Mishnah 1
1)
(a)What happens at the same time as the water is taking affect on the Sotah?
(b)How do we learn this from the extra 'Vavin' in "u'Va'u" "u'Va'u" (written in connection with the water [See Tos. Yom-Tov])?
(c)What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the extra 'Vav' in "Nitma'ah" "ve'Nitma'ah"?
(d)And what did Rebbi Yehoshua say about Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav, in connection with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah?
(e)Rebbi subsequently disagrees with both of these D'rashos. From where doess he learn the two Dinim in question?
1)
(a)At the same time as the water is taking affect on the Sotah - it is taking the same affect on the adulterer (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)We learn this from - the extra 'Vavin' in the words "u'Va'u" "u'Va'u" (written in connection with the water [See also Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)And Rebbi Akiva learns from the extra 'Vav' in "Nitma'ah" "ve'Nitma'ah" - that - just as the Sotah is forbidden to her husband, so too, is she forbidden to the adulterer (forever).
(d)Rebbi Yehoshua stated that Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav - made the same D'rashah.
(e)Rebbi subsequently disagrees with both of these D'rashos. He learns the two Dinim from - the two times "u'Vau" and "Nitma'ah", respectively that are mentioned in the Parshah.
Mishnah 2
2)
(a)On that day, Rebbi Akiva Darshened a number of other D'rashos. What does 'on that day' always refer to, when it appears in a Mishnah?
(b)Why does the Tana cite the D'rashos that we are about to discuss here?
(c)The Torah writes in Shemini (in connection with earthenware vessels "ve'Chol asher Yipol el Tocho Yitma". What did Rebbi Akiva comment on (the grammar of the word) "Yipol"?
(d)What did he therefore extrapolate from there?
(e)Why did he mention specifically 'a loaf'?
2)
(a)On that day, Rebbi Akiva Darshened a number of other D'rashos. Whenever 'on that day' appears in a Mishnah, it always refers to - the day on which they appointed Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah Nasi in place of Rabban Gamliel).
(b)The Tana cites the D'rashos that we are about to discuss here - because the D'rashah of "Nitma'ah "Nitma'ah" was also Darshened on that occasion.
(c)The Torah writes in Shemini (in connection with earthenware vessels "ve'Chol asher Yipol el Tocho Yitma". Rebbi Akiva commented that the word "Yipol" - is written in the future ...
(d)... from which he extrapolates that the loaf in the vessel does not only become Tamei (a Sheini) but that it passes on the Tum'ah to make a Shelishi (See Tos. Yom-Tov), even in Chulin.
(e)He mentioned specifically 'a loaf' - only because it is the most common item of food that is found in an oven.
3)
(a)What had Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (Rebbi Yehoshua's Rebbe) previously said about a loaf that touches a Sheini le'Tum'ah ...
1. ... in Chulin?
2. ... in Terumah?
(b)Why is that?
(c)What did Rebbi Yehoshua now exclaim?
(d)What is in fact, the Halachah?
3)
(a)Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai (Rebbi Yehoshua's Rebbe) had previously stated that - a later generation would render Tahor a loaf that touches a Sheini le'Tum'ah, both ...
1. ... regarding Chulin and ...
2. ... regarding T'rumah ...
(b)... because there is no Pasuk that renders it Tamei (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)Rebbi Yehoshua now exclaimed 'Who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, seeing as your (Talmid's) Talmid (See Tos. Yom-Tov) cited a Pasuk that a Sheini does make a Sh'lishi, as we just explained.
(d)The Halachah is - that a Sheini makes a Shelishi in T'rumah, but not in Chulin.
Mishnah 3
4)
(a)On the same day, Rebbi Akiva reconciled the two Pesukim in Mas'ei (in connection with the cities of the Levi'im) "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir es Pe'as Keidmah Alpayim ba'Amah ... " and "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah Elef Amah Saviv'. What is the problem?
(b)To resolve the problem, he explained that one thousand Amah was for Migrash. What does 'Migrash' mean?
(c)What is then the significance of the 'two thousand Amos'?
4)
(a)On the same day, Rebbi Akiva reconciled the two Pesukim in Mas'ei (in connection with the cities of the Levi'im) "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir es Pe'as Keidmah Alpayim ba'Amah ... " and "mi'kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah Elef Amah Saviv' - which appear to contradict one another.
(b)To resolve the problem, he explained that one thousand Amah was for 'Migrash' - which means an empty space, devoid of trees and plants, which simply enhances the looks of the city.
(c)Whereas the 'two thousand Amos' - refers to the Shi'ur of T'chum Shabbos (though not specifically in connection with the Arei ha'Levi'im).
5)
(a)How did Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili explain the two thousand Amos?
(b)From where does he then learn T'chum Shabbos?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
5)
(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili however - the two thousand Amos refers to the area around the city, one thousand Migrash, and two thousand, fields and vineyards (See tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)He maintains that T'chum Shabbos - is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 4
6)
(a)On the same day Rebbi Akiva Darshened the Pasuk "Az Yashir Moshe u'Venei Yisrael es ha'Shirah ha'Zos la'Hashem Vayomru Leimor". What problem did Rebbi Akiva have with the Pasuk?
(b)Why can we not explain it like every other "Leimor" in the Torah?
(c)How did Rebbi Akiva therefore explain it?
(d)What did Rebbi Nechemyah then mean when he said 'like one reads the Sh'ma and not Hallel?
6)
(a)On the same day Rebbi Akiva Darshened the Pasuk "Az Yashir Moshe u'Venei Yisrael es ha'Shirah ha'Zos la'Hashem Vayomru Leimor". The problem Rebbi Akiva had with the Pasuk - is with the meaning of the word "Leimor" ...
(b)... which we cannot explain like every other "Leimor" in the Torah - (that Moshe should pass on the information to Yisrael), seeing as the statement was made by Yisrael (and not by Hash-m).
(c)Rebbi Akiva therefore explained it to mean that - Yisrael responded to every phrase in the Shirah like they used to respond to Hallel (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)When Rebbi Nechemyah then said 'like one reads the Sh'ma, and not as one reads Hallel (See Tos. Yom-Tov), he meant - that they said it in unison (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 5
7)
(a)What did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Hurk'nus Darshen on that day about Iyov, based on t Pasuk there "Hein Yikt'leini, Lo Ayachel! (Behold even if He kills Me, I will trust in Him)"?
(b)He remains with this explanation only because of another Pasuk "ad Egva, Lo Asir Tumasi mimenu". What does this mean?
(c)Why is the first Pasuk not conclusive? How might we otherwise interpret it?
(d)Why is that?
7)
(a)On that day, based on the Pasuk there "Hein Yikt'leini, Lo Ayachel! (Behold even if He kills Me I will trust in Him!)", Rebbi Yehoshua ben Hurk'nus Darshened that - Iyov served Hash-m purely out of love.
(b)He abides by this explanation however, only because of another Pasuk "ad Egva, Lo Asir Tumasi mimenu" - "Until the day I die, I will not renege on my implicit trust in Him".
(c)The first Pasuk is not conclusive - since the word "Lo" might be read with an 'Alef', in which case the Pasuk means that "If He kills Me I will not trust in Him!" ...
(d)... because we sometimes find a 'Vav' in the word "Lo" which translates as if it was written with an 'Alef', and vice-versa (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
8)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua (ben Chananyah) therefore declared 'Who will remove the dust from your eyes Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai ... ". What did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai say, based on the Pasuk there "Ish Tam ve'Yashar Y'rei Elokim, ve'Sar me'Ra"?
(b)How did Rebbi Yehoshua conclude his declaration?
8)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua (ben Chananyah) therefore declared 'Who will remove the dust from your eyes Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai ... ". Based on the Pasuk there "Ish Tam ve'Yashar Y'rei Elokim, ve'Sar me'Ra"Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai said that - Iyov only served Hash-m out of fear.
(b)Rebbi Yehoshua concluded his declaration - 'But did not Yehoshua (ben Hurk'nus), your Talmid, learn (from a Pasuk) that he served Hash-m out of love?'
