(Mishnah): Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen anointed to speak to the soldiers in war) speaks to the nation. He speaks in Leshon ha'Kodesh - "v'Hayah k'Karvachem El ha'Milchamah v'Nigash ha'Kohen" - this is the Mashu'ach Milchamah. "V'Diber El ha'Am" - in Leshon ha'Kodesh.

"He says to them 'Shema Yisrael Atem Kereivim ha'Yom la'Milchamah Al Oiveichem" - your enemies, and not your brothers."

This is not [like a fight between the tribes of] Yehudah and Shimon, or Shimon against Binyamin, that if you fall in their hands, they will have mercy on you.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that Mashu'ach Milchamah [speaks in Leshon ha'Kodesh] - is it because it says "v'Diber El ha'Am"? It says about Keri'as Shma "v'Dibarta Bam", and it is said in any language!

Answer #1: Rather, it is because it says 'Amirah'.

Objection: It says 'Amirah' in Parshas Viduy Ma'aser, and it is said in any language!

Answer #2 (R. Chagai): It says here 'Negishah', and it says there (Eglah Arufah) "v'Nigshu ha'Kohanim Bnei Levi" - just like Negishah there is in Leshon ha'Kodesh, also here it is in Leshon ha'Kodesh.

Question: This is like R. Akiva [who holds that we can learn Lamed (something learned from elsewhere) from Lamed. However, according to R. Yishmael, who says that we cannot learn Lamed from Lamed [even in Chulin], what is the source? (Eglah Arufah itself we learned from "Kol-Kol" from Har Sinai!)

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): It says here 'Negishah', and it says there (Har Sinai) "v'Nigash Moshe El ha'Arafel." Just like Negishah there was in Leshon ha'Kodesh, also here it is in Leshon ha'Kodesh. (We learn directly from Har Sinai. We explained this like OHR SOMAYACH.)

It is not reasonable [that the verses are in order]. Rather, "u'Fakdu Sarei Tzeva'os b'Rosh ha'Am", and afterwards "v'Nigash ha'Kohen v'Diber El ha'Am" - after he arranges how they will stand in war, he warns them.

Conclusion: The verses are not in order.

Note: There is an implied question. The Torah says that the officers say "who built a new house...", yet Mishnah 6 below says that they hear this from the Kohen!

Answer: At the border, you say that the officer hears from the Kohen the Parshah, and says it in every language [that the soldiers understand], and all [who return] from the ranks of war supply water and food and fix the roads.

Question (R. Chagai): Just like you say that at the border, the officer hears from the Kohen the Parshah, and tells the people in every language, you should say so about close to the battlefront ("Atem Kereivim ha'Yom... Al Yerach Levavchem..."!

Answer (R. Chiya bar Ada): This is not reasonable! "V'Hayah k'Chalos ha'Shotrim Ledaber El ha'Am" (the officers finish speaking to the nation), and afterwards "v'Nigash ha'Kohen v'Diber El ha'Am"!

Rebuttal (R. Chagai): Since you say that the verse is out of order, you do not learn anything from it. (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

(Mishnah): [When Yisrael took captives from Yehudah, they had mercy on them,] like it says "and rose the mentioned men and took control of the captives; they clothed all the naked from the spoils."

You are going [to fight] against your enemies. If you fall into their hands, they will not have mercy on you!

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): Anyone who is not like these [mentioned men], who were able to protest [and prevent transgression], should not protest.

(R. Acha citing R. Yochanan): Just like it is a Mitzvah to say [rebuke] on a matter that will be done (heeded), so it is a Mitzvah not to say on a matter that will not be done.

(R. Lazar): Just like it is forbidden to be Metaher the Tamei (falsely declare it to be Tahor), so it is forbidden to be Metamei the Tahor (to be stringent without a proper reason, or because he does not want to exert to clarify the matter).

(R. Ba bar Yakov citing R. Yochanan): If a Halachah [about Terumah or Kodshim] comes to you, and you do not know whether to burn or be Toleh (not eat it, and not burn it until it is Vadai Tamei), pursue burning more than Teliyah, for nothing inside dearer in the Torah than Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim, and they are burned.

Objection (R. Yosi): Does he want to learn from something that is not its Mitzvah (burning due to Safek) from something that is its Mitzvah?!

(Mishnah): "Al Yerach Levavchem Al Tir'u v'Al Tachpezu v'Al Ta'artzu" - do not soften your hearts due to the neighing of the horses and brandishing of swords;

"Do not fear" the clanging of the shields and the swarm of soldiers;

"Do not panic" from the sounding of the horns;

"Do not be terrified" from the shouting voices, "Ki Hash-m Elokeichem ha'Holech Imachem Lehilachem Lachem Im Oiveichem Lehoshi'a Eschem."

They come with the strength of flesh and blood. You come with the power of Hash-m!

The Pelishtim relied on the might of Galyas. What was his end? He fell by the sword, and they fell with him;

However, You are not like them. "Hash-m comes with you to fight for you against your enemies" refers to the Machaneh of the Aron (Machaneh Levi - YEFE MAR'EH).

(Gemara): It is written "mi'Nogah Negdo Avyo Avru..." - [Avyo, i.e. his cloud] corresponding to their horsemen; Avru corresponding to their many foot soldiers; "Barad" corresponding to their catapult rocks; "Gachalei" corresponding to their rocks shot through a cannon; "Esh" corresponding to their kerosene rocks (which go very far. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE);

"Va'Yir'am ba'Shamayim" corresponding to their torches; "v'Elyon Yiten Kolo" corresponding to the sound of their horns;

"Va'Yishlach Chitzav" corresponding to their arrows; "va'Yfitzem" teaches that [the Mitzriyim] were scattered [due to all of these];

(R. Ba bar Kahana): This teaches that they were in groups, and the arrows scattered them, and the lightening gathered them.

"U'Verakim" corresponding to their swords; "va'Yhumem" - He befuddled them and mixed them up and removed their Chachmah.

Rebbi says "va'Yhumem" is an expression of a plague, like it says "v'Hamam Mehumah Gedolah Ad Hishamdam."

(Mishnah): "Lehoshi'a Eschem" is the Machaneh of the Aron.

Some say that it is Hash-m's name, which is in the Aron.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Lakish): Two Aronos went with Yisrael in the Midbar - in one was the Torah, and in one the broken Luchos were put;

The one in which the Torah was put, it was in the Ohel Mo'ed - "va'Aron Bris Hash-m u'Moshe Lo Mashu mi'Kerev ha'Machaneh"." (R. Bechayei (Devarim 10:1) - also the latter (whole) Luchos were in the Aron in the Ohel Mo'ed, for it says (Shemos 25:16) "v'Nasata El ha'Aron Es ha'Edus Asher Eten Elecha." The broken Luchos were in the Aron that Moshe made - Devarim 10:1.);

The one in which the broken Luchos were put, it entered and left with them - "va'Aron Bris Hash-m u'Moshe Lo Mashu mi'Kerev ha'Machaneh";

Rabanan say, there was one, and once it went out and in the days of Eli it was captured. (Radak Shmuel 1:4:4 - they hold that it held both the whole and the broken Luchos.

Support (for Rabanan): "Oy Lanu Mi Yatzilenu mi'Yad ha'Elokim ha'Adirim ha'Eleh" - this shows that they had never seen it [until then].

Support (for R. Yehudah ben Lakish): "Va'Yomer Sha'ul l'Achiyah Hagishah Aron ha'Elokim" - was the Aron not in Kiryas Ye'arim?! (Rather, one was in the Ohel Mo'ed, and one entered and left with them.)

Question: How do Rabanan explain this?

Answer: He meant, bring to me the [chest in which is the] Tzitz [and the other Bigdei Kohen Gadol; he needed to ask from the Urim v'Tumim].

Support (for R. Yehudah ben Lakish): "Ha'Aron v'Yisrael vi'Yehudah Yoshvim ba'Sukos" - was the Aron not in Tziyon?!

Question: How do Rabanan explain this?

Answer: ["Sukos"] means a [simple] covering; the Beis ha'Mikdash was not yet built.

(Beraisa): When the Aron was Nignaz (hidden), were hidden with it the jar of manna, the flask of Shemen ha'Mishchah, Aharon's staff that budded with flowers and almonds (after Korach's rebellion), and the chest that the Pelishtim sent for a gift [when they returned the Aron] to Elokei Yisrael.

Who hid them? Yoshiyahu, since he saw that it is written "Yolech Hash-m Oscha v'Es Malkecha" (he was concerned lest the Aron be exiled to Bavel).

This is why it says "va'Yomer la'Leviyim ha'Mevinim l'Chol Yisrael ha'Kedoshim la'Shem Tenu Es Aron ha'Kodesh b'Vayis Asher Banah Shlomo Ven David Melech Yisrael Ein Lachem Masa ba'Kasef." (It was already in the Mikdash! Rather, this was a command to bury it);

He said, if [the Aron] will be exiled with you to Bavel, you will not return it to its place. Rather, "Atah Ivdu Es Hash-m Elokeichem v'Es Amo Yisrael."

The composition of Shemen ha'Mishchah - "v'Atah Kach Lecha Besamim Rosh Mor Deror Chamesh Me'os... v'Kidah Chamesh Me'os b'Shekel ha'Kodesh" - 1500 Manos in all. (It says about cinnamon "Machatziso Chamishim u'Masayim" - this was only 250, just the Torah commanded to bring 500 and take half.)

"V'Shemen Zayis Hin" - this is 12 Lugim, in which he cooked the spices. R. Meir says so;

R. Yehudah says, he cooked [the spices] in water, and put oil on them. Once it absorbed the scent, he removed it [from the spices], like fragrance makers do;

This is why it says "v'Asisa Oso Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Zeh Li l'Doroseichem."

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah bei R. Ilai): The Shemen ha'Mishchah that Moshe made in the Midbar, it was miraculous from the beginning to the end;

From the beginning there were only 12 Lugim. This is not enough even to rub on the [fragrant] woods, and all the more so, [according to nature] the fire 'absorbs' (boils off some), the [fragrant] woods absorb, and the pot absorbs;

From it, they anointed the Mishkan and all its Kelim, the Shulchan and all its Kelim, the Menorah and all its Kelim;

From it, they anointed Aharon and his children all seven days of the Milu'im;

From it, they anointed Kohanim Gedolim and kings;

A new king (his father was not king) must be anointed. A Melech ben Melech need not be anointed - "Kum Meshachehu Ki Zeh Hu" - only this one must be anointed, but his son need not be anointed.

However, a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol must be anointed. Even until 10 generations [of Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol], they must be anointed.

All will remain intact in the future, for it says "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Zeh Li l'Doroseichem" (the Gematri'a of "Zeh" is 12).

We anoint kings only by a spring, (for a sign that) their kingship should last - "v'Hirkavtem Es Shlomo Veni Al ha'Pirdah Asher Li v'Horadetem Oso El Gichon; u'Mashach Oso Sham Tzadok ha'Kohen v'Nasan ha'Navi..."

We do not anoint a Melech ben Melech, unless there is a dispute.

Why was Shlomo anointed? It was due to the dispute of Adoniyahu (he tried to make himself king). Yo'ash [was anointed] due to Aslayah [who had seized power]. Yehu [was anointed] due to Yoram.

Question: Is it not written "Kum Meshachehu Ki Zeh Hu" - only this (royal line) must be anointed, but kings of Yisrael need not be anointed! (Rather, we must say that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah. However, why did the Beraisa cite Yehu as a case of Meshichah due to dispute?)

Answer: Rather, [it should say that] Yeho'achaz was anointed due to Yehoyakim his brother, who was two years older.

Question: Did Yoshiyah not hide Shemen ha'Mishchah [before Yeho'achaz]?!

Answer: He was anointed with balsam oil (not Shemen ha'Mishchah).

We anoint kings only from a horn;

Sha'ul and Yehu were anointed from a flask. Their kingships passed [to others, and not to their sons];

David and Shlomo were anointed from a horn. Their kingships lasted.

We do not anoint Kohanim to be kings.

(R. Yudan Antudariyah): This is due to "Lo Yasur Shevet mi'Yehudah."

(R. Chiya bar Ada): It is due to "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim Al Mamlachto Hu u'Vanav b'Kerev Yisrael." What is written afterwards? "Lo Yihyeh la'Kohanim ha'Leviyim."

(R. Yochanan): Yochanan (listed in Divrei ha'Yamim among the sons of Yoshiyah) is Yeho'achaz,

Question: It is written "ha'Bechor Yochanan" (and Yehoyakim was two years older than his brother Yeho'achaz)!

Answer: He was Bechor for kingship (he was the first of his brothers to rule).

(R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu.

Question: "Ha'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu veha'Revi'i Shalom"!

Answer: He was the third oldest. He was the fourth to reign (Yechanyah reigned before him).

He is called Tzidkiyahu, for he justified the judgment against himself. He is called Shalom because in his days, Shalmah (finished) the kingship of Beis David.

His name was not Shalom, and not Tzidkiyahu, rather, Matanyah, like it says "va'Yamlech Melech Bavel Es Matanyah Dodo (Yechanyah's uncle) Tachtav va'Yasev Es Shemo Tzidkiyahu."

(R. Yochanan): The Aron was made based on an Amah of six Tefachim.

Which Tana holds that the Amah was of six Tefachim? It is R. Meir;

(Mishnah - R. Meir): All the Amos [in the Mikdash] were intermediate (of six Tefachim).

According to R. Meir, who says that the Aron was made based on an Amah of six Tefachim, the Aron was 15 Tefachim long, for it says "Amasayim va'Chetzi Archo" - one Amah is six [Tefachim, another] Amah is six, and half an Amah is three;

There were four Luchos in it - two broken and two intact - "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron."

The Luchos, each was six Tefachim long and three Tefachim wide. Put the width of the Luchos (in all, 12) along the length of the Aron, and three Tefachim remained;

Give from [the remaining three Tefachim] half a Tefach for [the thickness of] the walls of the Aron, and two Tefachim remained for [the width of] the Sefer Torah.

The width of the Aron was nine Tefachim, for it says "Amah va'Chetzi Rachbo" - one Amah is six, and half an Amah is three.

There were four Luchos in it - two broken and two intact, for it says "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron."

The Luchos, each was six Tefachim long. Put the length of the Luchos along the width of the Aron, and three Tefachim remained. Half a Tefach [for the thickness of] here, and half a Tefach here [on the other side] for the wall, and two Tefachim for Shilut (room to enter one's hand on each side) in the place where the Sefer Torah rests (its length of six Tefachim was along the Aron's width, and its width of two Tefachim was along the Aron's length. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(Reish Lakish): The Aron was made based on an Amah of five Tefachim;

Which Tana holds that the Amah was of five Tefachim? It is R. Yehudah;

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The Amah of building (dimensions of the Mikdash) is of six Tefachim, and that of Kelim is five Tefachim. The Aron is a Kli!

According to R. Yehudah, who says that the Aron was made based on an Amah of five Tefachim; the Aron was 12 and a half Tefachim long, for it says "Amasayim va'Chetzi Archo" - one Amah is five, another] Amah is five, and half an Amah is two and a half;

There were four Luchos in it - two broken and two intact - "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron."

The Luchos, each was six Tefachim long and three Tefachim wide. Put the width of the Luchos (in all, 12) along the length of the Aron, and half a Tefach remained, one finger (a quarter Tefach) for the wall here, and a finger for the wall here.

The width of the Aron was seven and a half Tefachim, for it says "Amah va'Chetzi Rachbo" - one Amah is five, and half an Amah is two and a half;

There were four Luchos in it - two broken and two intact - "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron."

The Luchos, each was six Tefachim long and three Tefachim wide. Put the length of the Luchos along the width of the Aron, and one and a half Tefachim remained. A finger for the wall here, and a finger for the wall here, and half a Tefach here for Shilut and half a Tefach here for Shilut. (According to R. Yehudah, there was no room in the Aron for the Sefer Torah. KORBAN HA'EDAH says that sometimes they needed to remove the Luchos. I do not know why they would need to. - PF)

Question: How did Betzalel make the Aron?

Answer #1 (R. Chaninah): He made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put the [smaller] gold [box] inside the wood, and the wood inside the [bigger] gold, and [thereby] covered it - "v'Tzipisa Oso Zahav Tahor mi'Bayis umi'Chutz";

Why does it say [also] "Tetzapenu"? This includes the upper surface [of the wooden box. The golden boxes did not cover it].

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): He made one box, and covered it - "v'Tzipisa Oso Zahav Tahor mi'Bayis umi'Chutz";

Question: Why does it say [also] "Tetzapenu"? (According to Reish Lakish, the Reisha teaches that he covers the wooden box totally!)

Answer (R. Pinchas): It includes between one plank and another [from which the Aron was made. The planks were covered in every direction, even where they were next to other planks.]

Question: How were the Luchos written?

Answer #1 (R. Chananyah ben Gamliel): Five were written on this Lu'ach, and five on this Lu'ach. This is why it says "va'Yichtevem Al Shnei Luchos Avanim" (to teach that the 10 were divided among the two Luchos).

Answer #2 (Rabanan): Ten were on this Lu'ach, and 10 on this Lu'ach - "va'Yaged Lachem Es Briso Asher Tzivah Eschem La'asos Aseres ha'Devarim" - 10 on this Lu'ach, and 10 on this Lu'ach.

Answer #3 (R. Shimon ben Yochai): There were 20 on this Lu'ach, and 20 on this Lu'ach - va'Yaged Lachem Es Briso Asher Tzivah Eschem La'asos Aseres ha'Devarim" - 20 on this Lu'ach, and 20 on this Lu'ach. (It says va'Yichtevem twice, to teach that they were written twice on each Lu'ach (PNEI MOSHE. Seemingly, if so we should have cited va'Yichtevem! - PF)

Answer #4 (R. Simai): There were 40 on this Lu'ach, and 40 on this Lu'ach - "mi'Zeh umi'Zeh Hem Kesuvim" (he learns like R. Shimon, but holds that they were written on both sides). They were rectangular.

(Chananyah ben Achi R. Yehoshua): Between each Dibur and Dibur are its fine points and its letters - "Memula'im ba'Tarshish", like the great sea.

When Reish Lakish reached this verse, he said 'Chananyah ben Achi R. Yehoshua taught us well! Just like this sea, between a big wave and a big wave are small waves, so between each Dibur and Dibur, its fine points and letters of Torah.

Question (R.): I asked R. Pinchas - this is fine for R. Meir. According to R. Yehudah, it is difficult. Where was the Sefer Torah?

Answer (R. Pinchas): He made like a box for it outside [the Aron], and the Sefer Torah was put in it.

What is the reason of R. Yehudah? "Lako'ach Es Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh v'Samtem Oso mi'Tzad Aron Bris Hash-m." (We explained this like the GRA.)

What is the reason of R. Meir? "V'Nasata Es ha'Kapores Al ha'Aron mil'Ma'alah v'El ha'Aron Titen Es ha'Edus Asher Eten Elecha." ("El" connotes inside. - RIDVAZ)

According to R. Meir, there is no earlier and later in the Torah (the verses do not always convey the chronological order). "V'El ha'Aron Titen Es ha'Edus Asher Eten Elecha", and afterwards [the Reisha of the verse] "v'Nasata Es ha'Kapores Al ha'Aron mil'Ma'alah."

(R. Pinchas citing Reish Lakish): The Torah that Hash-m gave, its hide (parchment) was white fire, its engraved [letters] were black fire.

[The Torah] is fire, it is mixed with fire, it was quarried from fire, and it was given from fire - "mi'Ymino Esh Das Lamo."