1)

(a)Bearing in mind that "Beheimah" incorporates 'Chayah', Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Vayikach No'ach mi'Kol ha'Beheimah ha'Tehorah u'mi'Kol Of ha'Tahor" that - No'ach sacrificed on the Mizbe'ach animals and beasts and birds from every species, male and female, whole or blemished.

(b)All kinds of Ba'alei-Mum cannot be all-inclusive however, since Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'mi'Kol ha'Chai mi'Kol Basar", that - No'ach was not permitted to take any animal with a missing limb.

2. ... "Lechayos Zera al-P'nei Kol ha'Aretz" that - he was not permitted to bring a T'reifah either.

(c)The problem with learning T'reifah from "Lechayos Zera ... " is - from the opinion that holds that T'reifos can survive a year.

(d)Consequently, we preclude T'reifos from the animals that No'ach took with him - from the word "Itach" (like No'ach, who was not a T'reifah (as we will now see).

2)

(a)We learn from the Torah's description of No'ach as ...

1. ... Tzadik - that he was righteous in deed.

2. ... Tamim - that he was also righteous in Midos (humble and patient).

(b)We know that he was not a T'reifah - because if he was, then why would the Torah write "Itach", which would then suggest that he should take with him animals that were T'reifos like him?

(c)And "Lechayos Zera" - merely indicates that "Itach" does not just mean to keep him company.

(d)Bearing in mind that the Torah had not yet been given, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan explains the Tana's mention of Temei'in and Tehorin to mean - (not species, but) animals that had inter-bred, and animals that had not).

3)

(a)Since, as Rav Chisda explains, No'ach knew which animals had not inter-bred by passing them in front of the Teivah, based on the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Ba'im Zachar u'Nekeivah Ba'u", Rebbi Avahu learns that - the animals came by themselves to be chosen by No'ach.

(b)No'ach knew which species were eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, and which were not - from whether they came in pairs of two (in wich case they were not) or in groups of seven (in which case they were).

(c)The problem with the Beraisa's statement that before the Mishkan was erected, they all brought only Olos is that - the Pasuk in Mishpatim specifically writes (in connection with Matan Torah) "Vayizb'chu Zevachim Shelamim".

(d)We solve the problem - by restricting the Tana's statement to Nochrim; Yisrael already brought Shelamim from Matan Torah and onwards.

4)

(a)Whether Nochrim may bring Shelamim or not, is a Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. One of them proves from the word "u'me'Chelveihen" (in the Pasuk in Bereishis "ve'Hevel Heivi Gam Hu mi'Bechoros Tzono u'me'Chelveihen") - that Nochrim must have brought Shelamim too (because an Olah is brought in its entirety, and not just the Chalavim.

(b)Whereas the other opinion proves from the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim that they did not, from the Pasuk (in connection with Mashi'ach) "Uri Tzafon u'Vo'i Teiman", which he interprets as a call to the nations of the world that only Shecht Korbanos (Olos) in the north and the nation (Yisrael) that Shechts them in the south as well (Shelamim) to come and greet Mashi'ach.

(c)The ...

1. ... latter opinion interprets "u'me'Chelveihen" to mean - from the choicest of their animals.

2. ... former opinion interprets "Uri Tzafon u'Vo'i Teiman" - as a call to the respective winds to gather the exiles from their respective parts of the world and return them to Eretz Yisrael.

5)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Bo "Gam Atah Titen be'Yadeinu *Zevachim* ve'Olos" is that - it seems from there that Paroh gave Moshe Shelamim to sacrifice on his behalf.

2. ... "Vayikach Yisro Olah u'Zevachim be'Yado" is - that if, as the chronological order of events suggests, Yisro arrived in the Midbar before Matan Torah, when even Yisrael were considered B'nei No'ach, how could Yisro bring a Shelamim.

(b)We dispense with ...

1. ... the first problem - by translating "Zevachim" as Chulin animals to be Shechted (and eaten by Yisrael [seeing as Lizbo'ach" really means to Shecht)

2. ... the second problem (initially) - by establishing the Korbanos in question as having been brought after Matan Torah.

(c)This answer cannot be unanimous - because the b'nei Rabbi Chiya and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue over whether Yisro arrived before or after Matan Torah, and if he came before, the answer will fall away.

(d)The opinion that holds that Yisro arrived before Matan Torah - follows the opinion of the Tana (mentioned earlier) who holds that the B'nei No'ach may bring Shelamim, too.

6)

(a)Yisro's arrival at Har Sinai is also a Machlokes Tana'im. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, Yisro went out to Har Sinai, because he heard about the battle with Amalek - following the chronological order of the Parshiyos.

(b)Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i says that - he went to Har Sinai because he heard about Matan Torah (that had taken place).

(c)The people of the world went running to Bil'am at the time of Matan Torah - because of Hash-m's Powerful Voice that could be heard from one end of the world to the other.

7)

(a)When they asked Bil'am whether Hash-m was perhaps bringing ...

1. ... a flood on the world, he replied that - Hash-m had promised never to send another flood.

2. ... a conflagration to consume the entire world, he replied that - He had also sworn not to destroy the world, like the Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Vayeishev Hash-m Melech Le'olam" (and there is no king without subjects).

(b)Bil'am therefore explained to them that - the frightening noise was connected with Hash-m intention to hand the desirable object (that had been stored away by Him for the nine hundred and seventy-four generations prior to the creation) to His children.

(c)The significance of the nine hundred and seventy-four generations is - that this is the number of generations that Torah preceded the creation.

(d)The connection between these generations and the Pasuk "Davar Tzivah le'Elef Dor" is that - the above 974 generations, plus the 26 between Adam and Moshe, adds up to 1000.

8)

(a)The famous 'Pasuk' in Tehilim which Bil'am quoted the nations, to inform them that Hash-m was giving Yisrael the Torah was - "Hash-m Oz le'Amo Yiten" ...

(b)... to which they responded - "Hash-m Yevarech es Amo va'Shalom".

(c)According to Rebbi Eliezer (ben Ya'akov, according to some commentaries), Yisro was attracted to Har Sinai by the same event which Rachav ha'Zonah referred to with awe - namely, Keri'as Yam-Suf.

(d)In describing the fear that Keri'as Yam-Suf inspired, when Rachav used the term "ve'Lo *Kamah* Od Ru'ach *ba'Ish*" (whereas the Pasuk later writes "ve'Lo Hayah bam Od Ru'ach"), she meant that - the men were even unable to be intimate with their wives out of fear.

9)

(a)Rachav knew about that, due to a statement of Mar - who said that there wasn't a prince or important dignitary who had not been intimate with her.

(b)She was ten when Yisrael left Egypt, and fifty when they entered Eretz Yisrael. During those forty years - she had been engaged in prostitution.

(c)She requested from Hash-m that the rope and the window which she used to enable the spies to escape, and the flax with which she covered her well to hide Kalev - should serve to atone for her sordid past ...

(d)... because that is how she used to protect the men who used her services, and help them escape.

10)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "Daber el b'nei Yisrael" that - the Isur of Shechutei Chutz does not pertain to Nochrim, who are therefore permitted to build a Bamah and to bring on it whatever they please.

(b)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov Amar Rav Asi - prohibits assisting them to build one nowadays (since they are forbidden to us).

(c)Rabah qualifies Rav Asi's Isur however - by permitting a Yisrael to teach a Nochri how to build one.

11)

(a)Ifra Hurmiz - the mother of Shavur Malka (King of Persia) sent a Korban to Rava ...

(b)... with instructions to offer it up for the sake of Hash-m.

(c)Rava sent Rav Safra and Rav Acha bar Huna to see to the Korban, with instructions - to appoint two young Nochri men, who were born on the same day (as a nicety) to sacrifice it ...

(d)... and he instructed them to build - a Mizbe'ach from the slime that builds up by the sea-shore.

12)

(a)Rava also insisted that they use - fresh wood that had never been used for someone's private needs.

(b)He also insisted that they use a new spade - made of a specific metal with which one is able to draw fire from a stone.

(c)The source for this is Rebbi Elazar bar Shamua - who learned in a Beraisa that - the firewood for a Korban, like the Mizbe'ach on which the Korban is brought, must not have been used for someone's private needs.

(d)The problem with this statement, bearing in mind that we are talking about a Bamah is - that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua himself it seems in a Beraisa, concedes that the prohibition does not extend to Bamos (as we will now see).

(e)Two Pesukim discuss David's purchase of Aravnah's threshing-floor, which he bought - as the location in which the Beis-Hamikdash would later be built.

13)

(a)To reconcile the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, which gives the price of Aravnah's threshing-floor as *six hundred* gold Shekalim, with the Pasuk in Shmuel, which records the price as *fifty* silver Shekel, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa establishes the former with regard to the full price that David paid, and the latter, to the amount that each of the twelve tribes paid towards its purchase (see Agados Maharsha).

(b)Based on the fact that the latter Pasuk adds "Bakar ... " to the sale, Rebbi (in the name of Aba Yossi ben Dustai) resolves the discrepancy - in that David purchased the cattle, the wood and the location of the Mizbe'ach for fifty Shekalim, and the area of land for six hundred Shekel.

(c)Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua disagrees with Rebbi, inasmuch as, based on the Pasuk in Shmuel - he subtracts the location of the Mizbe'ach from the purchase of the fifty Shekalim (and adds it to the six hundred).

(d)Rava answers the initial Kashya (that it appears from there that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua agrees that a Bamah does not require fresh wood [See 12d]) - by establishing the plowing vessels there too, as new ones that Aravnah had not yet used.

14)

(a)One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula translates as Mitah shel Turbal, whereas, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Samtich *le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos", Abaye redefines it as - a sort of wooden goat with sharp spikes and niches, which one passes over the stalks of corn after they have been threshed, cutting them up and turning them into hay.

(b)Rachbah presented his son the discrepancy between the Pesukim in Divrei Hayamim and Shmuel - reconciling them like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa.

(c)And he explained the fact that the first Pasuk refers to golden Shekalim, and the second, to silver ones - by suggesting that he claimed fifty gold Shekalim's-worth of Shekalim in silver coins from each tribe, which he subsequently gave to Aravnah.

15)

(a)Referring to our Mishnah Kodshim Kalim Ne'echalin be'Chol Machaneh Yisrael (with reference to the desert), Rav Huna states be'Chol Mekomos Yisrael, which we initially interpret to mean that - in the desert there was no Din of Machaneh Yisrael, and they were permitted to eat Kodshim anywhere, even outside the extremity of the Camp.

(b)We query Rav Huna however, from a Beraisa, which compares Yerushalayim to the desert. The boundaries of Machaneh Yisrael in Yerushalayim - were from the walls of the city till the outside of the Har ha'Bayis.

(c)Machaneh Shechinah constituted the entire area within Sha'ar Nikanor, and Machaneh Leviyah - from the Har ha'Bayis until Sha'ar Nikanor (the gate leading to the Ezras Yisrael).

(d)The equivalent of within Sha'ar Nikanor in the desert was - the Kela'im (the hangings of the Azarah.

16)

(a)In any event, we see from this Beraisa that Machaneh Yisrael in the desert (to which the Tana compares Yerushalayim) did have boundaries. So we reinterpret Rav Huna's statement (be'Chol Mekomos Yisrael) to mean that - whenever they traveled, they took their Kodshim Kalim with them, to eat once they set up camp again.

(b)If not for Rav Huna, we would have thought that - it becomes Pasul be'Yotzei, once the camp has been dismantled.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "ve'Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" however that - to a certain extent, Machaneh Yisrael retains its identity, even whilst traveling.