Question #1: Perhaps by Y'fas To'ar, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree, seeing as the Torah only permitted her in order to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra?

Question #1 (cont.): Because since other Nochri women are permitted, in spite of the Halachah 'Kana'in Pog'in bo', as we learned in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 36b), there where a Y'fas To'ar is permitted, it incorporates even Cana'aniyos in Chutz la'Aretz.

Proof: Just as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 21b), where the Gemara asks whether Rav permits a Kohen to take a Y'fas To'ar and Shmuel forbids it ...

Proof (cont.): But where they agree that the first Bi'ah is permitted, seeing as 'the Torah only permits her in order to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra'?

Question #2: Moreover, according to Rebbi Yehudah, why is it necessary to permit her, any more than it is necessary to permit a Kohen, even though the Y'fas To'ar is a Zonah, yet the Torah does not see fit to specifically permit her, since it only permits the Y'as To'ar in order to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra?

Answer: (To the contrary) Seeing as the Torah only permits a Y'fas To'ar in the case of Melchemes ha'Reshus, which the Pasuk is talking about, it is evident that 'The Torah only permits her in order to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra' does not apply to Cana'anaim, and that the Mitzvah of "Lo Sechayeh" applies even to a Y'fas To'ar.

Answer (cont.): That being the case Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that Cana'anim in Chutzah la'Aretz are also included in "Lo Sechayeh" and that one cannot accept them, will not permit them even in a case of a Y'fas To'ar.

Question: One can however ask on Rebbi Yehudah however, who holds that one does accept them, and that they are not included in "Lo Sechayeh", why does the Torah see fit to write "ve'Shaviso Shivyo" to include a Y'fas To'ar?

Question (cont.): We can still say that we only need the Pasuk according to Rebbi Yehudah, in that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv with regard to a Y'fas To'ar in Chutz la'Aretz, even though other Cana'anim in Chutz la'Aretz are included in "Lo Sechayeh"?

Answer: Rebbi Shimon's reason is based mainly on the Pasuk of "ve'Shavisa Shivyo" ...

Proof: Because if it was based on the Pasuk "Lema'an asher Lo Yelam'du" one could learn like Rebbi Yehudah, that it comes to permit either other nations or Cana'anim before the conquest of Cana'an began.

Correct Text: The text in the Tosefta (Perek 8) reads 'And they brought the stones that they took from the Yarden, built (with them) the Mizbe'ach and brought on it Olos and Shelamim'.

Refuted Text: It does not insert that 'They wrote the Torah on it.

Yerushalmi: The Lashon of the Yerushalmi is more accurate. It says there 'What does the Pasuk mean when it says "And the half"? This teaches us that the minority actually stood on Har Gerizim and the majority on Har Eival. Why is that? Because the Tribe of Levi were not all there; Had they been, they would have been equal.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni in the name of Rebbi Yonasan says 'Had the entire Tribe of Levi been there, they would not have been equal, seeing as twenty-four thousand fell at Shitim.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Yossi bar Bun said that ;Had the entire Tribe of Levi been there, they would have been equal. Why is that? Because only forty thousand members of the Tribes of Reuven and Gad - seasoned warriors, came.

Conclusion: Now the Pasuk "And the half on the slope of Mount Eival" - the larger half, which is the majority, half the tribes but the majority in numbers.

Question: However, if one examines the latter counting, in connection with which the Pasukwrites "To these you shall divide up the land (Bamidbar 26), after the (generation of the) Spies had died out, about whom it says "And among these there was not a single man ... ".

Proof: And this took place in the fortieth year, after Aharon's death, about which the Pasuk writes "And Aharon ascended the Mountain ... and he died there in the fortieth year after Yisrael left the Land of Egypt, in the fifth month" (Ibid 33). And this is evident in the Seider Olam.

Question (cont.): One will find in the numbers of the tribes that stood on Mount Gerizim eight thousand eight hundred and seventy more than those who stood on Mount Eival?

Question (concl.) And even if eight thousand Levi'im (See Chidushei Chochmas Sh'lomoh & Maharsha) remained below, still the number on Mount Gerizim exceeded that of Har Eival by almost a thousand - bearing in mind that the total figure of the latter amounted to three hundred and seven thousand, nine hundred and thirty, whereas that of the former was three hundred and sixteen thousand, eight hundred?

Answer: When the Yerushalmi says that had the entire Tribe of Levi ben there, they would have been equal, it means, not literally 'equal', but that the numbers on Har Gerizim would not have been less.

Answer (cont.): And now that not the entire Tribe of Levi was there, we need to say that nine thousand or more Levi'im stood below.

Question #1: What Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni in the name of Rebbi Yonasan said - that 'Had the entire Tribe of Levi been there they would not have been equal. Why? Because twenty-four thousand members of the Tribe of Shimon had fallen (in the meantime), is difficult however ...

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as the census took place afterwards, as the Torah writes "And it was after the plague ... " (Ibid, 25).

Question #2: And that what Rebbi Yossi bar Bun disagrees with him, since only forty thousand members of the Tribes of Reuven and Gad (seasoned warriors) came, if that is so, then there remained only three thousand, nine hundred and thirty, seeing as the total figure of the Tribe of Reuven was only forty-three thousand, nine hundred and thirty ...

Question #2 (cont.): And how would the three thousand, nine hundred and thirty members of 'Reuven' who remained on the other side of the Yarden have made up the discrepancy of twenty-four thousand who fell from the Tribe of Shimon - in the fortieth year?

Answer: This is not a Kashya however, since what he may well mean is that on account of the shortfall of the Tribe of Shimon who fell in the plague, even if the entire Tribe of Levi had been there, they would not have been equal, since as a result, those on Mount Gerizim wold have amounted to a minority, and not because twenty-four thousand from the Tribe of Shimon would have been missing, but only three thousand or less.

Answer (cont.): And it is on this that Rebbi Yossi bar Bun commented that, even according to him, if one deducts the three thousand seven hundred and thirty from the Tribe of Reuven that remained on the other side of the Yarden, they would be equal, since even taking into account of the shortfall of the Tribe of Shimon, they would only be three thousand, seven hundred and thirty short.

Conclusion: But the question that Tosfos asked on the statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni remains difficult - seeing as the plague preceded the census?

Question: The Yerushalmi asks that there were twenty-three letters on the one stone and twenty-seven on the other?

Clarification: The Yerushalmi is asking according to the Tana who says there that just as they were divided there, so too, were they divided on the stones of the Eifod.

Question (cont.): If so, on the stone that contained the tribes that ascended Har G'rizim there were twenty-three, and on the second stone, twenty-seven (and Zevulun was written full).

Answer: And Rebbi Yochanan answers that half of Binyamin was written on the other stone.

Clarification: We then need to say that on the second stone, which contained the tribes that ascended Har Eival was written 'Beis' 'Nun' and on the first one 'Yud' 'Mem' and 'Nun'.

Support: Rebbi Zevida concurred with this explanation, because, he pointed out - 'It is not written "Six names", but "Six of the names" - 'Some of the names and not the complete names'.

Source: It seems that from the fact that the Torah uses the expression 'Bi'ah' - "And he came (va'Yavo) to the house", they also extrapolated that he came in to do his needs.

Source: Rabeinu Moshe ha'Darshan writes that the lashon "And there was nobody from the men of the house there in the house" implies that although there was no-one from the men of the house ...

Source (cont.): There was someone who was not from the men of the house present - with reference to his father, who was far removed from the way of life of that household, and whose image had appeared.

Question: The question remains however, from where does the Gemara know that it appeared at the window?

Answer: Perhaps it is because the Torah writes "in the house", implying that it was not 'in the house', but that it was 'by the window'.

Question: How could he release his Neder without the consent of Par'oh ...

Source: Like the episode with Tzidkiyahu and Nevuchadnetzar, in connection with which the Gemara says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer, in Nedarim (Daf 65a) 'he'Mudar Hana'ah me'Chavero Ein Matirin lo Ela be'Fanav'.

Answer: And from here it implies that 'be'Fanav' means in his presence and even if it is against his will.

Question: However it is difficult to say that someone who makes a Neder with his friend's approval can annul it without his consent?

Answer: Perhaps he was merely threatening him by way of exaggeration, but in reality, he was not able to annul the Neder without his consent.