Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
(f) An night Achyah brought the tickets to Yochanan and received his money (shortfalls were
made up by Yochanan's personal funds) and overage went to Hekdesh.
(g) If one lost his ticket he had to wait for the night's accounting.
(h) The tickets were dated to avoid fraud.
7) THE TICKET FOR THE POOR SINNER
(a) Question: That ticket should be identical with the Gedi!?
(b) Answer: The Metzora needed an extra Log of oil.
1. According to Rabanan he brought his own oil (a savings).
(c) Question: What Nesachim are brought for a Rachel (female Ayil)?
(d) Answer: It can be inferred from the Mishnah (similar to the Gedi, undifferentiated between
young and mature, male and female).
(e) This is derived from the Pasuk which declares the Nesachim of the Egel and Shor to be the
same.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(b) There was a tradition that the spot where the wood for the Mizbeach was checked was above
the interred Aron HaKodesh (and one Kohen paid with his life for this information).
2) THE SHOFAROS
(a) The Bereisa teaches that the Shofaros were narrow at the neck and wider below.
(b) This was to prevent theft/fraud.
3) IS THE ARK INTERRED OR WAS IT EXILED?
(a) The Bereisa teaches that the Aron was exiled with them to Bavel (as the Pasuk [Melachim II
20:17] indicates).
(b) Resh Lakish taught that it is hidden in its place (also based on a Pasuk [Divrei HaYamim II
5:9]).
1. The Gemara goes on to expound that Pasuk.
2. It describes the Badim of the Aron, seen and not seen.
(c) Rabanan taught that the Aron was hidden below the wood room (as indicated by the incident
of the Kohen there, and the manner in which the flame consumed him).
4) MORE ABOUT THE ARON
(a) There is a dispute regarding the Aron:
1. (R. Yehudah) There were two Aronos, one with the Luchos and one with the broken
Luchos; the latter going out to battle with the People.
2. (Rabanan) There was only one Aron, which went out once during the time of Ayli
HaKohen.
(b) The Pasuk in Shmuel I (7:8) appears to support the Rabanan (this was a unique event).
(c) The Pasuk in Shmuel I (14:18) appears to support R. Yehudah (for how could Shaul have
asked for the Aron which was, at the time, in Kiryat Yearim?!).
(d) Rabanan respond that Shaul was asking for the Tzitz (i.e. all the Bigdei Kehunah, so that he
might inquire of the Urim v'Tumim).
(e) The Pasuk in Shmuel II (11:11) appears to support R. Yehudah (refers to the Aron with the
People at the battle, not in Tzion, where Dovid HaMelech had taken it from Kiryat Yearim).
(f) The Rabanan explain that Uriah meant that the Aron does not have a proper home (Beis
HaMikdash).
Next daf
(b) The son of a King is not anointed (Pasuk) unless there are contenders to the throne.
(c) This was the case regarding Shlomo (because of Adoniyahu), Yoash (because of Atalyahu),
Yehoachaz (because of his elder brother, Yehoyakim) and Yehu (because of Yoram).
1. Question #1: But the Kings of Israel (Northern Tribes) were not to be anointed (as in
the Pasuk)?!
2. Question #2: But Yoshiyahu had already hid the oil before the reign of Yehoachaz?!
3. Answer: It was Persimmon Oil, not the anointing oil.
(d) Kings must be anointed from a Keren.
1. Shaul and Yehu were anointed from a Pach.
2. Their reigns were transitory (unlike Dovid and Shlomo).
(e) Kohanim may not be anointed as Kings (derived from two different Pesukim).
6) THE IDENTITY OF YEHOACHAZ
(a) (R. Yochanan) The Yochanan (listed first as the Bechor in Divrei HaYamim I 3:15) is
Yehoachaz.
(b) Question: But it says he was the Bechor (how could Yehoyakim have been his elder brother)?!
(c) Answer: It means the first to rule.
(d) (R. Yochanan) Shalom (4th in the Pasuk) and Tzidkiyahu (3rd in the Pasuk) are one and the
same.
1. Question: But the Pasuk tells us of the *two* people!?
2. Answer: He was 3rd in birth-order and 4th to reign.
3. His name was Tzidkiyahu as he accepted the Din.
4. His name was Shalom for he ended Dovid's monarchy.
(e) (Resh Lakish) His name was actually Masanyah (Pasuk).
7) THE AMOS OF THE MIKDASH
(a) There were Amos of 5 Tefachim, 6 Tefachim, and 6 Tefachim plus a half-Etzba.
(b) (R. Yochanan and R. Meir) The Aron was made with the 6 Tefachim Amah.
(c) (R. Yehudah) The building was made with an Amah of 6; the utensils with an Amah of 5.
(d) R. Meir's position allows for room for the Sefer Torah in the Aron (as calculated).
16b---------------------------------------16b
(e) Resh Lakish subscribes to the position of R. Yehudah (the Aron was made using Amos of 5
Tefachim).
(f) The Gemara calculates the Luchos and broken Luchos into the Aron according to R. Yehudah.
8) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARON
(a) The Aron was three boxes, one within the other.
1. A box of gold within a box of wood, within a box of gold.
2. The requirement of Tetzapenu was fulfilled with covering the top.
(b) (Resh Lakish) There was one box, plated inside and out. (The requirement of Tetzapenu was
fulfilled by covering the seams between the planks).
9) THE WRITING OF THE LUCHOS
(a) (R. Chaninah) The Luchos were written five and five (Pasuk)..
(b) (Rabanan) Ten and ten (Pasuk).
(c) (R. Shimon b. Yochai) Twenty and twenty (Pasuk).
(d) (R. Simai) Forty and forty (Pasuk).
(e) (Chananya b. Achi citing R. Yehoshua) Between each Dibur were written all the details of the
Torah (like a great sea alluded to in the Pasuk).
(f) Resh Lakish praised this teaching.
10) PLACING THE TORAH OF MOSHE
(a) Question: According to R. Yehudah, where was the Sefer Torah of Moshe placed (since, unlike
R. Meir, R. Yehudah does not have room for it in the Aron)?
(b) Answer: There was a shelf (until the Plishtim sent the box).
(c) Question: Why wasn't room allocated for it in the Aron?
(d) Answer: The Torah says that the Sefer is to be placed beside (MiTzad) the Aron.
(e) Question: Why, then, does R. Meir differ?!
(f) Answer: The Pasuk (Shemos 25:21) so indicates.
(g) Question: According to R. Yehudah, the Pasuk is out of order (the instructions regarding the
cover come before the contents of the Aron).
(h) Answer: There is no time-sequence in the Torah (and the order is time-reversed).
11) THE GIVING OF THE TORAH
(a) (R. Pinchas citing Resh Lakish) The Torah given by HaShem to Moshe was white flame
engraved into black flame, mixed in flame, etched in flame and given in flame.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(j) The words "V'Aleyhu l'Serufah" speak of the leaves of the fruit trees growing from the springs
of the Mikdash.
1. One will suck the leaves for his nourishment.
2. Its medicinal value is to release the "mouth."
3. There are four opinions regarding which "mouth" is being released.
4) THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIKDASH
(a) When Nevuchadnezar came to depose Yehoyachin...
(b) Yehoyachin offered back the keys of the Mikdash...
1. He threw them and they did not come back down.
2. Alternately, a sort of hand took them.
17b---------------------------------------17b
(c) When the officers of Yehudah saw, they fell from their roofs (Yeshayah 22:1).
5) HALACHAH 3: THIRTEEN SHULCHANOS
(a) They are listed with their materials and their locations.
(b) The steps of the Lechem are followed from table to table.
6) LECHEM ON SILVER OR MARBLE
(a) Question: The Bereisa says that the Lechem was on silver, while our Mishnah says marble!?
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah holds they were not of silver since it generates heat (causing spoilage to
the Lechem).
(c) Question: But the warm freshness of the bread all week was miraculous!?
(d) Answer: We do not discuss (rely on) the miracles.
(e) The Bereisa holds silver, and not marble because the latter introduces cold (and the Lechem
needed to be warm).
(f) Question: But the miracle...
(g) Answer: We do not discuss the miracles.
7) IN THE ABSENCE OF NEW LECHEM
(a) Question: If there was no new Lechem, would we leave the Lechem of the present week on the
Shulchanos for the next?
(b) Answer: The Pasuk teaches that the Lechem must *always* be there (even post date).
18b---------------------------------------18b
(d) Answer: R. Yehudah is speaking where we know that one of the owners died.
(e) Question: But Bereirah should resolve the matter!?
(f) Answer: R. Yehudah does not hold of Bereirah.
6) THE GIZAR OF WOOD
(a) Question: Does our Mishnah only obligate him to bring two if the donor was not specific, but
if he specified one Gizar that would suffice?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah in Yoma indicates that each Gizar is a separate offering (a separate
Kohen brought each).
7) THE AMOUNT OF WOOD IN A GIZAR
(a) (R. Yehoshua b. Levy) The Gizar was an Amah thick (using "smiling" Amos), by an Amah
length (stinting Amah).
(b) (R. Ami) It was like a Tortani.
(c) It was a stinting Amah long to allow room for the Kohanim on the Mizbeach.
8) LEVONAH NOT LESS THAN A KOMETZ
(a) The source is the word Azkarah found by a donation of Levonah and by the Lechem HaPanim
(both are a Kometz).
(b) Question: But the Lechem HaPanim was doubled (two Kometzim)?
1. Answer (R. Ila): [According to our text] The Kometz of the Lechem HaPanim was a
separate offering (and the Minchas Choteh as well as the donated Levonah are both
learned from it).
2. (R. Yosah) From R. Ila we learn that the donated Levonah must be the Kometz of a
large Kohen.
3. (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yirmiyah) An average person (since the donor is free to choose
the Kohen).
(c) The GR"A understands the answer differently:
1. Answer (R. Ila): The donated Kometz is derived not from Lechem HaPanim, but from
other Menachos.
2. (R. Yosah) The Kometz must match the hand of the Kohen.
3. (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yirmiyah) It may match the hand of the donor.
(c) Even when the meat of Korbanos might be valid, it cannot be eaten, but it must be retained
until it is certainly invalid, and then burnt.
(d) The manner in which the meat is cut will indicate its origin.
19b---------------------------------------19b
6) MONEY ON HAR HABAYIS IS CHULIN
(a) Question: Could the money not be from Hekdesh (Shekalim)?
(b) Answer: There is a Chazakah that the Kohen would not take money out of the Lishkah before
redeeming it on an animal.
7) THE INVALIDATION OF HESECH HADA'AS
(a) (R. Eliezer citing R. Hoshayah) Meat which became invalidated through Hesech HaDa'as
must develop an additional invalidation before being burned.
(b) Our Mishnah (which says that it must develop an additional invalidation and is then burned)
is cited as a support for the above.
(c) (R. Yosi) The Law of the Mishnah is (not because of Hesech HaDa'as, but rather) because of
our doubts if the meat has already become invalid (Nosar).
(d) [The above step according to the GR"A] (R. Yosi) Such doubtful meat should be Tahor (as
with any doubt in Reshus HaRabim), but the reason for burning this meat is we cannot eat it
(since it may already be invalid) and we may not burn it (since it may not be invalid).
8) MEAT WHICH IS FOUND DEPENDS ON ITS CUT
(a) (R. Krispa citing R. Yosi b. Chaninah) Whole limbs are definitely Neveilah, and one would get
Malkos for eating them.
(b) This seems supported by our Mishnah which speaks in definite terms (permitted-completely,
Neveilah-even with Malkos).
(c) (Same source as a.) Whole limbs which are tied together are permitted.
9) SITUATIONS OF DOUBT
(a) A person is in doubt regarding the meat he bought in one of ten stores (nine sell Neveilah and
1 sells Kosher) - it is presumed not Kosher.
(b) If he found meat in such a town, we follow the majority (non-Kosher)
(c) Even if (in case a.) the nine stores sell Kosher, it is presumed non-Kosher.
(d) If he found meat in such a town, we follow the majority (Kosher).
(e) (R. Yochanan) If the meat were found in the hands of a Gentile, it is the same as in the
markets above.
(f) R. Mana pointed out an incident which, he said, indicated against R. Yochanan.
(g) R. Yochanan restricted his law to a case where we saw the Gentile merchant leaving the store
of a Jew.
10) MEAT BOUGHT BY A GENTILE FROM A JEW
(a) An incident is recorded where a Jew bought meat through a Gentile from another Jew and it
turned out to be Neveilah.
(b) Rebbi taught that this one case cannot prohibit all of the butcher shops in town.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(f) Cheese found in the Pundak of Levi was permitted on the same grounds as above (and their
ruling was similarly vindicated).
2) ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOUND ARTICLES
(a) R. Mana reported to R. Yosi that the Rabbis would announce their find even from a public
thoroughfare.
(b) R. Yosi responded that R. Mana's father, R. Yona, often taught that such a find would enrich
him, not needing to be announced.
(c) Nevertheless, R. Yona, when confronted with such a find, did not take it for himself, but
rather announced it.
3) HALACHAH 3: THE STATUS OF FOUND ANIMALS
(a) An animal found within a radius of Jerusalem to Migdal Eder, the males are brought as Olos;
the females as Shelamim.
(b) (R. Yehudah) If the animal is fit as a Korban Pesach then it is brought as a Pesach [if found
within 30 days before Pesach].
(c) Originally the finder had to put up collateral guaranteeing that he would bring the Nesachim
for the found animal.
1. This practice was eliminated and the Nesachim were provided at public expense.
2. This was the first in a list of seven conditions instituted by Beis Din, as listed.
20b---------------------------------------20b
4) BRINGING FOUND MALES AS OLOS
(a) Question: But the Shelamim could also be from males?!
(b) Answer: The animal is not brought as an Olah, but its value provides for both an Olah and a
Shelamim, if the finder wishes to address all of the doubts which surround it.
1. He is Mechalel the money on the animals, like R. Meir (who holds that Hekdesh
b'Meizid is Mischalel).
2. He then brings Olos and Shelamim with the money.
(c) Question: But how can he be Mechalel b'Meizid!?
1. This ability is only according to R. Meir.
2. We hold like R. Yehudah would disagrees!
(g) When asked why he refused the question, he said that his poverty (having to buy bread from
the baker) caused him to be unsettled and thus unable to properly respond.
(h) Question: And what, indeed, is the Halachah regarding a Revi'is of blood from a Neveilah?
(i) Answer [R. Yehoshua b. Pesura testified]: It is Tahor.
(j) Rebuttal: No, it is not a Machshir, but it is Metamei.
(k) Question: But we were taught in a Mishnah that only the blood of a Sheretz has this quality
(Tamei but not Machshir)?!
(l) Answer: Its uniqueness is its *amount* (the measure for its blood being equal to the measure
of its flesh - KeAdashah) not the quality of Tamei but not Machshir.
(m) [R. Yosi] There is a Machlokes Amoraim regarding the blood of a Neveilah (one says Tamei
and one says Tahor).
1. The one who says Tamei aligns with R. Yehudah.
2. The one who says Tahor aligns with R. Yehoshua b. Pesura.
(n) [R. Avduma] It is correct to say that R. Yehudah maintains that the blood of Neveilah is
Tamei since he was the Posek in the house of Rebbi (and he said that more than a Revi'is is
Tamei).
4) SPITTLE IS TAHOR EXCEPTING THE UPPER MARKET
(a) Question: Why was there a Gezeirah on the upper market?
(b) Answer: On account of the presence of gentiles there.
5) THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND THE FRINGES
(a) The majority (Tamei) would walk in the center of the road throughout the year and the
Tehorim (on the edges) would warn the Temei'im to be careful.
(b) On the Regalim it was the opposite.
6) ALL UTENSILS ARE TAMEI ON THE DOWN STAIRCASE
(a) Question: But we were taught that there was no Gezeirah on Kelim in Yerushalayim!?
(b) Answer: If they are found on the down staircase, it is certain.
7) THE BURIAL UTENSILS
(a) Aba Shaul called them Tziporin (not Merutzim).
(b) The Gemara cites reasons for each name.
8) A KUPITZ TIED TO A KNIFE IS LIKE THE KNIFE
On to Yoma