1)

(a)When David offered the Givonim to name their compensation - they chose revenge, in the form of the hanging of seven descendants of King Shaul.

(b)King David rejected them because of the three basic Midos that distinguish Yisrael from the other nations, and which they did not posses - mercy, shame (i.e. a branch of the fear of G-d [the opposite of brazenness]) and kindness.

(c)He derived mercy from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Nasan Lecha Rachamim v'Richamcha v'Hirbecha" - and from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Yisro (at Matan Torah) "Lema'an Tiheyeh Yir'aso al Pneichem", shame.

2. ... in Vayera "Lema'an Asher Yetzaveh es Banav ... v'Shamru Derech Hash-m" the Midah of kindness (see Agados Maharsha).

2)

(a)Two sons of Ritzpah bas Ayah - a wife of Shaul, were hanged.

(b)The other five were sons of Michal bas Shaul (they were really the sons of her sister Merav - see Rashi in Shmuel 2, 21:8). He chose them, says Rav Huna - by passing them in front of the Aron.

(c)David took pity on Mefivoshes, Yehonasan's son. We first suggest that the Aron chose him, and that, following David's Tefilah, it rejected him. Rav Chama bar Ketina refutes this suggestion however - on the grounds that it is inconceivable that David should have displayed favoritism towards one of Shaul's descendants, at the expense of another (who had already been released from the death-penalty).

(d)So we conclude that he must have Davened for him before passing them in front of the Aron - praying that he should not be one of those to be picked.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... quoted by Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains that in spite of the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yumsu Avos al Banim" - it is better that one letter in the Torah be erased than Hash-m's Name should be desecrated (in other words, Chilul Hash-m overrides even the commands of the Torah). Consequently, it was necessary to hang seven innocent men to avoid Chilul Hash-m.

2. ... quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak explains - that it was necessary to leave their corpses hanging for half a year, in spite of the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Salin es Nivlaso al ha'Etz" - so that Hash-m's Name should be publicly sanctified.

(b)Passers-by would now praise that wonderful nation which avenged even secondary converts with the lives of princes - and they would want to join their ranks.

(c)One hundred and fifty thousand Nochrim (seventy thousand porters and eighty thousand miners) joined the ranks of Klal Yisrael as a result of the great Kidush Hash-m.

4)

(a)We know that the seventy thousand porters and eighty thousand miners were not born Jews - because the Navi there (in Melachim) specifically writes that Shlomo did not utilize any born Jews for this type of work.

(b)We refute the proof from there however - seeing as they might just as well have been hired workers from other countries.

(c)In fact, we know that a hundred and fifty thousand gentiles converted at that time - because the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim says so.

5)

(a)The "Chotev Eitzecha ad Sho'ev Meimecha" (the wood-choppers and water-drawers mentioned in Nitzavim) - were the very same Givonim as those whom we are discussing. They first came to Moshe and attempted to trick him in the same way as they tricked Yehoshua later. Their attempt failed however, and Moshe decreed that they should chop wood and draw water for the congregation and for the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Nevertheless, Rav Chana bar Ada (on the previous Amud) stated that David was the one to decree on them - since Moshe's decree was confined to that generation only, and he was referring to all subsequent generations.

(c)And to reconcile this with the Pasuk in Yehoshua, which explicitly states that Yehoshua decreed on them - we confine the latter decree to the period during which the Beis Hamikdash stood, whereas David's decree was forever.

6)

(a)When they made plans to remove the decree from the Nesinim - Rebbi stopped them on the grounds that David had appointed them slaves of both the people and the Mizbe'ach. Consequently, if they had the authority to forego their own rights over them (see Tosfos DH 'bi'Yemei'), who gave them the authority to forego the rights of the Mizbe'ach?!

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quoting Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. When he said that the portion that belongs to the community is always forbidden, he meant - until they permitted it (in the form of releasing a vow).

(c)The decree pertaining to the portion of the Mizbe'ach, he argues - was only intended to remain in force as long as the Beis Hamikdash stood, but was automatically lifted once it was destroyed.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua, in our Mishnah, does not know how to reconcile two seemingly contradictory statements. One of them is that a Saris needs to perform Chalitzah when his brother dies, and that his wife requires Chalitzah after his death. The other - that in neither case, is Chalitzah required.

(b)Both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi give diametrically opposing answers to resolve Rebbi Yehoshua's dilemma. They agree however - that one of the statement refers to a Seris Adam, the other, to a Seris Chamah.

8)

(a)Rebbi Akiva maintains that a Seris Adam requires Chalitzah, a Seris Chamah does not - because the former (unlike the latter) had a time when he was Kasher.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer says the opposite - that a Seris Chamah requires Chalitzah (because he is curable), whereas a Seris Adam is exempt (because he is not).

(c)And the same distinction applies (according to both Tana'im), by the wife of a Saris.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseirah testified (in support of the opinion of Rebbi Akiva) that - when ben Megusas, a Seris Adam who lived in Yerushalayim, died, his brother performed Yibum with his wife.

9)

(a)Our Tana rules that a Saris and an Aylonis - are forbidden to perform either Yibum or Chalitzah.

(b)A Yevamah with whom the Yavam, who was a Saris, performed Chalitzah (or an Aylonis with whom the brothers performed Chalitzah) do not become invalidated (since the Chalitzah is meaningless); whereas if the Yavam who was a Saris performed Yibum (or the brother of a Saris who performed Yibum with his brother's wife) - they invalidate the Yevamah (because he has committed adultery with his brother's wife).

(c)The problem with Rebbi Akiva (specifically) requiring a Seris Adam to make Chalitzah - is that he is the one who holds that 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayavei Kerisus', in which case, a Seris Adam should not require even Chalitzah!?

10)

(a)Rebbi Ami therefore establishes Rebbi Akiva when the brother of the Saris married a Giyores - which, bearing in mind that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Yosi (that 'Kehal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal'), eliminates the Lav (seeing as a Saris is permitted to marry a Giyores).

(b)Rebbi Akiva really permits even Yibum, as we go on to say; and he only says 'Choltzin' - because Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Choltzin'.

(c)And Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Choltzin' (and not 'Meyabmin') - because he holds 'Kehal Gerim Ikri Kahal' (like Rebbi Yehudah).

(d)We prove that Rebbi Akiva does indeed permit even Yibum - from the testimony of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseirah, who specifically states that ben Megusas' brother performed Yibum.

11)

(a)The author of the Beraisa which permits a Petzu'a Daka ... a Seris Adam and a Zaken to perform Yibum - is Rebbi Akiva.

(b)It makes no difference whether he dies and his brothers perform Chalitzah or Yibum with his wife, or whether his brothers die and he performs Chalitzah or Yibum with their wives.

(c)When the Beraisa concludes 'v'Asur l'Kayman Mishum she'Ne'emar "Lo Yavo Petzu'a Daka ... bi'Kehal Hash-m" - it does not include the case of Zaken (who is only listed together with the other cases, because of its similarity with them (inasmuch as, like them, he was previously able to perform Yibum and have children).

(d)Rabah use this Beraisa to prove Rebbi Ami's interpretation of Rebbi Akiva wrong - because we see clearly from the Beraisa that Rebbi Akiva is referring even to a Seris Adam who is Kasher, and not exclusively to one who is Pasul, as Rebbi Ami explained.

12)

(a)So Rabah establishes Rebbi Akiva when the Yevamah fell to Yibum before the brother became a Saris, in which case the Mitzvah of Yibum remains even after he becomes a Saris. Rav Yosef objects to this explanation however, based on a ruling of Raban Gamliel in Perek Beis Shamai, where he says that if two brothers were married to two sisters who were Ketanos, and one of them died, the Yavam should wait until his wife grows up, and the Yevamah then goes out because of Achos Ishto. So we see - that the Isur of Achos Ishto overrules the Mitzvah of Yibum (even when the Mitzvah of Yibum came first). By the same token, the Isur of Petzu'a Daka will overrule the Mitzvah of Yibum which preceded it, in which case, like in the case of Raban Gamliel, there should be no Chiyuv Chalitzah either.

(b)Rav Yosef therefore establishes Rebbi Akiva, even when his brother did not marry a Giyores and even if he became a Seris Adam before his brother died - according to that Tana d'Bei Rebbi Akiva, who holds that it is only Chayavei Lavin of blood-relationship that are like Chayavei Kares, but not Lavin that are not (such as Petzu'a Daka). Consequently, Kidushin with them is effective, and they will also require Chalitzah.

(c)Rava deals with the problem (that even if a Seris Adam was fit to have children beforehand, seeing as now he is not, we ought to apply the Pasuk "l'Hakim l'Achiv Shem") - by pointing out that if the fact that he is now unfit to have children would disqualify him, then no man would ever be able to perform Yibum, because the moments before his brother's death, he is unfit to have children, rendering his wife Patur from Yibum. Consequently, we are forced to say that as long as he was once fit to have children, this is called "l'Hakim l'Achiv Shem". And the same will apply to a Seris Adam.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer, who does not contend with the fact that the Saris was previously fit to have children, explains that everyone does not die a Saris - because it is the pangs of death that cause a man to become weak before his death, and not because he is a Saris.