowing).

2. ... "Lo Yiza'rei'a" - to restrict the prohibition to working the ground, but permitting other tasks, such as combing flax and chiseling stones to be performed there.

11)

(a)The local judges declared 'Our hands did not spill this blood'! - meaning that he had not come to them for assistance and they turned him away, sending him empty-handed on his way, nor did they see him leave and allow him to go unaccompanied.

(b)Rebbi Meir says that one forces a person to perform the Mitzvah of 'Levayah', whose reward is limitless. He bases his statement on the Pasuk in Shoftim, which discusses the man who showed the members of the tribe of Yosef how to gain entry into Beis-Eil (alias Luz) for them to capture it. What ...

1. ... the man there subsequently merited to build in the land of the Chitim - was the town Luz, where nobody ever dies.

2. ... the inhabitants of Luz do when they feel that they have lived long enough - is to leave the precincts of the town and die outside its walls.

3. ... they do in Luz - is to dye the Techeles for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis.

(c)Neither Sancheriv not Nevuchadnetzar were able to destroy Luz. The implication of the Pasuk "Hi Shemah Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - is that it will continue to exist until the end of time.

(d)According to Chizkiyah, all the man who built Luz was to utter a few words of advice. Consequently, he says - if one receives such tremendous reward for himself and for all his descendants for just a few words), then imagine how much reward one will receive for accompanying a person on a journey!

(e)Rebbi Yochanan (whose opinion is corroborated by a Beraisa) - learns the same 'Kal va'Chomer', only according to him, all the man did was to point his finger in the direction of the entrance to the city.

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi advises a person who has no-one to accompany him on his journey - to study Torah, about which the Pasuk in Mishlei writes "Ki Livyas Chen l'Roshecha ('Because they are an accompaniment of charm for your head') va'Anakim l'Gargerosecha" ('and necklaces for your neck').

(b)For the four steps that Par'oh's emissaries accompanied Avraham when he left Egypt - Par'oh merited to subjugate Avraham's descendants for four hundred years.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement about someone who accompanies his friend in town is corroborated by Ravina and Rava bar Yitzchak. When the former accompanied the latter four Amos in town - the latter was miraculously saved from a situation which almost caused him grief.

(d)A Rav is obligated to accompany his disciple until the town's limits (the furthest house within seventy Amos from the city walls). The minimum distance for the Mitzvah of Levayah for ...

1. ... a friend accompanying a friend is - up to Techum Shabbos (one Mil from the city walls).

2. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbi she'Eino Muvhak' (who taught him Torah) is - one Parsah (four Mil).

3. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbi Muvhak' (who taught him most of the Torah that he knows) is - three Parsah.

13)

(a)When Rav Kahana, who was accompanying his Rebbi, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, arrived with him in Bei Tzinisa d'Bavel, he pointed out that the date-palms there had been there from the time of Adam ha'Rishon. This reminded the latter of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who, based on the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu "b'Eretz Lo Avar Bah Ish, v'Lo Yashav Sham Adam", said - that any town that Adam ha'Rishon decreed would be inhabited, was ultimately inhabited, and any town that he decreed should not be inhabited (only that palm-trees should grow there), then that is precisely what happened.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Meir says - that if someone fails to accompany a fellow Jew when he sets on his journey, it is as if he has murdered him.

(c)His source for this is - the episode (cited in Melachim) where forty-two youths cursed Elisha and were subsequently cursed to death by him, and which would have been avoided had the residents of Yericho accompanied Elisha when he left town.

(d)When the youths from Yericho said to Elisha "Alei Kerei'ach, Alei Kerei'ach" - they were accusing him of having turned their town into a bald patch 'where their Parnasah (o providing the local residents with water) would no longer grow', so to speak. This was because when he cured the undrinkable water of the town, their source of income promptly came to an end.

14)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, the Pasuk calls them '"Ne'arim", because they were empty of Mitzvos, and "Ketanim" because they were 'Ketanei Emunah' (they had little faith). The Navi labeled them with that title - because they were worried that they had lost their Parnasah on account of the water having been healed (when Hash-m can just as well provide Parnasah from another source).

(b)The Tana of the Beraisa interprets the double term "Ne'arim Ketanim" to mean - that they were really youths, but that they degraded themselves like little children.

(c)We reject the suggestion that they were Ketanim from the town Ne'uran (in the same way as Rebbi Pedas interprets the Pasuk in Melachim " ... va'Yishbu me'Eretz Yisrael Na'arah Ketanah") - on the grounds that here, the Pasuk specifically states that they were from Yericho (and not from Ne'uran).

15)

(a)The Pasuk there writes "va'Yifen Acharav va'Yir'em, v'Yekalelem b'Shem Hash-m". According to Rav, who explains "va'Yir'em" to mean that he looked at them before cursing them, this is based on a statement of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa - that whenever the Chachamim gave someone a piercing look, it resulted in either death or poverty.

(b)According to Shmuel, Elisha saw that all of them had been conceived on Yom Kippur, and according to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, he saw that they had all grown long hair in the style of idolaters. The last opinion is that of Rebbi Yochanan, who explains - that he saw into the future, that not one of them or their descendants would ever possess even the trace of a Mitzvah.

(c)Some say that sudden appearance of the two bears that attacked the youths was a miracle, whilst others claim that it was a miracle within a miracle - meaning that not only did the bears appear from nowhere, but so did the forest from which they emerged.

(d)The second miracle was necessary - because bears are afraid to attack unless they are have the back-up of a safe haven to escape to (such as a forest).