(a)Among the children of Yefes (Noach's son), were Gomer, Madai, Yavan and Tiras. Which nation was founded by ...
1. ... Gomer?
2. ... Madai?
3. ... Yavan?
4. ... Tiras?
(a)Among the children of Yefes (Noach's son), were...
1. Gomer - founder of Germany;
2. Madai - founder of Medes;
3. Yavan - founder of Macedonia [Greece]) and
4. Tiras - founder of Turkey, or some say Persia.
(b)Savta and Savtecha comprise one area, one within the other, which is surrounded by mountains. The inner one (Rashi seems to be saying) takes up an area of a hundred Parsah by a hundred Parsah, and the outer one a thousand Parsah by a thousand Parsah.
(c)Rechovos is known as 'Pras of Meishan' - and Kelach as Pras of Bursif (a country next to Bavel).
(b)What does the Gemara say about Savta and Savtecha?
(c)If Rechovos is known as 'Pras of Meishan', what is Kelach known as?
(a)Who built Ninveh, Rechovos Ir and Kelach, and on what occasion?
(b)It is at first unclear whether it is Ninveh that is referred to as the big city, or Resen. How do we resolve this doubt?
(a)Ashur built Ninveh, Rechovos Ir and Kelach - after he distanced himself (literally and figuratively) from the group of people who connived to build the tower of Bavel. (Ashur was the second son of Shem ben Noach, founder of Asyria).
(b)Ninveh is explicitly referred to as 'the big city' - in the Book of Yonah.
(a)Why were the giants Achiman, Sheshai and Talmai called by those respective names?
(b)They were all sons of Anak. How else does the Gemara explain the Pasuk "Yelidei ha'Anak" (Shelach-Lecha)?
(a)'Achiman' - is the acronym of 'Meyuman she'Achim' (the strongest of the brothers); Sheshai - 'ki'Shechisos' (meaning pits) - because he would make pits in the ground when he walked; and Talmai - 'Telamim Telamim' (furrows) - because when he walked, he would turn the earth into furrows.
(b)"Yelidei ha'Anak" also means children who were so tall that they made the sun look like a necklace round their necks ('Anak' means a necklace).
(a)According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi quoting Rebbi, into whose hands will Rome ultimately fall?
(b)Rebbi learns this from the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu where, with reference to Rome, the Navi writes "Im Lo Yischavu Tze'irei ha'Tzon". This conforms with the horned ram (the second Empire of which Nevuchadnetzar dreamt). What problem did Rabah bar Ula have with this Derashah (also from the dream)?
(c)How does this Kashya demonstrate that the questioner did not know how to learn T'nach? How is it easily answered?
(a)According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi quoting Rebbi, Rome will ultimately fall into the hands of Persia.
(b)Rebbi learns this from the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu where, with reference to Rome, the Navi writes "Im Lo Yischavu Tze'irei ha'Tzon", which conforms with the horned ram (the second Empire of which Nevuchadnetzar dreamt). But how does Rebbi know that it refers to the second Empire , and not to the third one (i.e. that of Greece, which is also referred to in Daniel as a goat (which is included in the family of Tzon)?
(c)This Kashya demonstrates that the questioner did not know how to learn T'nach - because he overlooked the fact that Daniel referred to it as 'the youngest of the sheep', and the youngest of Yefes' sons was Tiras, who Rav Yosef explained, is Persia.
(a)Why is it a Kal va'Chomer that Rome will fall into the hands of Persia?
(b)Rav maintains quite the opposite. In his opinion, it will be Persia that will fall to the Romans. What problem did his Talmidim have with that?
(c)His first answer was that that was the will of Hash-m . What was the second?
(d)Based on a Pasuk in Michah, what statement did Rav make with regard to the kingdom of Rome, which supports his previous statement?
(a)If, with regard to the first Beis Hamikdash, which was built by sons of Shem and destroyed by Bavel (which belonged to the kingdom of Cham), Bavel then fell into the hands of Persia (a son of Shem), then regarding the second Beis Hamikdash, which was built by the Persians themselves (Daryavesh the second, son of Esther and Achashverosh), and destroyed by the Romans, Rome should most certainly fall into the hands of the Persians!
(b)In the opinion of Rav, it will be Persia that will fall to the Romans. But how is it possible that the builders should fall into the hands of the destroyers (is this Divine justice) his Talmidim asked him?
(c)Rav's second answer was that the Persians too, had destroyed Shuls.
(d)Rav also said that Mashi'ach will not come until the Roman Empire has spread throughout the world.
(a)The Lishkas Farhedrin was the only room in the Beis Hamikdash which had a Mezuzah at the entrance. What reason do the Chachamim give to explain this?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah counters that by pointing out that there were many other living-rooms in the Beis-Hamikdash. Who would stay in those rooms?
(c)According to him then, why did the Lishkas Farhedrin have a Mezuzah, and those other rooms, not?
(d)How does Rebbi Yehudah explain the Pasuk in Amos "Vehikeisi Beis ha'Choref Al Beis ha'Kayitz" - implying that even a winter or a summer-house is also called a house?
(a)According to the Chachamim, the Lishkas Farhedrin was the only room in the Beis Hamikdash which had a Mezuzah at the entrance - because the Kohen Gadol lived there for seven days.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah counters that by pointing out that there were many other living-rooms in the Beis-Hamikdash - which were inhabited by the guards (presumably when they were off-duty).
(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah, those other rooms did not have a Mezuzah, because any house (or room) which is not designated for residence both in the summer and in the winter, is Patur from Mezuzah. The reason that the Lishkas Farhedrin did have a Mezuzah - mid'Rabanan, so that people should not say that the Kohen Gadol was being kept in a prison (from which we can infer that a prison is Patur from Mezuzah).
(d)From the Pasuk "Vehikeisi Beis ha'Choref Al Beis ha'Kayitz" - we can only infer that such a dwelling is called 'a summer-house' or 'a winter-house', but not that it is called 'a house'.
(a)The Chachamim exempt a Sukah on Sukos from a Mezuzah. What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a Sukah with regard to Eruv, Mezuzah and Ma'aser?
(b)What are the ramifications of ...
1. ... Eruv in this regard? Which kind of Eruv are we speaking about?
2. ... Ma'aser?
(c)We attempt to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates a Sukah to be fixed with a Mezuzah, with his own opinion by Lishkas Farhedrin, where he claims that strictly speaking, it is Patur from Mezuzah, by explaining that the obligation is only mid'Rabanan. Why is this not feasible?
(a)The Chachamim exempt a Sukah on Sukos from a Mezuzah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah is Chayav as regards Eruv, as regards Mezuzah and as regards Ma'aser.
(b)The ramifications of ...
1. ... Eruv in this regard - concern Eruv Chatzeros. If the Sukah-owner does not participate together with all the other house-owners in that Chatzer, then he forbids them all to carry (according to Rebbi Yehudah).
2. ... Ma'aser - concern the concession of eating Tevel casually, until it has been brought into the house via the front door.
(c)It is not feasible to establish Rebbi Yehudah (who obligates a Sukah to be fixed with a Mezuzah) by a Chiyuv d'Rabanan - because that would be fine by Mezuzah and Eruv, but not by Ma'aser. Why not? Because by declaring those crops Tevel, one is creating the possibility of the owner, thinking that they are Tevel d'Oraisa, will take Ma'asros from other Tevel crops with the intention of exempting them (min ha'Chiyuv al ha'Petur) or vice-versa.
(a)Abaye explains that during the period that one lives in a summer or winter house, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that one is obligated to fix a Mezuzah (and this applies equally to the seven of Hafrashah of the Kohen Gadol. Their Machlokes is during the rest of the year (which the Rabanan decree because of the seven days and Rebbi Yehudah does not - and the Lishkas Farhedrin required a Mezuzah for the reason that we cited above - in 6c.). How does Rava repudiate this?
(b)Rava therefore learns the opposite: that during the rest of the year everyone agrees that one is Patur from Mezuzah on a summer or a winter house. Why then, does Rebbi Yehudah obligate fixing a Mezuzah on a Sukah even during the rest of the year?
(c)What do the Rabanan hold regarding Sukah?
(d)By Lishkas Farhedrin, he maintains, they argue about a Dirah Ba'al Korchah. What exactly, is their Machlokes?
(a)Rava refutes Abaye's contention (that they only argue about temporary dwellings during the time that one is not actually residing in them - but as long as one is, both agree that one is Chayav) - on the basis of the fact that they also argue by a Sukah on Sukos, which the Rabanan exempt from Mezuzah!
(b)According to Rava, everyone agrees that during the rest of the year a temporary dwelling is Patur from Mezuzah - the reason that Rebbi Yehudah obligates a Sukah all year round is because he follows his reasoning elsewhere, where he says that a Sukah must be a permanent structure (and therefore fit to be used the whole year round).
(c)The Rabanan hold that a Sukah can be a Diras Ara'i (a casual dwelling).
(d)By Lishkas Farhedrin, Rava maintains, the Rabanan hold that a forced dwelling is nevertheless called a dwelling; whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds that, since the Kohen Gadol did not live there of his own accord, it is not called a dwelling, and it is Patur from mezuzah.
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, why did the Chachamim obligate fixing a Mezuzah on Lishkas Farhedrin (during the seven days that the Kohen Gadol lived there) - even though, it was really Patur?
(b)Why does the Tana of the Beraisa obligate fixing a Mezuzah on Sha'ar Nikanor (Sha'ar ha'Mayim - according to the Gra) of all the eastern gates?
(c)Why did the Gemara initially think that the author of that Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Yehudah?y
(d)How do we reconcile the Beraisa with Rebbi Yehudah's opinion?
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Chachamim obligated fixing a Mezuzah on Lishkas Farhedrin (during the seven days that the Kohen Gadol lived there) - so that people should say that the Kohen Gadol is being held in a prison (as we explained above).
(b)The Tana of the Beraisa obligated fixing a Mezuzah on Sha'ar Nikanor (Sha'ar ha'Mayim - according to the Gra) of all the eastern gates - because it was the outer gate leading to Lishkas Farhedrin.
(c)The Gemara initially thought that the author of that Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because even Lishkas Farhedrin itself is only Chayav a Mezuzah because of a decree, so to obligate the Sha'ar Nikanor (or the Sha'ar ha'Mayim) would be a decree on a decree (a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah), which Chazal do not normally initiate.
(d)The Gemara concludes that the author could well be Rebbi Yehudah, and he considers it all to be one decree (i.e. Chazal issued one decree, incorporating both the inner and the outer gates of the Lishkas Farhedrin).