1)

(a)Our Mishnah says 'b'Shacharis, uv'Musaf uv'Minchah Korin al Pihen'. This either means - that at Shacharis and at Musaf they Lein the Parashah from a Sefer Torah, but at Minchah, by heart, or that at Shacharis, they Lein it from a Sefer Torah, and at Musaf and Minchah, by heart.

(b)The correct interpretation is - the former one.

(c)Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa asks the Tana Kama, who says 'uv'Minchah, Yachid Koreh Osah al Peh' - since when is a Yachid permitted to read words from the written Torah by heart in public?

(d)According to him, at Minchah, they would all recite the Parashah together by heart, which is permitted.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua holds that on days when they brought the Korban Musaf, there was no Ma'amad at Minchah, but there was Ma'amad at Ne'ilah - because Minchah (although it is not really min ha'Torah), was introduced by Yitzchak Avinu (even before the Torah was given), and is therefore treated in this regard, as if it was min ha'Torah; whereas Ne'ilah is purely mid'Rabanan.

(b)The families who donated wood for the Mizbe'ach were entitled to do so, when their turn arrived (if they so wished)- even if there was sufficient wood in the stockpile.

3)

(a)In the days of the Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzios, the Romans issued a decree - forbidding the Jews to bring wood to the Ma'arachah, and Bikurim to Yerushalayim. To enforce their decree, they placed border guards, just as Yarav'am ben Nevat had done many centuries earlier.

(b)

1. The Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzios (which were one and the same, as we explained earlier) outwitted the Roman guards - by carrying baskets of Bikurim which they covered with dried figs, and a pestle on their shoulders. When the guards stopped them, they told them that they were only going to grind the figs in the mortar that was just ahead of them, in order to make cakes of dried figs. But once they had passed the guards, they rearranged the fruit in the baskets, in the way that Bikurim were normally arranged, and took them to the Beis Hamikdash. Note: 'Ali' means pestle, 'Ketzios', dried figs and 'Salmai' (which we are about to Discuss), ladders.

2. The Bnei Salmai (also from the same family) outwitted the Roman guards - by constructing the wood for the Mizbe'ach into ladders. When the guards stopped them, they said that were simply going to fetch young pigeons from dove-cots that were just ahead of them ...

(c)The Pasuk in Mishlei "Zecher Tzadik li'Verachah" refers to these Tzadikim - and "v'Shem Resha'im Yirkav", to Yarav'am ben Nevat.

4)

(a)On the twenty-ninth of Av, the family of Pachas ben Yehudah donated wood for the Mizbe'ach. According to Rebbi Meir, Pachas ben Yehudah was none other than David ha'Melech. In the opinion of Rebbi Yosi - it was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(b)On the twentieth of Elul, the family of Adin ben Yehudah donated wood for the Mizbe'ach. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Adin ben Yehudah was David ha'Melech. In the opinion of Rebbi Yosi - once again it was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(c)It now appears that the author of our Mishnah, which states that Parosh ben Yehudah donated wood a second time, cannot be Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah or Rebbi Yosi - because, according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana should have pointed out that also David ben Yehudah donated wood a second time, and according to Rebbi Yosi, he should have mentioned it with regard to Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(d)We conclude that in fact, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi - and that the Tana who quotes him as saying that Pachas ben Yehudah was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah, and the Tana who quotes him as saying that Adin ben Yehudah was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah disagree with each other. Presumably, we will have to say the same with regard to the Tana who says that Adin ben Yehudah was David and the Tana Kama (because otherwise David ha'Melech will have brought twice, and the Tana ought to have pointed it out).

5)

(a)Our Mishnah says that, whenever they brought a Korban Musaf, there was no Ma'amad at Minchah. We cannot infer that there was a Ma'amad at Musaf says Rav Ashi - because, if the Korban Musaf negates a 'foreign' Ma'amad, then it will certainly negate its own.

(b)When Mar Keshisha asked Rav Ashi why Halel negates its own Ma'amad, whereas Musaf does not - he really meant to ask that Musaf (like Halel) ought to negate only its own Ma'amad (and not that of Minchah).

(c)Rav Ashi replied - that he was in good company, because that is indeed, the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yosi says that whenever there is a Musaf, there is (nevertheless) a Ma'amad. He cannot have been referring to ...

1. ... the Ma'amad of Shacharis - because the Tana Kama of the Beraisa also agrees with that.

2. ... the Ma'amad of Musaf - because how can it is obvious that the Musaf does not even negate its own Ma'amad.

(b)He must therefore be referring to - the Ma'amad of Minchah and Ne'ilah.

(c)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - the Musaf negates the Ma'amad of Ne'ilah and of Minchah.

(d)The difference between Rosh Chodesh Teves (which our Mishnah mentions as a day on which there is no Ma'amad, because they recite Halel on it, as well as bringing a Korban Etzim), and Rosh Chodesh Nisan - is the fact that whereas Halel on Chanukah (even though it is only mid'Rabanan) is a firm Takanah (as the Gemara explains in Shabbos), Halel on Rosh Chodesh is no more than a Minhag. With regard to reciting a Berachah before Halel on Rosh Chodesh, see Tosfos DH 'Amar'.

7)

(a)In Eretz Yisrael, we recite the whole Halel on eighteen days in the year - one day of Pesach, one day of Shavu'os, eight days of Sukos and eight days of Chanukah.

(b)In Chutz la'Aretz - it is recited on three additional days: on the second day of Pesach, on the second day of Sukos and on Simchas Torah.

(c)We just learned that there is a Ma'amad on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, because Halel (which is said then) is only a Minhag. Nevertheless, there is no Ma'amad on Rosh Chodesh Teves- because even though Halel then is also only mid'Rabanan, since the Nevi'im instituted the recital of Halel whenever Yisrael are saved from a Tzarah, it is considered as if it's recital was d'Oraisa.

8)

(a)Rav arrived in Bavel on Rosh Chodesh. When he heard them begin to recite Halel - he was about to stop them (See Tosfos DH 'Amar' - regarding the Berachah).

(b)He changed his mind however - when he saw that they omitted every second paragraph, bringing him to the realization that it was only a Minhag.

(c)The Beraisa says - that a Yachid should not recite Halel on Rosh Chodesh, but that, having begun, he continues saying it.

9)

(a)According to the Chachamim, the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on the sixth of Sivan. Moshe ascended Har Sinai - on the seventh. We know this from tradition, in spite of the Pasuk, which says that the Cloud covered Moshe for six days and that Hash-m called him on the seventh of Sivan (because according to one opinion in Yoma, that Pasuk refers to after Matan Torah).

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi - the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on the seventh of Sivan, and Hash-m called Moshe on the same day.

(c)We know that Moshe broke the Luchos on Shiv'ah-Asar-b'Tamuz - because the Torah records that Moshe spent forty full days on Har Sinai, and the forty-first day ended on the seventeenth of Tamuz (twenty-four days in Sivan and seventeen in Tamuz).

(d)We know that the Korban Tamid was stopped on Shiv'ah-Asar b'Tamuz - from tradition.

10)

(a)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the walls of Yerushalayim were breached on the seventeen of Tamuz, too. Rava reconciles that with the date given in the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu as the ninth - by establishing the former by the second Beis Hamikdash, the latter by the first. Note: we commemorate the second Churban, because that is the one from which we still suffering - see Agados Maharsha.

(b)We know that Apostomus burned the Torah on Shiv'ah-Asar b'Tamuz - from tradition.

(c)Menasheh, the son of Chizkiyahu, placed the image in the Heichal (though others say that it was Apostumus who placed it there, depending on the text in our ['Hu'amad' or 'He'emid'])- on the same day as the Tamid was stopped.

(d)The Pasuk in Daniel refers to two images - because Menasheh actually placed two there. One of them however, fell down and broke the other one's hand, and the Mishnah does not bother to mention the broken one.

11)

(a)They found written on the image that remained whole, the words 'Ant Tzavis la'Charuvei Beisa, Yadcha Ashleimis Lei'. The whole image was saying to the broken one: 'You wanted to destroy Hash-m's House. I made you pay for that with your hand'!