1)

(a)Moshe separated from his wife after Matan Torah (in spite of the fact that he had not yet fulfilled the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, according to Beis Hillel) - because he reckoned that, if everyone had to separate from their wives because Hash-m spoke to them just once (at Matan Torah), having told them in advance exactly when he would speak to them, then how much more so he, to whom Hash-m spoke regularly, without telling him in advance (that he had to be in a state of Taharah at all times).

(b)We know that Hash-m agreed with him - because, as the Pasuk in Va'eschanan informs us, after telling him (after Matan Torah) to instruct the people to return to their tents (i.e. their wives), He said to him "v'Atah Poh Amod Imadi!"

(c)He ...

1. ... broke the Luchos - because, he figured, if with regard to the Korban Pesach (which is only one of the Taryag Mitzvos), the Torah writes in Bo "Kol ben Nechar Lo Yochal Bo", then how much more so can one not give the Luchos, which contain all the Mitzvos, to Yisrael, who are Mumarim.

2. ... added a day to Matan Torah - because Hash-m had said (with regard to the separation from their wives) "ha'Yom u'Machar", which, by virtue of the comparison of today to tomorrow, insinuates that today, like tomorrow, must consist of a full twenty-four hours. Now since this was impossible, seeing as part of the day had already passed, he felt that he had to count the third day instead (to complement the missing full day).

(d)We know that Hash-m agreed with his ...

1. ... breaking the Luchos - because He subsequently said to him "Asher Shibarta" (a superfluous phrase), which Chazal explain to mean 'Yeyasher she'Shibarta' ('thank you for breaking them').

2. ... adding a day to Matan Torah - because when it came to the crunch, Hash-m gave the Torah after three days (and not on the third day, as He had originally intended - though this is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im in Perek Rebbi Akiva in Shabbos).

2)

(a)Yisrael ...

1. ... separated from their wives on Wednesday.

2. ... received the Torah - on Shabbos.

3)

(a)Rebbi Nasan learns from a combination of the Pesukim in Bereishis "va'Tosef la'Ledes es Achiv es Hevel" and "Ki Shas Li Elokim Zera Acher Tachas Hevel Ki Harago Kayin" - that, when Hevel was murdered, it was necessary to make up for the deficiency by the birth of Shes (from which we can extrapolate that the two boys and the two girls [one twin with each boy], that Adam had, were necessary). So we see, that two boys and two girls are the minimum requirement for each person.

(b)The Rabanan of Rebbi Nasan explain that the Pasuk "Ki Shas Li Elokim ... " - was merely an expression of thanks to Hash-m on the part of Adam for 'replacing' his lost son (and not a necessity).

(c)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Nasan explains the opinion of Beis Shamai like we explained Beis Hillel until now (one boy and one girl); whereas Beis Hillel, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lo Tohu Bera'ah, Lasheves Yetzarah", learn - that one only requires one boy or one girl.

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, a Ger who had children before he converted, has fulfilled the Mitzvah of "Pru u'Rvu", and is not obligated to have more children. Resh Lakish disagrees with him on the basis of the principle - 'Ger she'Nisgayer, k'Katan she'Nolad Dami' (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yochanan').

(b)They also argue over whether his first son has the Din of a Bechor or not, and for similar reasons. Had they confined their Machlokes to ...

1. ... "Pru u'Rvu" (and not to Nachalah) - we might have thought that that is where Rebbi Yochanan holds that a Ger has fulfilled his obligation with the child that he fathered before he converted, because as a Nochri, he was included in the obligation (or in the Berachah) of "Pru u'Rvu", whereas by Nachalah, where the Din of Bechor does not apply to him at all, maybe he will agree with Resh Lakish that he has not.

2. ... Nachalah and not to "Pru u'Rvu" - we would have thought that, based on the same logic, by "Pru u'Rvu" (in which he is included), maybe Resh Lakish will agree with Rebbi Yochanan.

(c)Resh Lakish has no problem with the Pasuk in Melachim, which specifically refers to "Berodach Baladan ben Baladan", indicating that the son of a Nochri is considered his son - because he agrees that, as long as they are Nochrim, they are considered their father's children, and it is only after they have converted that he argues with Rebbi Yochanan, as we explained above.

5)

(a)Rav derives from the Pasuk "Shvu Lachem Poh im ha'Chamor" - that (bearing in mind that Eliezer, Avraham's slave was there) slaves have no Yichus, just like donkeys, even according Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)We query Rav from the Pasuk in Shmuel "u'le'Tziva (the slave of Mefivoshes, Yonasan's son) Chamishah-Asar Banim v'Esrim Avadim". Rav Acha bar Yakov answers the Kashya - by equating the latter to a 'Par ben Bakar'(which is no more than a biological fact).

(c)We cannot say the same by the son of a Nochri however, which we learned from "Berodach Baladan ben Baladan" - seeing as there, the Navi specifically mentioned his name.

(d)Alternatively, we answer the Kashya with the Pasuk "va'Yeshalchem ha'Melech Asa el ben Hadad ben Tavrimon ben Chezyon Melech Aram ... " - from the fact that it even goes so far as to mention his grandfather's name (which is indicative of human-beings, and not of a Par ben Bakar).

6)

(a)According to Rav Huna, if someone's children died, he has nevertheless fulfilled the Mitzvah of "Pru u'Rvu". Rebbi Yochanan says that he has not - because he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of "la'Sheves Yetzarah" (which is the basis of "Pru u'Rvu").

(b)Rav Huna's reason is based on a statement by Rav Asi, who based on the Pasuk "Ki Ru'ach mi'Lefanai Ya'atof" - explains that the main function of "Pru u'Rvu" is to draw the Neshamos from the source known as 'Guf' (thereby bringing the Mashi'ach closer - because, the moment all the Neshamos have been withdrawn from 'Guf', Mashi'ach will come).

(c)The Beraisa 'Bnei Banim Harei Hen k'Banim' suggests that if the child who died did not have a son, he would not have fulfilled the Mitzvah, even though he had a child who died. Rav Huna however - establishes the Beraisa in a case when he only had one son to begin with; and that son then married and his wife gave birth to a daughter.

(d)The Tana of another Beraisa says that - 'Bnei Banim Harei Heim k'Banim. Mes Achad Mehem O she'Nimtza Saris, Lo Kiyem Piryah v'Rivyah', a clear disproof to Rav Huna.

7)

(a)Rava learns from "la'Sheves Yetzarah" that 'Bnei Banim, Harei Hen k'Banim' incorporates any combination of child and grandchild (e.g. a son to a son and a daughter to a daughter). Initially, Abaye thinks that the only combination that is not acceptable is - a son's daughter, who will not combine with a remaining son or daughter (see Hagahos ha'Gra).

(b)Abaye and Rava will both agree that even though he has two grandchildren, he will not have fulfilled his obligation - should they both be the children of one of his children, and he has no other living child.

(c)When Rav Sheshes told the Rabanan (who suggested that he gets married and has children) that he had fulfilled the Mitzvah with his daughter's children - he was only putting them off, because he was sterile, and unable to father more children anyway.

(d)Rav Sheshes became sterile - by not relieving himself during Rav Huna's Derashah.

8)

(a)Rabah suggests that we might learn from the Pasuk in Vayeitzei, where Lavan said "ha'Banos Benosai v'ha'Banim Banai" that 'Bnei Banim Harei Hein k'Banim' - because the sons that he refers to as his own, were really his daughters' sons (seeing as Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah were all his daughters).

(b)He nevertheless declined to learn it from there - because, taking his cue from "ha'Tzon Tzoni" (which can only refer to the sheep that Yakov had acquired thanks to him), he explains "ha'Banim Banai" to mean 'These are the sons that you bore, grace a moi'.

(c)Rabah finally learns 'Bnei Banim ... ' from the two Pesukim "Mini Machir Yardu Mechokekim" (Shoftim) and "Yehudah Mechokeki" ( Tehilim). According to the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim - Chetzron married Machir's daughter. Consequently, when the Pasuk writes "Mini Machir Yardu Mechokekim" - he must really have meant from the sons of Machir's daughter, which the Pasuk reckons like Machir's own sons.

9)

(a)The author of our Mishnah, which permits a person to refrain from having children once he has fulfilled the basic Mitzvah, cannot be Rebbi Yehoshua, who learns from the Pasuk in Koheles "ba'Boker Z'ra es Zar'acha, v'la'Erev al Tanach Yadecha" - that a man who lost his wife is obligated to marry again even in his old age, and to continue having children even after he has fulfilled the Mitzvah. Rav Masna rules like Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b)The reason for this is - because of the likelihood that the second time will prove to be more successful than the first.

(c)Rebbi Akiva then says the same thing about somebody who ...

1. ... learned much Torah in his youth, and who ...

2. ... taught many Talmidim in his youth.

10)

(a)Rebbi Akiva had - twelve thousand Talmidim 'from Geives till Antipras' ...

(b)... all of whom died - from Askara (croup - see Agados Maharsha) because they did not behave towards each other with respect.

(c)The names of the five Talmidim whom he later raised in the south, who then went on to re-establish Torah are - Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

11)

(a)Rebbi Tanchum bar Chanila'i learns from the Pasuk...

1. ... in Re'eh "v'Samachta Atah u'Veisecha" - that someone who has no wife, lives without joy.

2. ... in Yechezkel "Lehani'ach Berachah el Beisecha" - that he is devoid of blessing

3. ... "Lo Tov Heyos ha'Adam Levado" - that he lives without goodness.

(b)In Eretz Yisrael, they added to the list, Torah and protection (a wall). Rava bar Ula, based on the Pasuk in Iyov "v'Yada'at ki Shlom Ohalech u'Fakadet Navech v'Lo Secheta" adds - peace.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the same Pasuk - that a man who knows his wife to be a Yerei Shamayim and who does not fulfill the Mitzvah of Onah with her before setting out on a journey, has sinned ...

(d)... because his wife feels particularly close to him at that time.

12)

(a)Rav Yosef reconciles Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's previous Derashah with the fact that we learn the same thing from the Pasuk in Bereishis "v'el Ishech Teshukasech" - by establishing the former even when she is close to the time of her Veses (refer to c.).

(b)This Derashah will not apply to someone who is about to leave for a Devar Mitzvah - either because he is already busy with a Mitzvah (and Chazal have said 'ha'Osek b'Mitzvah Patur min ha'Mitzvah'), or because he might become so engrossed in Tashmish, that he negates the Mitzvah.

(c)When a woman is Samuch l'Vestah - her husband is forbidden to be intimate with her (provided he is not about to set out on a journey, as we explained).

(d)Rava's Shi'ur Veses is - the twelve-hour period during which she is due to have a sighting - that day or that night.

13)

(a)Based on yet another Derashah from the Pasuk in Iyov, the The Beraisa advises a man to love his wife as much as he loves himself, and to honor her even more than he honors himself.

(b)The reason for this latter statement is - because a woman is more sensitive (to her own dignity) than a man.

(c)The Tana says that ...

1. ... one should educate one's sons and daughters - to go on the right path.

2. ... one should marry them off - shortly before they become Gedolim (see Tosfos DH 'Samuch').

(d)Based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Az Tikra va'Hashem Ya'aneh Teshava, v'Yomar Hineni", the Beraisa adds that one should ...

1. ... love one's neighbors.

2. ... maintain close ties with one's relatives.

3. ... marry one's sister's daughter.

4. ... lend money to a poor man who is hard-pressed.