# dafyomi

lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE 'MITZVAH' OF ARAVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Aravos were brought from Motza and arranged 
          around the Mizbe'ach with their points bent 
          over the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shofar was blown.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Each day the Kohanim circled the Mizbe'ach once 
          and said Ana Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> They said Ani Vahu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  On the seventh day they circled the Mizbe'ach 
          seven times.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  They bid farewell to the Mizbe'ach with Yofi 
          Lecha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> They said 'l'Kah u'Lecha 
          Mizbe'ach.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The same procedure was followed on weekdays and 
          Shabbos (but the Aravos were brought and 
          preserved in water from before Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan b. Beroka):</font></b> Palm branches were 
          brought and beaten on the base of the 
          Mizbe'ach, giving the day its name, Chavot 
          Charayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  After completing the Mitzvos of Lulav and 
          Esrog, they would eat the childrens' Esrogim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MOTZA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Motza was also called Kalni'a.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does our Tana call it Motza.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because it was excluded from government 
          taxes.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MANY LONG ARAVOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Aravos were 11 Amos tall in order to lean 
          over the Mizbe'ach one Amah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mereimar citing Mar Zutra):</font></b> We thus see that 
          the Aravos were resting on the Yesod (not on 
          the floor).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mizbe'ach rose an Amah from the floor 
               and indented to form the Yesod.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Five Amos higher it indented again to form 
               the Sovev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Three Amos higher it indented again to 
               from the Gag of the Mizbe'ach, with 
               corners which rose up another Amah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Thus in order to bend naturally onto the 
               Mizbe'ach the Aravos must have been 
               standing on the Yesod.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Avahu):</font></b> On what basis must the 
          Aravos be taller than the roof of the 
          Mizbe'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk Isru Chag Ba'Avosim Ad Karnos 
          ha'Mizbe'ach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE VERSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu citing R. Elazar):</font></b> This Pasuk also 
          teaches the merit of one who takes the Lulav 
          and Hadas properly.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: 'BEAUTY IS YOURS, O MIZBE'ACH!'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Mishnah relates that at the end of the festival, the people took leave of the Beis ha'Mikdash and declared, 'Yofi Lecha, Mizbe'ach! Yofi Lecha, Mizbe'ach!' -- 'Beauty is yours, Mizbe'ach! Beauty is yours, Mizbe'ach!'
</p><p>
<b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (end of <b>NITZOTZEI <b><b>OR</b></b></b>) explains that the meaning of this declaration can be understood based on the meaning of the 'Hadran' recited upon the completion of a Maseches. According to some commentators (see Sefer ha'Chayim, ch. 3), the words 'Hadran Alach' mean not only that 'we shall return to (review) you.' The words 'Hadran Alach' also mean that 'our Hadar, or splendor, comes from you.' When we complete a Maseches, we declare that we attained splendor through the completion of the Maseches as a result of the splendor of the Torah that Hash-m instilled in the Maseches.
</p><p>
Similarly, when the people completed the Avodah on Sukos, a festival full of exhilarating Simchah and splendor, they declared that they attained splendor through honoring the Mizbe'ach (and the Korbanos brought upon it) which is the vehicle through which Hash-m provides atonement for the sins of the people.
</p><p>
Rav Margoliyos points out another allusion to the declaration mentioned in the Gemara here. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (31a) discusses how the Aliyos of the Torah reading of Parshas Ha'azinu are divided. The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the division of the Aliyos, which is comprised of the first letter of the beginning of each paragraph in the Parshah: 'ha'Ziv Lach' (H, Z, Y, V, L, <b><b><b>CH</b></b></b>). The division of the final weekly reading of the Torah into these paragraphs, which form a mnemonic of 'ha'Ziv Lach,' alludes to our desire to express our joy as we finish the Torah. We declare, 'ha'Ziv Lach' -- 'The splendor is yours,' just as we declare upon the completion of a Maseches, 'Hadran Alach.' With this expression we acknowledge that we have merited to gain the splendor of the Torah through the weekly reading of the Torah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmiyah citing R. Shimon b. Yochai citing 
          R. Shimon HaMechuzi citing R. Yochanan 
          HaMekusi):</font></b> The Pasuk also praises one who 
          adorns the Festival with food and drink.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ATZEI' 'SHITIM' 'OMDIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chizkiyah citing R. Yirmiyah citing R. Shimon 
          b. Yochai):</font></b> Mitzvos must be done as the article 
          grows (learned from Atzei Shitim Omdim, and 
          supported by the Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Omdim also teaches that the Kerashim support 
          their gold plating.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  It also teaches that they are eternal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>MORE CITATIONS OF CHIZKIYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon b. Yochai asserted that he could 
          exempt the world from Justice, moreso with his 
          son and still moreso with Yosam b. Uziahu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon b. Yochai reported seeing very few 
          B'nei Aliyah, being certain that he and his son 
          were among them, even if there were only two 
          altogether.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Rava taught that there are <i>many</i> 
          Tzadikim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Not many who see clearly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Abaye taught (based on the word 
          Lo in the Pasuk in Yeshayah) that there are no 
          fewer than 36 such Tzadikim who receive the 
          Shechinah daily!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Only very few may approach without 
          permission.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE FAREWELL TO THE 'MIZBE'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> LeKah Ul'cha seems to be joining 
          something else to the Shem Shamayim, chas 
          v'Shalom!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The two terms must be understood 
          separately, acknowledging Hash-m, and then the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YOCHANAN BEN BEROKAH TAUGHT THAT THEY BROUGHT PALM BRANCHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yochanan's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Huna):</font></b> The plural Kapos implies one 
          for Lulav and one for the Mizbe'ach (the 
          Rabanan disagree since the word is written as 
          though it were singular).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Levi):</font></b> It is from a Sevara, not a 
          Pasuk (emphasizing the single hearted 
          commitment of Klal Yisrael to Hash-m).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>'BERACHOS' OVER THE LULAV AND SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Berachah is 
          recited over the Lulav each of the seven days, 
          but only once over the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Lulav (unlike Sukah) has an new 
               obligation each day since there is no 
               Mitzvah at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The 
          Berachah is recited over the Sukah each of the 
          seven days but only once over the Lulav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Sukah is d'Oraisa all seven days 
               while Lulav is d'Oraisa (outside the 
               Mikdash) only on the first day (the rest 
               are Zecher l'Mikdash).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> They are both 
          recited each of the seven days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosef):</font></b> Adopt the position of Rabah bar bar 
          Chanah since even Ravin agrees with him 
          regarding Sukah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE 'ISPAKLARYA HA'ME'IRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Raban Shimon bar Yochai, who said that there is a very small number of 'Bnei Aliyah,' individuals truly dedicated to the service of Hash-m who merit to greet the Shechinah. The Gemara questions his statement from a verse in Yechezkel (48:35) which implies that there are many thousands of Bnei Aliyah. The Gemara answers that Raban Shimon bar Yochai referred only to those Bnei Aliyah who are able to peer through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah,' who perceive the Divine essence with intense clarity.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that there still are 36 people, a significant number, who greet the presence of Hash-m every day through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah.' The Gemara answers that those 36 are the Bnei Aliyah 'who go up only with permission.' Raban Shimon bar Yochai referred to those who do not need permission (Rashi).
</p><p>
According to the Gemara here, there are many Bnei Aliyah who are able to peer through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah' and attain a lucid perception of the Divine. However, this contradicts the Gemara in Yevamos (49b), which teaches that only Moshe Rabeinu was able to peer through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah,' while other prophets were able to see only through an 'Ispaklarya she'Einah Me'irah,' with a clouded vision. How are these two sources to be reconciled? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that the Midrash says only that no other prophet <i>prophesied</i> with the clarity of the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah.' It does not refer to Talmidei Chachamim who achieved closeness with Hash-m through learning Torah. The Gemara in Bava Basra (12a) says that 'Chacham Adif mi'Navi' -- a Torah scholar is greater than a prophet. Accordingly, there are Talmidei Chachamim who perceive Hash-m with great clarity through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah' as a result of their Torah learning.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>, <b>CHIDA</b> (in Pesach Einayim), and <b>SEFAS EMES</b> answer that the Gemara here refers to Tzadikim who see Hash-m through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah' <i>after</i> their deaths, for 'greater is the Tzadik in his death than in his lifetime' (Chulin 7b). Moshe Rabeinu was the only one who saw Hash-m through the 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah' during his lifetime.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'BERACHOS' OVER THE LULAV AND SUKAH (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can Rabah bar bar Chanah hold 
          that, according to R. Yochanan, the Berachah 
          over Lulav is one day and over Sukah is seven, 
          given that we have a Beraisa which teaches the 
          opposite!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Upon making one's own Lulav one recites 
               Shehechiyanu, and Al Netilas Lulav <i>each 
               day</i> of its use.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Upon making one's own Sukah one recites 
               Shehechiyanu, and Leshev ba'Sukah is 
               recited <i>once</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This contradicts Rabah bar bar 
               Chanah both regarding Lulav and Sukah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The problem of Lulav may be 
               addressed by assuming that the Beraisa is 
               speaking in the Mikdash (Lulav all seven 
               days is d'Oraisa).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But Sukah remains a 
               contradiction!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Berachah over Sukah is a Machlokes 
          Tanaim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rebbi):</font></b> One recited the Berachah over 
               Tefilin each time during the day one dons 
               them (even though the Chiyuv has not been 
               interrupted, like Sukah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabanan):</font></b> Only one Berachah (in the 
               morning).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Abaye decided in favor of Rebbi and 
                    Rava in favor of Rabanan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Mari b.bas Shmuel reported that Rava 
                    acted in accordance with Rebbi 
                    (Berachah each time).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We act in accordance with Rebbi regarding 
               Sukah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Mar Zutra reported that R. Papi acted 
                    like Rebbi and that the students of 
                    R. Ashi's Yeshiva recited a Berachah 
                    each time they felt (checked) their 
                    Tefilin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Berachah over 
          Lulav is recited daily.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua b. Levi):</font></b> Only the first day 
          (d'Oraisa outside the Mikdash) gets a Berachah, 
          after which it is Mitzvas Zekeinim (no 
          Berachah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Every day is Mitzvas Zekeinim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the first day is d'Oraisa!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We mean, except the first day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then R. Yitzchak is the same as 
               R. Yehosua b. Levi (yet he appears to be 
               stating a differing opinion)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He meant to support R. Yehoshua b. 
               Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav also holds (like Shmuel) that the Berachah 
          is daily.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is learned from R. Chiya citing Rav 
               regarding Neiros Chanukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We may infer from Chanukah which is 
               d'Rabanan to the remaining days of Lulav.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> If one does not light 
                    Neiros Chanukah he makes a Berachah 
                    when seeing the Neiros of another 
                    Jew.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The details of such 
                    Berachos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What Berachah does he make?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Asher...Tzivanu LeHadlik Ner Shel 
               Chanukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Where did Hash-m command this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The command to listen to the 
               Chachamim (Lo Sasur).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Nachman b. Yitzchak):</font></b> From 
               She'al Avichah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Nachman b. Yitzchak):</font></b> Rav taught the ruling 
          regarding Lulav explicitly (no need to infer it 
          from Chanukah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>''SHE'HECHEYANU'' ON THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One who makes a Sukah recites Shehechiyanu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One who uses his Sukah recited Leshev ba'Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If there is something to add or modify to an 
          existing Sukah he recited Shehechiyanu at that 
          time; otherwise it waits until the first use 
          (two Berachos then).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ashi):</font></b> R. Kehana would recite both over 
          Kidush.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'BERACHAH' OVER SIMULTANEOUS MITZVOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  When performing several Mitzvos together one 
          recites Al ha'Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> One recites a Berachah over each 
          one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira or R. Chanina b. Papa):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk, Baruch Hash-m Yom Yom 
               (as analyzed).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER TEACHINGS OF R. ZEIRA OR R. CHANINA BAR PAPA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Hash-m is unlike man regarding filling an empty 
          vessel versus filling a full one.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: THE BLESSING OF 'LEISHEV BA'SUKAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa says that when one 'enters to sit in the Sukah,' he recites the blessing of 'Leishev ba'Sukah.' This implies that as soon as he enters the Sukah, even before he sits down, he recites the blessing.
</p><p>
At exactly what moment is one supposed to recite the blessing for the Mitzvah of dwelling in the Sukah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 6:12) and <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> cited by the <b>ROSH</b> (4:3) rule that one should recite the blessing immediately upon entering the Sukah, even before he sits down.
</p><p>
Rav Hai Ga'on adds that even if one enters the Sukah with no intention to eat there (for example, he enters his friend's Sukah only with intent to visit his friend), he also recites the blessing. The Rambam, too, makes no mention of a requirement to eat in order to recite the blessing.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Sukah 6:12) writes that one may recite the blessing for the Mitzvah of dwelling in the Sukah after he sits down with intent to eat. The blessing is recited upon the act of eating that he will do in the Sukah. Nevertheless, one recites the blessing when he sits down, because the act of sitting is preparatory to the act of eating. The Rosh points out that this was the practice of <b>RABEINU MEIR</b>, who would recite the blessing after he sat down in the Sukah, and before he ate.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> writes that the universal practice is to recite the blessing for sitting in the Sukah immediately before one eats, <i>after</i> one recites the blessing 'ha'Motzi.' (This is not like the view of the Ra'avad, who says that one recites the blessing when he sits down to eat, even though he will not eat until later.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 639:8) rules like the Rosh, that the blessing is recited only when one actually eats in the Sukah. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> there (639:46) adds that it is best to be stringent and attempt to fulfill all of the opinions: every time one enters the Sukah, he should take a 'Mezonos' food item (at least a k'Beitzah in size), sit down, and recite the blessings of 'Leishev ba'Sukah' and 'Borei Minei Mezonos' and eat.
</p><p>
The Mishnah Berurah (639:48) also adds that if one has no intention to eat bread at all that day, he should recite a blessing as soon as he enters the Sukah, even though he is not going to eat. The only reason why the blessing is delayed until the time one eats in the Sukah is because it is preferable to recite the blessing on the primary use of the Sukah (eating) instead of on the secondary use (sitting in the Sukah). When one has no intention to eat, he must recite the blessing upon entering the Sukah. The Mishnah Berurah, in the name of the <b>CHAYEI ADAM</b>, points out that even if a person <i>did</i> eat in the Sukah that day but he left the Sukah and later returned with intention to sit in the Sukah but not to eat there, he must recite a blessing upon his return. (Although his primary use of the Sukah earlier was to eat there, <i>now</i> his only use of the Sukah is to sit there, because he plans to leave the Sukah again before he returns for the next meal. Therefore, when he re-enters the Sukah he recites the blessing even though he is not going to eat there now.)
</p><p>
(The <b>MA'ASEH RAV</b> (#18) records that the practice of the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> was to recite a blessing every time he entered the Sukah, even when he did not eat there.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: RECITING 'SHEHECHEYANU' ON THE SECOND DAY OF YOM TOV IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that besides the blessing of Shehecheyanu that one recites upon the arrival of Yom Tov, one also recites the blessing of Shehecheyanu when he performs the Mitzvos of the Yom Tov (such as Sukah and Lulav) for the first time.
</p><p>
The Jews who live outside of Eretz Yisrael observe Yom Tov Sheni, a second day of Yom Tov due to the original doubt about the exact date of Yom Tov. (During the times when the Beis Din established the new month based on witnesses' sighting of the new moon, word of the establishment of the new month would not reach the Jews who lived in far-away places, and thus they observed two days of Yom Tov out of doubt. Even today, when a set calendar system is used, the Rabanan decreed that the Jews in those places continue to observe two days of Yom Tov as if they were in doubt.) The Rabanan enacted that all of the blessings that are recited on the first day of Yom Tov be recited on the second day as well. Accordingly, the Jews who live in Chutz la'Aretz recite the blessing of Shehecheyanu as part of Kidush on the second night of Yom Tov.
</p><p>
Does this requirement apply to the blessing of Shehecheyanu that is recited for the Mitzvos of Sukah and Lulav as well? When one picks up the Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz, does he recite another Shehecheyanu?
</p><p>
Although the Beraisa states that one should recite Shehecheyanu upon completing the construction of the Sukah (before Yom Tov), the Gemara concludes that the practice of the Amora'im was not to recite Shehecheyanu at that time, but instead to include it in Kidush at the onset of Yom Tov. Therefore, there is no question with regard to the blessing of Shehecheyanu that is recited for the Mitzvah of Sukah, since it is included in the Shehecheyanu that is recited during Kidush on the second night of Yom Tov. The question remains, though, with regard to the blessing of Shehecheyanu for the Mitzvah of Lulav. Should one who lives in Chutz la'Aretz recite Shehecheyanu again on the second day of Yom Tov when he picks up the Lulav?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (4:2) cites the <b>BEHAG</b> who rules that the blessing of Shehecheyanu that is recited during Kidush of the second night applies to the Mitzvah of Lulav as well, even though that Mitzvah will not be performed until the following day.
</p><p>
The Rosh writes that the Rishonim reject the Behag's ruling. Since the Mitzvah of Lulav does not apply at night, how can the blessing of Shehecheyanu that is recited at night apply to the Mitzvah of Lulav?
</p><p>
(This presumably is the reason why the Behag agrees that the Shehecheyanu recited on the <i>first</i> night of Sukos does not cover the Mitzvah of Lulav that will be performed the next day. The Behag apparently understands that once the obligation of the Mitzvah of Lulav takes effect on the first day, it continues uninterrupted for the next seven days, and thus the obligation applies even at night. Before the first day of Sukos (i.e. the first night, during Kidush), the obligation has not yet taken effect, since it takes effect only when one can fulfill the Mitzvah in practice. It <i>remains</i> in effect once it has already taken effect, even when one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah in practice.)
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim explain instead that there is another reason why one should not recite Shehecheyanu for the Mitzvah of Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov. The Beraisa states that one recites Shehecheyanu on the Lulav <i>before</i> Sukos, when he finishes preparing the Lulav for use. Accordingly, it is obvious that the blessing of Shehecheyanu that one recites on the first day of Yom Tov covers the Lulav, since a blessing of Shehecheyanu covers the Lulav even when one recites it <i>before</i> the first day of Yom Tov.
</p><p>
However, <b>RABEINU SHMUEL</b> of Evreux (cited by the Rosh) rejects this logic. There are only two times at which one may recite Shehecheyanu on the Lulav: when one finishes preparing the Lulav (before Sukos), or when one performs the Mitzvah (on Sukos). The Shehecheyanu on the first day of Yom Tov is recited, out of doubt, on the <i>making</i> of the Lulav, and thus it does not cover the Mitzvah of Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov, which requires that Shehecheyanu be recited on the <i>performance</i> of the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The Rosh counters that even if Rabeinu Shmuel's logic is correct, the Shehecheyanu recited on the first night certainly is just as valid for the Mitzvah of Lulav as the Shehecheyanu recited when one prepares the Lulav. This Shehecheyanu, recited on the first day of Yom Tov (which might not be Yom Tov), is clearly recited for the performance of the Mitzvah. Even if the day is really not Yom Tov, since he must pick up the Lulav anyway because of the doubt, that obligation is enough to make his Shehecheyanu relate to the performance of the Mitzvah. The Rosh concludes, based on his reasoning, that it is not necessary to recite a second Shehecheyanu on the Mitzvah of Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU MANO'ACH</b> (Hilchos Sukah 6:12), however, proposes the opposite logic. Even if one may recite Shehecheyanu for the Lulav before Yom Tov, that is only when he knows why he is reciting the blessing. When he recites the blessing because he has finished preparing the Mitzvah, the blessing is valid. However, when he recites Shehecheyanu because he thinks that today is the first day of Yom Tov and is the correct time for the actual performance of the Mitzvah (and not just the time to prepare), when in reality it is an ordinary day and is not time to perform the Mitzvah, the blessing is ineffectual and is not related to the Mitzvah, because it is based on an error. (Rabeinu Mano'ach writes this with regard to the blessing of Shehecheyanu recited for the Mitzvah of Sukah, but the same logic should apply to the Shehecheyanu recited for the Mitzvah of Lulav.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Halachah follows the opinion of the Rosh, and thus no Shehecheyanu is recited on the Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz (<b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 662:2). Of course, if the first day of Sukos occurs on Shabbos, or one is unable to hold the Lulav on the first day for some other reason, one recites Shehecheyanu on the second day (or whenever he fulfills the Mitzvah of Lulav for the first time). (If, however, one held the Lulav on the first day but merely <i>forgot</i> to recite Shehecheyanu at that time, there is a doubt whether he must recite Shehecheyanu on the second day. See <b>SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN</b> 662:4.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One who is accustomed to listening (is full) 
          hears more (may be further filled) as indicated 
          by the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Alternately, one who reviews what he has 
          learned hears news, unlike one who gives up on 
          reviewing (which is considered Mefaneh Libo 
          L'Vatalah - see Rashi).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>EATING THE ESROG AFTER COMPLETING THE 'MITZVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Esrog remains prohibited the 
          entire seventh day, and is permitted on the 
          eighth, whereas Sukah remains prohibited even 
          on the eighth day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> Esrog is permitted even on the 
          seventh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is their Machlokes?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Resh Lakish holds that the Esrog 
               is only designated for its Mitzvah; R. 
               Yochanan holds that the designation 
               applies to the whole day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Resh Lakish to R. Yochanan):</font></b> But 
               our Mishnah allows eating the Esrog of the 
               children, and, presumably, those of the 
               adults, as well!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, only those of the children 
               (see Rashi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Alternate rendition of the above steps:</font></b> 
               Question (R. Yochanan to Resh Lakish): But 
               our Mishnah only permits the Esrogim of 
               children, presumably those of the adults 
               would be prohibited!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, those of the adults are 
               permitted, and those of children are 
               mentioned only as a common illustration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Papa):</font></b> Why is Sukah (according to 
          R. Yochanan) different than Esrog?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Unlike Esrog, Sukah has use 
          Bein ha'Shemashos and thus becomes Muktzeh all 
          day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Levi):</font></b> The Esrog is indeed Muktzeh all of 
               the eighth day (like Sukah), since it was 
               Muktzeh Bein ha'Shemashos, given the doubt 
               regarding the day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Avuha d'Shmuel):</font></b> The Esrog is permitted 
               on the eighth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Avuha d'Shmuel later rescinded his 
               position in favor of Levi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> However, R. Zeira put forth the original 
               view of Avuha d'Shmuel (only prohibiting 
               on the seventh).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>TWO MORE TEACHINGS OF R. ZEIRA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One should not give the Minim to a minor before 
          fulfilling one's Mitzvah on the first day 
          (since they may acquire it but cannot give it 
          back).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One should fulfill one's promises to a child 
          lest they learn to falsify.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MACHLOKES' R. YOCHANAN AND RESH LAKISH (resumed)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav and R. Asi argue over the same question (if 
          the Esrog is Muktzeh for its Mitzvah or for the 
          day).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Asi):</font></b> If one designates an Esrog for 
               each day of Sukos, it may be eaten right 
               after the Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> It may be eaten only the next day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Asi learns like Resh Lakish and Rav 
               like R. Yochanan.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG ON THE EIGHTH DAY OUTSIDE OF 'ERETZ' 'YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the status of the Esrog 
          outside of Eretz Yisrael on the eighth day?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is prohibited, given the 
          doubt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mereimar):</font></b> It is permitted, in spite 
          the doubt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  After reporting differing practices, the 
          Halachah is like Abaye.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SUKAH ON THE EIGHTH DAY OUTSIDE OF 'ERETZ' 'YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav, cited by R. Yehudah bar R. Shmuel b. 
          Shilas):</font></b> While one must reside in the Sukah on 
          the eighth (which may be the seventh) day, one 
          mentions Shemini Atzeres in his Tefilos, not 
          Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is the eighth day in all 
          regards.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  They are arguing over reciting a Berachah over 
          the Sukah on the eighth day (if it is the 
          eighth in all regards then a Berachah is not 
          said), but they both agree that one must reside 
          in the Sukah on the eighth day.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) ONE WHO GIVES HIS LULAV TO A CHILD ON THE FIRST DAY OF YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Zeira states that one should not give his Lulav to a child on the first day of Yom Tov. A child has the ability to acquire (Koneh) an object from others, but he cannot transfer ownership (Makneh) to others. If an adult gives his Lulav to a child, the adult cannot fulfill the Mitzvah with it, because it belongs to the child and not to him.
</p><p>
In order for a child to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav for the sake of Chinuch, he must do the Mitzvah in the same manner in which he will do it when he becomes an adult (see Insights to Sukah 42:1). For that reason, on the first day of Sukos it does not suffice for an adult merely to lend his Lulav to the child; one must <i>own</i> the Lulav with which he performs the Mitzvah ('Lachem'). On the other hand, the adult cannot give (Makneh) it to the child, because the child will not be able to be Makneh it back to him.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not suggest that the adult give the Lulav to the child as a 'Matanah l'Zman' (a 'temporary gift'), whereby he stipulates that he fully gives the Lulav to the child for a limited period of time (five minutes)? When that time passes, the Lulav returns to its original owner and there is no need for the child to be Makneh it to him.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the adult should be able to give the Lulav to the child in the same way that he can give it to another adult on the first day of Yom Tov, as a 'Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir' (41b). In such a case, the gift takes effect, but only if the recipient eventually returns the object to the original owner. If the recipient does not return the object, then retroactively the original gift does not take effect and the recipient never acquired it in the first place. In the case of the Lulav, the adult should give the Lulav to the child on condition that he return it. Since the child cannot be Makneh it back to the adult, the condition is not fulfilled and it never became the child's Lulav in the first place. In that manner, the adult is able to fulfill the obligation of Chinuch for the child by allowing the child to perform the Mitzvah in the exact manner in which he will perform the Mitzvah as an adult (that is, by receiving a Lulav as a 'Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir'), and the adult does not lose possession of the Lulav and thus is able to fulfill the Mitzvah himself.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (3:30) writes that it is evident from the Gemara here that when one acquires an object as a 'Matanah l'Zman' or a 'Kinyan l'Zman,' a temporary gift or acquisition, that object is not considered fully owned by the recipient. His limited 'ownership' of the object does not fulfill the condition of 'Lachem,' which is necessary in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav. Therefore, nothing is gained if the adult gives the Lulav to the child as a 'Matanah l'Zman,' because it is the same as merely lending it to him (which is also not considered 'Lachem').
</p><p>
With regard to why the adult does not give the Lulav to the child as a 'Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir,' the <b>RITVA</b> here explains that such a gift will have the opposite effect: Since the adult knows, in advance, that the child will be unable to be Makneh the Lulav back to the original owner, his stipulation is one which is impossible to fulfill. Consequently, the stipulation becomes voided and the action is fully binding ('Tenai Batel u'Ma'aseh Kayam'), and thus the child takes full possession of the Lulav and the adult cannot acquire it back from him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (241:4) points out that a number of Rishonim disagree with the Rosh. They maintain that a 'Kinyan l'Zman' <i>is</i> considered an absolute Kinyan and it does fulfill the condition of 'Lachem.' Moreover, they maintain that a 'Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir' itself is actually a 'Kinyan l'Zman' (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Erchin 30a, DH v'Lo; Teshuvos ha'Rosh 35:2, in the name of <b>RABEINU AVIGDOR KOHEN TZEDEK</b> (see Insights to Bava Basra 136:2:c:2); this also appears to be the opinion of the <b>RID</b> as cited by the Rosh 3:30).
</p><p>
Rather, the Ketzos ha'Choshen says that one indeed may give the Lulav to a child with a 'Kinyan l'Zman' and then fulfill the Mitzvah himself afterwards when the child gives it back. The Gemara does not make this suggestion because it merely wants to teach that one should not give the Lulav to a child in such a way that it will be a 'Kinyan Gamur,' an absolute acquisition.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SUKAH ON THE EIGHTH DAY OUTSIDE OF 'ERETZ' 'YISRAEL' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosef):</font></b> Bear R. Yochanan in mind given the 
          incident in which the great Rabbis ate in the 
          Sukah on Shemini Atzeres but did not recite a 
          Berachah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But maybe they held that one 
               does not recite a Berachah on any day past 
               the first!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We have a tradition that they had 
               not yet fulfilled the Mitzvah of Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Alternate rendition of the above discussion:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue over residing in the Sukah 
               (only residing there if it is viewed as 
               the seventh day and not the eighth in all 
               regards) while all agree that one does not 
               recite a Berachah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosef):</font></b> Bear R. Yochanan in mind 
               (don't sit in the Sukah at all) since the 
               one who cited Rav's position (R. Yehudah 
               bar R. Shmuel b. Shilas) himself ate 
               outside the Sukah on the eighth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is to eat in the Sukah but not to 
          recite the Berachah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>''SHE'HECHEYANU'' ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF SUKOS VERSUS THE LAST DAY OF PESACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One recites Shehechiyanu on 
          Shemini Atzeres, but not on the last day of 
          Pesach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Levi b. Chama):</font></b> This is evidenced by the 
          fact that three items of Sukos (Sukah, Lulav 
          and Nisuch ha'Mayim) or, according to R. 
          Yehudah, two items, do not appear on Shemini 
          Atzeres.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then the absence of Matzah on 
               the seventh day should generate a 
               Shehechiyanu there!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (first):</font></b> Only the night differs by 
               Pesach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Shemini Atzeres differs 
               from the day preceding, unlike Pesach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> Shemini Atzeres is 
               distinguished in the Torah because of one 
               Par (versus Parim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Nachman b. Yitzchak):</font></b> The word 
               BaYom singles out Shemini Atzeres (versus 
               Uv'Yom).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> KaMishpat (versus 
               k'Mishpatam).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shall we see R. Yehudah (in the 
          following Beraisa) as a support for R. 
          Yochanan?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> The designated number of all 
               Korbanos of Sukos are Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Parim, whose numbers 
               descend, are not Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But they all (including the 
               Eilim and Kevasim) descend into Shemini 
               Atzeres!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Shemini Atzeres is a 
               separate Regel given that it has its 
               unique Korban, Shir, Berachah and Linah 
               compared to the days of Sukos.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE GEDOLEI HA'DOR GRAZED THEIR ANIMALS DURING SUKOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yosef rules like Rebbi Yochanan, who said that on the eighth day of Sukos outside of Eretz Yisrael, one should sit in the Sukah but not recite the blessing of 'Leishev ba'Sukah.' In Chutz la'Aretz, there is a doubt whether the eighth day is the seventh day of the festival and thus part of Sukos, or the eighth day (Shemini Atzeres) and separate from Sukos.
</p><p>
Rav Yosef rules like Rebbi Yochanan because 'Rav Huna bar Bizna and all of the Gedolei ha'Dor' entered a Sukah on the eighth day in Chutz la'Aretz, and they sat in the Sukah but did not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks that perhaps the reason why they did not recite the blessing was not because they ruled like Rebbi Yochanan, but because they had already recited the blessing on the first day of the festival and they followed the opinion (45b) that one recites the blessing for the Sukah only on the first day. The Gemara answers that this was the first time they had sat in the Sukah for the entire festival, because only now did they return from the fields. The only reason why they did not recite the blessing was because they ruled like Rebbi Yochanan.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> writes, 'I learned from my teachers that they came in from the fields where their animals were grazing, and they had not dwelled in a Sukah for all of the days of the festival.' <b>TOSFOS</b> adds that they did not even have 'shepherd huts' in the fields with which to fulfill the Mitzvah (as the Gemara earlier (8b) describes).
</p><p>
How can it be that these Gedolei ha'Dor, the great sages of the generation, exempted themselves from the Mitzvah of Sukah in order to take care of their animals?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> and others explain that these Gedolei ha'Dor were not away from the Sukah for the entire festival as Rashi says. Rather, they left the Sukah momentarily to check on their animals in the fields. The Gemara (26a) says that watchmen are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah while they work, and the same exemption applies to those who guard flocks of animals. Since these Gedolei ha'Dor became momentarily exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, there was a Hefsek, an interruption, between the blessing they recited at the beginning of the festival and their return to the Sukah after their inspection of the animals. Therefore, their original blessing could not apply to their return to the Sukah, and they should have recited a new blessing upon their return to the Sukah on the eighth day. The only reason they did not recite a new blessing was because they ruled like Rebbi Yochanan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> (in <b>BIKUREI YAKOV</b> 640:24) explains that the Gedolei ha'Dor went out to the fields to learn Torah in isolation in order to enable themselves to achieve greater levels of holiness (see Zohar, Parshas Tetzaveh). Since they were totally immersed in the Mitzvah of learning Torah, they were exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah (25a, 26a). (He adds that they returned to the city on Shemini Atzeres because they did not want Hash-m to hold back the rains on account of their presence in the fields and exposure to the elements.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in <b>NEFESH CHAYAH</b> 640:8) suggests that they did not go out to the fields specifically to watch their animals. Rather, it was a time of persecution against the Jews in Pumbedisa (the city of Rav Huna bar Bizna), and they were forced to flee from the authorities.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>YOSEF DA'AS</b> cites <b>RAV TZVI PESACH FRANK</b> (in <b>HAR TZVI</b>) who writes in the name of <b>RAV CHAIM BERLIN</b> (see also <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES SUKAH</b>) that the Gemara should read 'm'Ifra Asu' instead of 'm'Efer Asu.' 'Ifra' refers to 'Ifra Hurmiz,' the mother of the king of Persia, Shevor Malka (King Shapur II, 309-379 <b><b><b>CE</b></b></b>; Bava Basra 10b). The Gedolei ha'Dor were involved in negotiations with the ruler on behalf of the Jewish people, and therefore they were exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah.
</p><p>
(e) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Sukah 6:13) proposes an ingenuous explanation. The Gemara in Pesachim (52a) states that although it is necessary to observe two days of Yom Tov in places where the people are not expert in determining the new month (such as in Chutz la'Aretz), Talmidei Chachamim who know how to calculate the new month may observe only one day of Yom Tov when they are in isolated, uninhabited areas, even in Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
When the Gedolei ha'Dor went out to the fields in order to watch their animals, they certainly dwelled in a Sukah. However, since they were in an uninhabited area, they were not bound to observe two days of Yom Tov out of doubt (since they were all Talmidei Chachamim who knew how to calculate the new month). Therefore, on the first day of Sukos they recited the blessing for the Mitzvah of Sukah, and that blessing covered the rest of the days of Sukos (since they followed the opinion (45b) that one recites the blessing for the Sukah only on the first day).
</p><p>
However, when they returned to the city on the eighth day, they were obligated to sit in the Sukah, because they had to conduct themselves like the rest of the people of Chutz la'Aretz and treat the eighth day as a doubt. However, the blessing they had recited on the first day could not cover the Mitzvah on the eighth day, because when they recited the blessing, they recited it for the Mitzvah to sit in a Sukah for <i>seven</i> days, and not for the Mitzvah to sit in a Sukah for <i>eight</i> days. Had the Gedolei ha'Dor been in the city during the <i>second</i> day of Sukos, they would have been required to recite a blessing on the Sukah again, out of doubt that perhaps that day was really the first day of Sukos (and the previous day was Erev Sukos and not Sukos). The blessing they would have recited (out of doubt) on the second day would have exempted them from a blessing (out of doubt) on the eighth day.
</p><p>
However, since the Gedolei ha'Dor were <i>not</i> in the city on the second day of Sukos, they recited a blessing only on the <i>first</i> day of Sukos, and that blessing did not exempt them from a blessing on the eighth day (out of doubt), since, if the eighth day was Sukos, the blessing they recited on the first day was recited on <i>Erev</i> Sukos! They would have had to recite a new blessing upon sitting in the Sukah on the eighth day. The fact that they did not recite a new blessing when they sat in the Sukah on the eighth day showed that they ruled like Rebbi Yochanan.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Presumably, its Berachah refers to 
               Shehechiyanu!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, that refers to the unique reference 
          to the day in Tefilah, not to Shehechiyanu.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is further unlikely that R. Yehudah was 
               referring to Shehechiyanu since there is 
               no Shehechiyanu on the seven days of Sukos 
               as implied by R. Yehudah's comparison.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> That may still refer to Shehechiyanu and 
               he is speaking of reciting the Berachah 
               all seven days if it were not said 
               previously.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But there could not be such an 
               obligation given that people do not 
               ordinarily have the required cup of wine 
               to recited Shehechiyanu!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps he does not need a cup of 
               wine, and this supports R. Nachman in his 
               assertion!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> No, it could be that there is no 
               obligation unless he happens upon a cup of 
               wine.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'LINAH' ON SHEMINI ATZERES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could R. Yehudah have required 
          Linah on Shemini Atzeres given his teaching 
          regarding the exclusions of Linah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Pesach Sheni does not 
               require Linah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It is excluded by the proximity of the 
               obligation of Linah to the words Sheshes 
               Yamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This teaches that the days which have a 
               six day follow-up (as in Pesach where 
               Matzah is eaten for the subsequent six 
               days) have Linah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This would appear to exclude 
               Shemini Atzeres!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it excludes Pesach Sheni, which is 
          other- wise similar to Pesach Rishon where 
          these Pesukim appear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This is supported by the Mishnah which teaches 
          that Bikurim require Korban, Shir, Tenufah and 
          Linah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who said that it is R. Yehudah 
               who teaches that Bikurim require Tenufah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We learn it from the Beraisa.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says that v'Hinicho refers 
                    to Tenufah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It cannot mean actual Hanachah since 
                    the Pasuk already said v'Hinachto.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Mishnah is R. 
               Eliezer b. Yakov (who also holds that 
               Bikurim require Tenufah) and we cannot 
               establish that R. Yehudah is the author of 
               the above Mishnah and requires Linah!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer b. Yakov learns that 
                    Bikurim require Tenufah from v'Lakach 
                    ha'Kohen
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> His source is Yad-Yad.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>The resulting procedure is described.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Halachah regarding 
          Shehechiyanu on Shemini Atzeres?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Nachman):</font></b> We recite Shehechiyanu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Sheshes):</font></b> We do not recite Zeman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  l'Halachah, we recite it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports R. Nachman, which calls 
          Shemini Atzeres a separate Regel in regards the 
          six areas of <b><b><b>PZ</b></b></b>'R <b><b><b>KS</b></b></b>'B (Payis, Zeman, Regel 
          [Sukah], Korban, Shira and Berachah).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' 'HALEL' AND 'SIMCHAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Halel and Simchah were all eight days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This teaches us that the full Halel and Simchah 
          (with the Shalmei Simchah) and Kavod Yom Tov 
          are required on Shemini Atzeres just as on the 
          other days of the Sukos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SIMCHAH' ON SHEMINI ATZERES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for Simchah on the 
          eighth?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Ach Sameach comes to add the night of 
          Shemini Atzeres.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it comes to add the 
               first night of Yom Tov and to require that 
               Shelamim be offered on Erev Yom Tov in 
               order to provide Simchah that night!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Ach divides, thus subtracting the 
               first night from Simchah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why add Shemini Atzeres and 
               subtract the first night, when we could do 
               the opposite?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We add that which is already 
               preceded by Simchah, not that which is 
               not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  After completing his meal on the seventh day he 
          should not dismantle the Sukah but he should 
          bring down his utensils from there from 
          Minchah-time in order to honor the upcoming Yom 
          Tov.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO IS UNABLE TO BRING DOWN HIS UTENSILS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What if one has no utensils to bring 
          down?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Then what did he use all week!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What if he has no room to bring them 
          down to?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya b. Ashi):</font></b> He invalidates the 
          Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yehoshua b. Levi):</font></b> He lights a 
          candle therein.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua was speaking of those in Chutz 
          L'Aretz who must still use the Sukah; R. Chiya 
          was speaking of those in Eretz Yisrael who do 
          not need a Kosher Sukah any longer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The distinction of lighting a candle 
          makes the matter evident in a small Sukah, but 
          what evidence of ending the use of the Sukah is 
          there in a large Sukah where one would 
          ordinarily light a candle?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He brings soiled dishes into the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rava has taught that soiled dishes (not cups) 
          may not be brought into the Sukah, thus 
          bringing them in provides the necessary 
          distinction that the Mitzvah is over.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' 'NISUCH HA'MAYIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> A gold pitcher of three Lugim was 
          filled with water from the Shiloach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It was brought through the 'water gate' 
               and the Shofar was sounded.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Kohen went up the Kevesh and turned to 
               his left to the first corner (Southwest).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> There were two silver receptacles for the 
               Nisuch (R. Yehudah says they were plaster 
               but the wine caused them to take a darker 
               silver-like tone), one for water and one 
               for wine.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, THE IDEOLOGY OF 'SIMCHAH' AND 'SASON'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records an intriguing exchange between two heretics named 'Simchah' and 'Sason.' Each heretic tried to prove that he was greater than the other.
</p><p>
What does the Gemara intend to teach with this exchange?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SHEM MI'SHMUEL</b> (Sukos 5672) explains that heretics, who do not acknowledge that Olam ha'Ba exists, believe that the purpose of life is to achieve joy and happiness. The two heretics mentioned in the Gemara disputed which type of joy is greater -- the type known as 'Simchah,' which refers to a continual, constantly-increasing feeling of happiness, or 'Sason,' which refers to sudden, spontaneous joy, the type one feels when stimulated by a surprise. (The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> says that 'Simchah' is an inner joy, while 'Sason' is an outward expression of joy. See <b>YA'IR <b><b>OR</b></b></b>, 'Gil.') Each heretic tried to prove that the other form of joy is dispensable.
</p><p>
When Sason debated with Rebbi Avahu, he said that in the World to Come, Rebbi Avahu will fill up water for him, as it says, 'u'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason,' which the heretic interpreted to mean, 'You will fill up water for Sason.' The heretic asserted that even in the World to Come man has no more noble purpose than the attainment of joy.
</p><p>
Rebbi Avahu responded that the attainment of happiness is not the ultimate purpose in life. Rather, joy is a means to an end; it is a vehicle to help a person serve Hash-m. 'U'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason' means that Sason, joy, will help a person draw Torah (which is compared to water) and attain Ru'ach ha'Kodesh (see Tosfos 50b, DH Chad). Joy enables a person to fulfill the ultimate purpose of life -- to serve Hash-m and achieve closeness to Him through learning Torah and doing Mitzvos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'NISUCH HA'MAYIM' WITH WATER LEFT UNCOVERED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if the water that was set aside before Shabbos for use for the Nisuch ha'Mayim on Shabbos was left uncovered, it may not be used on the Mizbe'ach. Instead, water from the Kiyor is used.
</p><p>
Why may uncovered water ('Mayim Megulin') not be used on the Mizbe'ach? <b>RASHI</b> explains that it may not be used because of the concern that a snake drank from it and decreased the amount of water that was in the vessel (and replaced it with venom). A minimum amount of water is required for Nisuch ha'Mayim, and thus a container of water that was left uncovered may not be used, because it might lack the minimum amount. (Rashi apparently follows the opinion later (50a) that there is an <i>exact</i> amount of water that must be used for Nisuch ha'Mayim, not more and not less. For that reason, it will not help to simply set aside a larger vessel of water before Shabbos to compensate in case it becomes uncovered and the water diminished.)
</p><p>
Although the Gemara (50a) concludes that there is another reason for why uncovered water may not be used (because it is not respectful to use such water on the Mizbe'ach), Rashi here explains the Gemara's initial understanding of the Mishnah (in the Havah Amina), when the Gemara does not yet know of the reason that such water is disrespectful (Tosfos, DH sheha'Yayin).
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that the Gemara's initial assumption is that uncovered water may not be used because it might lack the proper Shi'ur? This explanation is limited to one opinion later (that the water used for Nisuch ha'Mayim has an exact Shi'ur, as mentioned above). Rashi should mention a much more basic reason for why the water may not be used, according to the Gemara's initial understanding. The Gemara in Menachos (6a) derives from the verse, 'mi'Mashkeh Yisrael' (Yechezkel 45:16), that any item which is not edible for man may not be used for the Mizbe'ach. Why does Rashi not give this reason to explain why uncovered water is invalid for use on the Mizbe'ach? (The Yerushalmi indeed gives this reason.) (<b>MAHARSHAM</b>, <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM</b> (the son-in-law of the Maharsham) answers that the Mishnah in Avos (5:5) says that one of the miracles that occurred in the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash was that no snake or scorpion ever inflicted damage in Yerushalayim. The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> there infers that even if a snake did bite someone, its venom did no harm. Part of that miracle was that even if a snake left its venom in a vessel of water in Yerushalayim, no one was harmed by it. Accordingly, there should be nothing wrong with using water that was left uncovered for Nisuch ha'Mayim, because such water is drinkable in Yerushalayim! There must be some other reason for why uncovered water is invalid. Therefore, Rashi says that it is because the exact amount might have become diminished.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic, however, because the principle of 'Ein Somchin Al ha'Nes' teaches that one may not rely on a miracle (even in the Beis ha'Mikdash, c.f. Pesachim 64b). Uncovered water in Yerushalayim still should be forbidden to drink, because one may not rely on a miracle, and thus it should also be invalid for use upon the Mizbe'ach (see <b>BIRKEI YOSEF</b> OC 116).
</p><p>
(b) The Hagahos Maharsham suggests another answer. The requirement that an item be fit for human consumption in order to be fit for the Mizbe'ach does not apply to an item that was once permitted and later became prohibited (as <b>TOSFOS</b> says in Chulin 140a, DH l'Mi'utei; see, however, <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos 6a, DH Kasav, who rejects this principle). Therefore, the fact that the water -- which was once fit for use -- became prohibited as a result of being uncovered does not prohibit it from use on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, it may not be used because of the concern that it lacks the proper amount, as Rashi writes.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>CHESHEK SHLOMO</b> and the Hagahos Maharsham suggest further that the requirement that an item be fit for human consumption in order to be fit for the Mizbe'ach applies only to something that is <i>inherently</i> forbidden for a Jew to eat. Water from which a snake drank is not inherently forbidden. It is forbidden only because of the snake's venom that might be in it; the water itself is not forbidden. Indeed, for this reason the Gemara in Pesachim (48a) permits one to offer an edible item which is Muktzah (and forbidden to eat on Shabbos mid'Oraisa, according to Rabah) upon the Mizbe'ach on Shabbos. In that case, it is the day (Shabbos) that prohibits the item; there is no inherent Isur in the item itself.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:8) writes that Tevel, Orlah, and Kil'ayim may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach as Minchah or Nesachim offerings, because 'Hash-m despises a Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' Why does the Rambam not mention the reason of the Gemara -- that Tevel, Orlah, and Kil'ayim are unfit for human consumption? Apparently, the Rambam's intent is to explain <i>why</i> items which are unfit for human consumption may not be offered upon the Mizbe'ach. Any item whose consumption is forbidden by the Torah is considered despised by Hash-m and therefore is unfit for the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Uncovered water, or snake venom, is not prohibited because Hash-m <i>despises</i> and rejects it. Rather, it is prohibited to eat simply because of the potential danger that it poses. (Indeed, uncovered water is prohibited only mid'Rabanan. See Tosfos to Avodah Zarah 35a, DH Chada, and elsewhere.) Therefore, it may be used upon the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(See end of Insights to Sukah 50:1 for why Rashi does not accept the explanation of the Yerushalmi cited in the question above.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE TYPE OF WATER USED FOR THE 'NISUCH HA'MAYIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah describes the procedure of the Nisuch ha'Mayim performed on Sukos. The Gemara asks, 'What is the source for this?'
</p><p>
To what detail of the Mishnah does the Gemara refer when it asks for the source?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara seeks the source for the blowing of the Shofar in joy at the time of the Nisuch ha'Mayim. The Gemara answers that the source is the verse, 'u'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason' -- 'You shall draw water <i>in joy</i>.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Gemara seeks the source for the law that the water used for the Nisuch ha'Mayim must be water drawn from natural springs (such as the Shilo'ach spring). The Gemara answers that the source is the verse, 'u'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason mi'Ma'ayanei ha'Yeshu'ah' -- 'You shall draw water in joy <i>from the wellsprings</i> of salvation.' This is also the opinion of the <b>RASHBAM</b> in Bava Basra (79a, DH Mayim), as <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas here, 48a) points out.
</p><p>
Rashi, who does not explain the Gemara this way, rejects the assumption that the water used for the Nisuch ha'Mayim must be spring water. Rashi on the Mishnah (DH Hayu Memalei) states this explicitly when he explains that Nisuch ha'Mayim may be done with water from the Kiyor, even though the water in the Kiyor is not spring water. The Gemara in Zevachim (22b) teaches that any water may be placed in the Kiyor and not necessarily spring water.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> in Bava Basra (79a) questions how Tosfos understands the Mishnah here which clearly states that one may use water from the Kiyor for the Nisuch ha'Mayim. Why may water from the Kiyor be used for Nisuch ha'Mayim if spring water must be used?
</p><p>
1. The <b>RITVA</b> (49b) answers that the Kiyor was kept overnight in the 'Yam Shel Shlomo,' the large pool that Shlomo ha'Melech built. The pool was filled with water that came via aqueducts from the spring of Ein Eitam (Yerushalmi Yoma 3:8).
</p><p>
The Ritva apparently maintains that even though any water may be placed in the Kiyor, the practice was to fill it with the spring water of the Yam Shel Shlomo. Hence, spring water indeed <i>was</i> used for the Nisuch ha'Mayim, even when the water was taken from the Kiyor.
</p><p>
2. <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) says that Tosfos maintains that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Yishmael in Zevachim (22b), who argues with the Chachamim and says that the water of the Kiyor must come from a spring.
</p><p>
3. Alternatively, he suggests that on Sukos they went out of their way to fill the Kiyor with spring water in case the need arose to use the water of the Kiyor for the Nisuch ha'Mayim.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> One hole was thicker than the other in 
               order that the wine and water should end 
               at the same time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The more western receptacle was for water 
               and the more eastern one was for wine, but 
               if they were reversed they are Yotzei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The pitcher was of one Lug and 
          the Nisuch was done for eight days (not just 
          seven).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Menasech was told to raise his hands to 
          show the People that he was doing the Nisuch, 
          unlike the Tzedukim who would not do so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  In one such incident the People pelted the 
          Tzeduki Kohen who poured the water on his feet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Nisuch was the same on Shabbos, except that 
          the Shiloach water was prepared in a gold 
          barrel from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If the water spilled out or became uncovered 
          then water from the Kiyor was used in its 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This is because exposed water and wine may not 
          be poured on the Mizbe'ach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>BLOWING THE SHOFAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for blowing the 
          Shofar at the time of the Nisuch ha'Mayim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> U'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Two apostates, one named Sason and one 
               Simchah were arguing...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Sason boasted that he is first in the 
               Pasuk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Simchah countered with a Pasuk of his own.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Sason cursed Simchah with a Pasuk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Simchah responded in kind, citing our 
               Pasuk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Sason checked with R. Avahu.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> R. Avahu refuted Sason's interpretation of 
               the Pasuk, and cursed him as well.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>GOING UP THE RAMP AND TURNING LEFT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Normally one always turns to the right with 
          Nisuch ha'Mayim being one of three exceptions.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE BLACKENED RECEPTACLES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the receptacle for water 
          darken?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Given that, b'Di'eved, both may receive 
          wine, they both darkened.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE THICKER AND THINNER HOLES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It would seem that our Mishnah is R. 
          Yehudah who has us bring only on Lug of water, 
          thus the two holes of differing size would 
          equalized the difference in quantity between 
          the wine and the water?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even the Rabanan (who have both wine 
          and water in the same quantity) would need 
          different sized holes because of the difference 
          in viscosity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This seems supported by the fact that the 
          difference between the two would not be enough 
          to serve the equalizing purpose for R. Yehudah 
          (Tzar vs. Rachav would be a greater difference 
          than Tzar vs. Me'Uveh).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>10) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DAMAGED 'MIZBE'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  When they pelted the Tzeduki Kohen, they 
          damaged the corner of the Mizbe'ach, causing it 
          to lose its square.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A fistful of salt was used to fill the gap.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This would not render the Mizbe'ach fit for 
          use, but would bring Kavod to the Mizbe'ach by 
          concealing its defect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Squareness is listed among the critical 
          components of a Kosher Mizbe'ach (along with 
          Kevesh, Keren and Yesod and R. Yosi b. Yehudah 
          adds the Sovev).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PRIMORDIAL OPENINGS BENEATH THE 'MIZBE'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> 
          These openings [Shitin] originate in the six 
          days of Creation (proof text which is further 
          expounded to teach that the openings go down to 
          the depths, Hashem's Handiwork).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is supported by Tana d'vei R. Yishmael 
          from the word Bereishis, and by R. Yosi in the 
          Beraisa (expounding the Pasuk in Yeshayah 5).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>BURNING THE USED WINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar b. Tzadok):</font></b> There was an opening 
          (Lul) on the western side of the Mizbe'ach, 
          between the Kevesh and the Mizbe'ach into which 
          the wine dripped (not going to the depths).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Once in 70 years the young Kohanim would bring 
          up the coagulated wine which was burnt (Isur 
          Hana'ah), as learned from ba'Kodesh Hasech 
          Nesech Shechar LaShem.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE PRAISE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE DURING 'ALIYAH L'REGEL'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara expounds the verse, 'How beautiful are your footsteps in sandals... daughter of the generous one' (Shir ha'Shirim 7:2), and says that the verse is praising the Jewish people who go up to Yerushalayim three times a year. The verse calls them 'the daughter of the generous one' ('Bas Nediv'). 'Nediv' refers to Avraham Avinu, who is called 'Nediv' (c.f. Tehilim 47:10) because he was the first person to 'convert,' to generously dedicate his heart to recognize his Creator (<b>RASHI</b>).
</p><p>
Why is the praise, 'Bas Nediv,' applied to the Jewish people specifically when they are Oleh l'Regel? What is the relationship between the accolade of 'the daughter of Avraham Avinu' and the Jewish people's ascent to Yerushalayim at the time of the festival? In addition, why does the verse refer to Avraham Avinu specifically in this context as 'Nediv,' the first to generously give his life to the service of Hash-m?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains why the Jewish people are praised as 'the daughter of Avraham Avinu' when they are Oleh l'Regel. Avraham Avinu was not only the first convert, he was also the first to ascend to Har ha'Moriyah, the place of the Beis ha'Mikdash, in order to offer a Korban (his son, Yitzchak). The Jewish people follow in his ways when they ascend to Yerushalayim to offer Korbanos in the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festival.
</p><p>
The Maharsha does not explain why the Gemara refers specifically to Avraham Avinu as 'the first of converts.' The <b>ETZ YOSEF</b> explains that dedicating his life to serve Hash-m entailed for Avraham Avinu the necessity to leave his homeland and his father's household in order to travel to a distant land (c.f. Bereishis 12:1). The Jews who are Oleh l'Regel are similar to converts in that sense. They separate themselves from their households and leave everything behind in order to go to the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHIDA</b> (in Pesach Einayim) suggests that the words of the Gemara here are based on the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 43:9). The Midrash teaches that as reward for his refusal to accept from Malki-Tzedek even 'a thread (Chut) or a sandal-strap (Seroch Na'al)' (Bereishis 14:23), Avraham was blessed that his descendants would offer Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach (which was encircled with a 'Chut,' a painted strip of red dye) and would be given the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel. The Midrash then quotes the verse cited by the Gemara here, 'Ma Yafu... <i>ba'Ne'alim</i>' -- 'How beautiful are your footsteps <i>in sandals</i>,' an allusion to the reward that Avraham Avinu received for his refusal to accept even 'a thread or a sandal-strap' from Malki-Tzedek.
</p><p>
(This answer explains the association of the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel with Avraham Avinu, but it does not explain why Avraham is referred to as 'the first of converts' specifically in this context.)
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara in Berachos (17b) relates that shortly before the festivals of Pesach and Sukos, the Jews in Bavel gathered together to learn Torah at the 'Yarchei Kalah' in preparation for the festival. At that time, a great Kidush Hash-m occurred. When members of the foreign nations saw the immense glory of Hash-m as the Jews gathered together in a large assembly to learn Torah, they experienced a tremendous inspiration to come and convert.
</p><p>
This byproduct of the Jews' assemblage is mentioned in other Midrashim. The Midrash (Midrash Rabah to Shir ha'Shirim 1:15) says that the Jewish people are comparable to a Yonah (dove) in several ways (see Insights to Sukah 50:3). One way in which the Jewish people are comparable to a Yonah is that one type of Yonah, when fed, emits a scent that attracts other doves to its nest. Similarly, when the Chachamim teach Torah to the people, the nations who hear them come and convert.
</p><p>
In a similar vein, Rashi explains that in the blessing given to the tribe of Zevulun, 'Amim Har Yikra'u' -- 'Nations will gather at the mountain' (Devarim 33:19), 'nations' refer to the Jewish people who gather at 'the mountain' of Har ha'Moriyah and offer Korbanos to Hash-m during the festivals. The verse also refers to the nations of the world who travel to Eretz Yisrael to do business and who gather at Har ha'Moriyah where they witness the Jewish people serve Hash-m. The visiting nations become so impressed that they convert.
</p><p>
These two sources together imply that the nations come to Yerushalayim at the time when the Jews are Oleh l'Regel. At that time, the great assembly of Jews who perform the will of Hash-m in unison impresses the nations and inspires them to convert.
</p><p>
When the Jewish people conduct themselves in a way which inspires the nations to convert, they are referred to as 'the daughter of Avraham,' who was the first to convert and to inspire others to follow him (c.f. Bereishis 12:5). This is why the Gemara quotes the verse, 'The noblemen of the nations gathered [to join] the nation of the G-d of <i>Avraham</i>' (Tehilim 47:10) -- they gathered in order to become part of the Jewish people (as the Maharsha explains) and to follow the ways of Avraham. Therefore, when the Jewish people are Oleh l'Regel and inspire the nations to convert, they are called 'Bas Nediv,' for they are following the ways of Avraham who led the way for converts. (M. Kornfeld. This approach is also proposed by <b>RAV YOSEF SHAUL NATANSON</b> in <b>DIVREI SHAUL</b> on Agados ha'Shas.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does this Pasuk imply that the 
          wine remaining in the Shitin must be burnt?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The work Kodesh links the 
          Nisuch to the Sereifah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who, then, is the author of the 
          teaching that Nesachim only have Me'ilah prior 
          to Nisuch but not after?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is R. Elazar b. Tzadok (since, 
               according to Rabanan, the wine went down 
               to the depths and was not around to be 
               burned!).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It could even be Rabanan, speaking 
               where it happened that the wine was caught 
               in a Kli before it could descend.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Alternate Question:</font></b> It seems that this 
               teaching is Rabanan since, according to R. 
               Elazar b. Tzadok it must be burned while 
               this Mishnah teaches that there is no 
               Me'ilah after its use!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It could even be R. Elazar, since 
               nothing could have Me'ilah after its 
               Mitzvah has been done (and the burning is 
               not m'Ikar ha'Mitzvah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FILLING UP FROM WINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> The Shitin were plugged up 
          during the Nisuch so that the 'throat' of the 
          Mizbe'ach should appear full (as the Pasuk 
          ba'Kodesh Hasech implies).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is this learned from ba'Kodesh 
          Hasech?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> The word Shechar implies 
          fullness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Papa):</font></b> The satisfaction from wine comes 
          from the throat (not the stomach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A Talmid Chacham who does not have much 
          wine should drink the little that he has in 
          large gulps, to derive satisfaction therefrom 
          (Rava would thus enhance his experience from a 
          Kos Shel Berachah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DERASHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Pasuk Mah Yafu Pa'amayich Bas Nadiv 
          refers to Bnei Yisrael, the nation of Avraham 
          Avinu, the Nadiv (the first to generously give 
          himself to become a Jew), who would come for 
          Aliyas Regel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Bei R. Anan):</font></b> Words of Torah are called a 
          Yerech since they are learned in private, not 
          in public.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This is supported by R. Elazar who taught the 
          Kav va'Chomer that private matters (in this 
          case Tzedakah, but readily applicable to Torah 
          study) should certainly be conducted modestly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar taught the following five Derashos:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Tzedakah is greater than offering Korbanos 
               (proof text).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Gemilus Chasadim is greater than Tzedakah 
               (proof text, since reaping is greater than 
               planting).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The merit of Tzedakah is not the amount 
               given, but the Chesed involved in 
               troubling oneself to give properly (proof 
               text).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Three ways in which 
                    Gemilus Chesed is greater than 
                    Tzedakah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It is done with both body and funds, 
                    it is done for rich and poor, to the 
                    living and to the dead.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> One who does Tzedakah and Mishpat fills 
               the world with Chesed (proof text).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Not all who give Tzedakah merit to 
                    give it to worthy recipients (proof 
                    text).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> A Yarei Shamayim is assured that his 
                    Tzedakah will go to worthy recipients 
                    (proof text).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(R Chama b. Papa):</font></b> Whomever has Chen 
                    is surely a Yarei Shamayim (same 
                    proof text).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Toras Chesed refers to Torah Lishmah 
               (alternately it refers to Torah studied in 
               order to teach it).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>USING A 'KLI' 'SHARES' FOR THE WATER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we fill up a utensil which is 
          not a Kli Shares before Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ze'iri):</font></b> Our Tana adopts two positions 
          which would cause the water to become Kadosh in 
          the Kli and subsequently be Pasul through Lina 
          on Shabbos night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is no upper limit to the amount of 
               water used for the Nisuch (hence the Kli 
               Shares would be Mekadesh since the greater 
               amount of water is still the 'proper' 
               amount for the Kli Shares).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Kli Shares is Mekadesh even 
               unintentionally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chizkiyah subscribes to the first position but 
          says that the second position cannot be derived 
          from our Mishnah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is possible that the Kli Shares may not 
               be Mekadesh unintentionally.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> However, we could not use a Kli Shares 
               owing to a Gezeirah lest these waters be 
               confused with waters which were put in the 
               Kli Shares intentionally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yanai citing R. Zeira explains how the 
          Mishnah could reject both the first and second 
          position (ie. there <i>is</i> an upper limit to the 
          amount of water, and that a Kli Shares is 
          Mekadesh even unintentionally) and still 
          prohibit this water lest people think it was 
          drawn for Kidush Yadayim (which could be any 
          amount).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MAYIM' 'MEGULIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is exposed water Pasul for Nisuch 
          given that it can be filtered from any venom!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah presumably rejects the 
               position of R. Nechemyah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He holds that we may rely on filtering to 
               permit exposed wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even according to R. Nechemyah, this 
          wine/water is Pasul for Nisuch owing to the 
          stricter standard regarding bringing water to 
          the Mizbe'ach than permitting such wine to a 
          person.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK HE'CHALIL</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'CHALIL' OF THE 'BEIS' 'HA'SHO'EVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Chalil could be played for five 
          or six days of Sukos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This refers to the Chalil of Simchas Beis 
               ha'Sho'evah which does not override 
               Shabbos or Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> The text in some versions of the 
          Mishnah was Beis 'ha'Sho'evah'; in others it 
          was Beis 'ha'Chashuvah'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> There is a basis for either word, 
          Sho'evah and Chashuvah, to appear in our 
          Mishnah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sho'evah derives from the Pasuk 
               u'She'avtem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chashuvah derives from the fact that the 
               Shitin are very important, originating in 
               Creation.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) STRAINING WATER ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if the water that was set aside before Shabbos for use for the Nisuch ha'Mayim on Shabbos was left uncovered, it may not be used on the Mizbe'ach. Instead, water from the Kiyor is used. The Gemara asks that the water that was left uncovered still should be usable for the Nisuch ha'Mayim by being strained, at least according to Rebbi Nechemyah who maintains that straining the water effectively separates the venom of the snake from the water. The Gemara answers that even Rebbi Nechemyah would not permit straining in order to use the water on the Mizbe'ach, because it is still disrespectful to use such water.
</p><p>
The Gemara's suggestion that the water be strained and then used for Nisuch ha'Mayim is difficult to understand. The Mishnah's case involves water which was left uncovered on <i>Shabbos</i>, and the use of a strainer on Shabbos is prohibited mid'Oraisa because of the Melachah of 'Borer' (Shabbos 138b). (<b>CHAZON ISH</b> 150:23)
</p><p>
Moreover, even if, for some reason, straining the water does not constitute the Melachah d'Oraisa of Borer, it still should be prohibited mid'Rabanan because of 'Tikun Kli,' since the act makes the water fit for use for the Mitzvah (as mentioned in Sukah 33b).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) answers that the Gemara does not mean that the water should be strained to separate the venom from the water. Rather, the Gemara means that the water should be strained to ensure that no venom entered the water in the first place (i.e., that no snake drank from it). Once it can be determined that no snake drank from the water, the water may be used, and it is not necessary to take water from the Kiyor. The use of a strainer to determine that there is no venom in the water is not considered Borer, because the act of straining is not done in this case for the purpose of separating. Rather, it is merely a way to determine ('Giluy Milsa') the state of this water. Even if the strainer shows that there <i>is</i> venom in the water, the act of straining is not Borer, because the presence of venom in the water renders the water unfit for use on the Mizbe'ach. When both items (the item that passes through the strainer and the item collected in the strainer) are unusable, the act is not Borer. Borer applies only when one separates Pesoles (unusable material) from Ochel (usable material), but not when one separates Pesoles from Pesoles.
</p><p>
Rav Elyashiv adds that the Gemara knew that if venom is found in the water, it is inappropriate to use the water on the Mizbe'ach, even after the venom is removed. The Gemara thought, however, that if <i>no</i> venom is found, the water <i>may</i> be used on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara concludes (in order to answer its question) that even if no venom is found, it is not respectful to the Mizbe'ach to use water that was left uncovered.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, however, when the Gemara asks that they should simply strain the water, the Gemara should answer that they <i>do</i> strain it in order to determine that there is nothing in the water. When the Mishnah says that they must use the water from the Kiyor, it refers to a case where the strainer shows that there <i>is</i> venom in the water that was left uncovered. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps an alternative approach may be proposed as follows. <b>RASHI</b> in the Mishnah (48b) explains that the problem with using uncovered water for the Nisuch ha'Mayim is that some of the water might have been replaced with venom, and thus the necessary amount of water is no longer present (see Insights to Sukah 48:2). According to Rashi, it is clear why straining the water presents no problem of Borer or Tikun Kli. The purpose of straining the water is not to remove the venom. Rather, the straining is done simply to determine how much of the mixture is venom and how much is water. After the amount of water left has been determined, more water may be added as necessary. The act of straining is not done in order to separate something that is unusable from something that is usable (since Rashi understands that there is nothing inherently wrong with venom added to the minimum amount of water necessary for Nisuch ha'Mayim); it merely serves to measure how much water there is. 'Medidah Shel Mitzvah,' 'measuring for the sake of a Mitzvah,' is permitted on Shabbos (Shabbos 157a).
</p><p>
Perhaps this question -- how can the Gemara permit straining on Shabbos -- is what motivated Rashi on the Mishnah to explain that the Gemara assumes that the reason why water left uncovered may not be used is because of the possibility that some of the water is missing, and not because that water is forbidden to be consumed (as the Yerushalmi says; see Insights to Sukah 48:2). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHALIL' ON SHABBOS AND YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi b. Yehudah):</font></b> Chalil overrides Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> It does not even override Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosef):</font></b> The above Machlokes revolves around 
          whether Shir is primarily with a Kli (the 
          playing is Avodah) or primarily with one's 
          mouth (the playing is not Avodah, and does not 
          override).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  All would agree that Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah 
          is not Avodah, hence our Mishnah (that the 
          Chalil does not override Shabbos or Yom Tov).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YOSEF'S SOURCE FOR THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN R. YOSI AND CHACHAMIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  We find that Rebbi and R. Yosi b. Yehudah argue 
          over the Kashrus of a wooden Kli Shares.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Their argument seems to revolve around 
               whether or not we infer from the wooden 
               Chalil of Moshe Rabeinu to permit wooden 
               Kelei Shares.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This would seem to be based on whether 
               Shir is primarily with a Kli (in which 
               case we would learn from Moshe's Chalil) 
               or by mouth (and the Chalil is not 
               Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  No, they could both hold that Shir is with a 
          Kli and argue over whether we may apply a fixed 
          source (Moshe's Chalil needed to be wood) to an 
          unrestricted application (other Kelei Shares).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Alternately, they could both hold that Shir is 
          with the mouth and that we do not learn from a 
          fixed source and still argue whether Menorah 
          informs other Kelim through Kelal u'Frat or Rov 
          u'Miut.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi would learn Kelal u'Frat U'chlal 
               (and all Kelim must be metal, akin to the 
               Menorah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi would learn Rov u'Miut u'Rov (and 
               Kelim may be made of any material except 
               Cheres).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'SIMCHAS BEIS HA'CHASHUVAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to one opinion, the celebration of the Nisuch ha'Mayim is not called 'Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah,' but rather 'Simchas Beis ha'Chashuvah.' The Gemara explains that according to this opinion, the celebration is called 'Simchas Beis ha'Chashuvah' because it has been distinguished ('Chashuvah') since the six days of Creation.
</p><p>
In what way has the Nisuch ha'Mayim been distinguished since Creation? <b>RASHI</b> explains that during the six days of Creation, Hash-m formed the Shisin (the ducts underneath the Mizbe'ach) into which the Nesachim flow when they are poured upon the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Why, though, does that make the Nisuch ha'Mayim and its celebration so distinguished? The Shisin are used for <i>all</i> Nesachim, and not only for the Nisuch ha'Mayim. The wine of the Nisuch ha'Yayin -- which is performed every day -- also flows into the Shisin.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites the Yerushalmi that says that the verse, 'u'She'avtem Mayim b'Sason' (see 48b), refers to the Nisuch ha'Mayim because it is at that time that Ru'ach ha'Kodesh is drawn ('Sho'evah') upon the people. The immense joy that the people experience at the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah enables them to attain Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
</p><p>
The Gemara here can be understood based on the Yerushalmi as follows. It is true that the Shisin serve the wine of the Nisuch ha'Yayin in the same way that they serve the water of the Nisuch ha'Mayim. However, the Nisuch ha'Mayim is performed at a time of great joy, when the Shechinah dwells amidst the people. Since much greater spiritual heights are attained at the time of Nisuch ha'Mayim, it must be that Hash-m prepared the Shisin 'from the days of Creation' primarily for the Nisuch ha'Mayim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that during the six days of Creation, the Shisin were formed so that they reached all the way to the Tehom, the subterranean depths beneath the earth's surface. If the Shisin were necessary only for the wine of Nisuch ha'Yayin, then there would be no need for them to descend to the Tehom. It must be that the Shisin were formed specifically for the Nisuch ha'Mayim, in order for the water that is poured onto the Mizbe'ach to descend to the depths of the earth. It is through the Nisuch ha'Mayim that the Jewish people beseech Hash-m to send water 'from the heavens and the depths' at the time of the year at which they are judged for water (Rosh Hashanah 16a).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> explains the Gemara differently. He explains the Gemara based on the words of <b>RASHI</b> on the Chumash (Vayikra 2:13), who writes that at Creation, when the upper waters were separated from the lower waters, Hash-m promised the lower waters that they, too, would eventually be used for a holy purpose -- they would be offered upon the Mizbe'ach on Sukos as the Nisuch ha'Mayim. In this respect the Nisuch <i>ha'Mayim</i> was distinguished from the time of the six days of Creation.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: ATTAINING PROPHECY DURING THE FESTIVAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: TOSFOS</b> cites the Yerushalmi that says that the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah is called 'Sho'evah' not only because they drew the water from the spring at that time, but because they drew Ru'ach ha'Kodesh upon themselves from the great joy of the Mitzvah. The Yerushalmi mentions Yonah the Prophet as an example of one who attained prophecy as a result of the joy of the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah. Yonah was a simple Jew who had never experienced prophecy. As a result of the great joy that he experienced one year when he was Oleh l'Regel, he reached a state of prophecy.
</p><p>
Why was Yonah singled out from all of the Jewish people to receive prophecy as a result of the joy he experienced when he was Oleh l'Regel?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The simple reason why Yonah was singled out for prophecy was because he was especially fervent about the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel. (The Gemara in Eruvin (96a) states that even his wife was Olah l'Regel, even though most women did not go.)
</p><p>
However, perhaps there is a deeper reason why Yonah was granted prophecy when he was Oleh l'Regel.
</p><p>
The Torah records the blessings that Moshe Rabeinu gave to each tribe before his death. The Torah says, 'Rejoice, Zevulun, when you go out, and Yissachar in your tents. Nations will gather at the mountain; there they will slaughter offerings of righteousness' (Devarim 33:18-19). Rashi there comments that the words 'nations will gather at the mountain' refer either to the Jewish people who will come to the Beis ha'Mikdash (at the mountain, Har ha'Moriyah) when the scholars of Yissachar, who became masters of the intricacies of the lunar calendar as a result of the support provided to them by Zevulun, told them that it was time to go, or they refer to foreign nations who will come to Yerushalayim on their business trips to trade with Zevulun. When they come and see all of the Jewish people serving Hash-m, they will be so overcome with awe that they will convert.
</p><p>
Yonah was from the tribe of Zevulun (Yerushalmi, Sukah 5:1). The tribe of Zevulun had a pivotal role in the pilgrimages to Yerushalayim during the festivals and in their associated festivities ('*Rejoice*, Zevulun, when you go out...'). The Aliyah l'Regel was 'his' special Mitzvah, so to speak. Yonah, therefore, was able to take full advantage of these Mitzvos and attain true spiritual growth through them -- and even achieve prophesy. (This is why even Yonah's wife was Olah l'Regel.)
</p><p>
The prophetic message with which he was entrusted was not directed towards the Jewish people. Rather, his assignment was to go to the nations of the world and teach them to repent and follow the just and moral ways of Hash-m, just as Moshe Rabeinu expressed in his blessing to Zevulun.
</p><p>
The fact that Yonah, and not any other Zevulunite, was chosen for this mission was not by chance. The Gemara in Berachos (7b) teaches that a person's name determines his purpose in life. Yonah's purpose in life can be better understood based on the Midrash which draws a fascinating analogy between the Jewish people and the bird known as the 'Yonah' (dove). The Midrash (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:2) says that the Jewish people are comparable to a Yonah in several ways (as in Shir ha'Shirim 1:15):
</p><p>
1. Just as the Yonah's walk is a pleasure to behold, so, too, the Jewish people's walk is a pleasure to behold when they ascend to Yerushalayim for the festivals.
</p><p>
2. Just as the Yonah is modest, so, too, the Jewish people are modest.
</p><p>
3. Just as the Yonah stretches its neck to be slaughtered, so, too, do the Jewish people, as the verse says, 'For You [Hash-m] we have been killed throughout the days' (Tehilim 44:23).
</p><p>
4. Just as the Yonah atones for sins (by being offered as a Korban), so, too, the Jewish people atone for the nations. The seventy cows that they offer on Sukos as Korbanos are offered on behalf of the welfare of the seventy nations of the world.
</p><p>
5. Just as the Yonah will never leave its nest even if one takes its young from under it, so, too, the Jewish people never ceased to make their festival trips to Yerushalayim even after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed.
</p><p>
6. Rebbi said, 'There is one type of Yonah which, when fed, emits a scent that attracts other doves to its nest. So, too, when the Chachamim teach Torah to the people, they attract many foreigners who hear them and convert.'
</p><p>
Accordingly, the prophet Yonah's name alludes to his destiny. The prophet Yonah manifested the characteristics of the bird that bears the same name:
</p><p>
Just as the Yonah bird represents the Jewish people's fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel, so, too, Yonah ben Amitai was outstanding in his observance of the festival pilgrimages (#1 and #5 above).
</p><p>
Yonah's prophecy was given to him on Sukos, when Korbanos are offered to atone for the nations. He was charged with the mission of saving a foreign nation from destruction by urging them to repent for their sins (#4 above).
</p><p>
In his modesty, he attempted to hide his prophetic status and escape from his mission (#2 above).
</p><p>
When confronted by the storm at sea, he willingly offered his life and accepted his death as Divine retribution (#3 above).
</p><p>
Finally, Yonah made such a deep impression on the foreign passengers of the ship that they all chose to become Jews (#6 above). According to the Midrash (Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer, ch. 10), representatives of each of the <i>seventy nations</i> of the world were on board Yonah's ship. They all abandoned their idols and turned to the ways of Hash-m after their experience with Yonah (#4 above). Yonah eventually made his way to Ninveh, where he succeeded in arousing the residents of one of the largest cities in the world, a city full of sinners, to mend their ways and follow the will of their Creator (#4 and #6 above). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SHIRAH' AS PRIMARILY WITH THE MOUTH OR WITH INSTRUMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Papa):</font></b> This is a Machlokes Tanaim as 
          follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Meir):</font></b> The Avadim of the Kohanim 
               played.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi):</font></b> Yisraelim of specific families 
               played.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chanina b. Antignus):</font></b> Levi'im played.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Seemingly, R. Meir (who allows Avadim to 
               play) must hold that Shirah is with the 
               mouth, while R. Chanina must hold that 
               Shirah is primarily with a Kli (thus 
               Levi'im would need to play).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then what is R. Yosi's position?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shirah is b'Feh, Avadim should be 
               permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Shirah is b'Kli, Levi'im should be 
               required!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shirah is with the mouth and the 
          Machlokes is over what actually happened (who 
          played).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What Halachic difference does it 
          make?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It will affect the assumptions we make 
          about people on the Duchan regarding Ma'aser 
          and Yuchsin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Avadim were on the Duchan, then no 
               assumptions can be made regarding either 
               Yuchsin or Ma'aser.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Yisraelim, then infer Yuchsin but not 
               Ma'aser.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If Levi'im, then infer both.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN R. YOSI B'REBBI YEHUDAH AND RABANAN (resumed)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmiyah b. Aba):</font></b> They argued only whether 
          the Chalil was Docheh Shabbos for Simchas Beis 
          ha'Sho'evah (R. Yosi b. Yehudah) or not 
          (Rabanan).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  All would permit the Chalil for the Shir of the 
          Korban, which is actually Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (on R. Yosef who, on 50b, taught that 
          R. Yosi concurs with Chachamim that Shir of 
          Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah is not Docheh Shabbos 
          [while the Shir of Korban is a Machlokes]):</font></b> The 
          Beraisa teaches that, according to R. Yosi b. 
          Yehudah, the Shir of Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah 
          <i>is</i> Docheh Shabbos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This refutes R. Yosef.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We may infer from this Beraisa that 
          the Machlokes is <i>only</i> regarding Shir of Beis 
          ha'Sho'evah, and that all agree to permit Shir 
          of Korban (refuting the premise R. Yosef that 
          this is a Machlokes)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue regarding both Shir, but 
          they single out Beis ha'Sho'evah to teach the 
          extent of R. Yosi's permission (even Beis 
          ha'Sho'evah is Docheh Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But our Mishnah teaches that Chalil 
          of <i>Beis ha'Sho'evah</i> is not Docheh Shabbos 
          (implying that the Shir of Korban <i>is</i> Docheh 
          Shabbos)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The author of this statement cannot be R. 
               Yosi b. Yehudah (who holds that Beis 
               ha'Sho'evah is Docheh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It must be Rabanan, thus refuting R. 
               Yosef!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosef is thus refuted on two counts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The basis for Shira being primarily b'Kli is 
          the Pasuk Vayomer Chizkiyahu... (Divrei 
          ha'Yamim II:29).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  The basis for Shira b'Feh is Vayehi k'Echad 
          (ibid:5).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then what of the Pasuk 
               Vayomer...?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is understood as Shirah 
               starting b'Feh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will Vayehi be understood by 
               those who hold Shirah b'Kli?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The singers in the Pasuk are 
               compared to the trumpeters in that they 
               used Kelim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE GREAT 'SIMCHAS' 'BEIS' 'HASHOEVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It was an incomparable Simchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  After the first Yom Tov the Kohanim and Levi'im 
          would descend to the Ezras Nashim to make the 
          Tikun Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  There were golden Menoros with four ladders 
          reaching the four receptacles on top of each 
          Menorah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Young Kohanim would bring 120 Lugim of oil into 
          each Sefel, and worn Bigdei Kehunah would be 
          cut for wicks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The light illuminated every courtyard in 
<br>          Yerushalayim
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MAY A JEW LIVE IN EGYPT?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah who states that one who did not see the Great Synagogue in Alexandria never saw the glory of the Jewish people. The Beraisa describes the magnificence of the structure and the vast number of Jews who worshipped there.
</p><p>
Abaye concludes the Beraisa's description with an account of the tragic end of the Jewish community of Alexandria: every member of the community was killed by a Roman monarch.
</p><p>
(According to the Vilna Ga'on and the Yerushalmi, the monarch was the emperor Trajan. According to Rav Yakov Emden and the Abarbanel in his introduction to Melachim, it was the Roman monarch Alexander Latirus (this may also be the view of Rashi here (DH Stav) who refers to 'Alexandrus'). According to the Gemara in Gitin (57b), it was the emperor Hadrian. The text of our Gemara, which says that it was Alexander the Macedon who killed them, does not seem plausible, since he lived much earlier. See <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>.)
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the Jews of Alexandria were punished because they transgressed the prohibition, 'You shall not return on this path [to Egypt] anymore' (Devarim 17:16).
</p><p>
The Mechilta (Shemos 14:13) expounds on this prohibition. The Mechilta points out that in three different places the Torah warns us not to return to Egypt. The first verse is the one quoted by the Gemara here, 'You shall not return...' (Devarim 17:16). The second verse is, '... for as you have seen Egypt today, you shall never see them again' (Shemos 14:13). The third verse is written in the admonition in Parshas Ki Savo, 'Hash-m will return you to Egypt in boats, on the path of which I said to you, 'Never again shall you see it'' (Devarim 28:68).
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 5:7, and Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Lo Ta'aseh 46) quotes the Mechilta and adds that the prohibition to live in Egypt applies to the entire area of 400 by 400 Parsa'os in the north-eastern corner of the African continent, which includes Sudan, Ethiopia, and part of the Sahara Desert.
</p><p>
The Gemara here, the Mechilta, and the ruling of the Rambam clearly indicate that a Jew is forbidden to return to Egypt. However, it is known that a prominent Jewish community thrived in Egypt until recent times (see the book, 'Tuv Mitzrayim,' by Rabbi Yosef Nafussi). Many of the greatest Jewish leaders, such as Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (who was born in Egypt), the Rambam himself, and the Radvaz (one of the foremost commentators on Mishneh Torah) lived in Egypt. The <b>KAFTOR VA'FERACH</b> (ch. 5) writes that he met one of the Rambam's grandsons in Egypt who told him that his grandfather would sign his letters, 'Moshe ben Maimon, who transgresses three prohibitions each day.'
</p><p>
Why did Jews, among them great sages, live in Egypt if the Torah prohibits it? Why were they not concerned with the Gemara's account of the tragic fate of the Jews of Alexandria?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SEMAG</b> (Lo Ta'aseh 227) writes that the prohibition against living in Egypt applies only to living among native Egyptians, descended directly from those who lived in Egypt at the time that the Torah was given. The Torah did not want the Jews to learn from that nation's evil ways, as the Rambam (ibid.) and Sefer ha'Chinuch (#500) write. From the time that Sancheriv dispersed the nations of the world, the Torah's prohibition no longer applies, because the people there are not the original Egyptians of yore. This also seems to be the view of <b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (Devarim 17:16).
</p><p>
However, the Semag himself rejects this explanation because of the Gemara here, which refers to the Jews of Alexandria who lived in Egypt <i>after</i> Sancheriv dispersed the nations, and yet it still says that they were punished for living in Egypt.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> in Yoma (38a) revises the Semag's explanation in order to answer this question. He writes that the prohibition applies only to living in the cities that were founded by the original Egyptians. (The Ritva may have understood that Alexandria was originally an ancient Egyptian city that was developed and renamed by Alexander. Historical records, however, show that Alexander founded and built the city.) The prohibition applies to such cities presumably because the customs of cities are based on the customs of their original settlers. The Torah's prohibition against living in Egypt does not apply to the new cities that were established and settled after the original cities were abandoned.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFER YERE'IM</b> (#309) writes that the Torah forbids only going <i>from Eretz Yisrael</i> to Egypt, as implied by the verse that the Gemara here quotes. The logic behind this limitation may be that one who returns to Egypt specifically from Eretz Yisrael shows a lack of gratitude to Hash-m. He shows that he does not appreciate the great miracle that Hash-m did for him when He redeemed the Jewish people from Egypt and brought them to Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> and the <b>KAFTOR VA'FERACH</b> add that one is forbidden to go to Egypt from Eretz Yisrael only through the desert, along the path that the Jews traveled when they left Egypt. However, the <b>BRIS MOSHE</b> (on the Semag) points out that the verse in Devarim (28:68) seems to contradict this when it says that 'Hash-m will return you to Egypt in boats, on the path of which I said to you, 'Never again shall you see it'.' The verse implies that one is forbidden to go from Eretz Yisrael to Egypt even by boat.
</p><p>
The <b>RADVAZ</b> asks that although the verse quoted by the Gemara here might support the Yere'im's assertion, the other two verses cited by the Mechilta mention only that one may not go to Egypt; they make no mention of how, or from where, one may not go there.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> (ibid.) concludes that the prohibition applies only when the Jewish people are an independent nation, settled in their homeland. When the Jews are in a state of Galus, all areas of the world are considered the same, and one may live in Egypt as in any other country. The only restriction on where a Jew may live is the prohibition which prohibits one who lives in Eretz Yisrael from leaving Eretz Yisrael to live somewhere else.
</p><p>
This might be Rashi's intention here when he writes (DH Stav) that the Jews of Alexandria settled there at the time of the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. Rashi means that the Jews of Alexandria transgressed the prohibition when they went directly from the Jewish kingdom in Eretz Yisrael to Egypt. Had they not traveled directly to Alexandria from Eretz Yisrael, they would have been allowed to settle in Egypt.
</p><p>
The logic behind this approach seems to be that going to Egypt when Eretz Yisrael is settled by Jews shows a lack of trust in Hash-m. The Jews should live in Eretz Yisrael and trust in Hash-m to protect them, rather than go to neighboring Egypt for protection. In times of Galus, however, when the Jews need to find a suitable place to live, they may live wherever they want.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RADVAZ</b> (Hilchos Melachim 5:7) writes that the prohibition is to <i>go</i> to Egypt, not to <i>live</i> there. A person who is <i>already</i> in Egypt, who arrived there in a permitted way (such as for business, which the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 10:9) permits), does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa (but only an Isur d'Rabanan) if he chooses to stay there. The Rabanan were lenient and did not apply their prohibition once a person is already settled in the place, because it is difficult to travel and find a livelihood elsewhere once a person is settled (although he should leave when the opportunity arises).
</p><p>
(e) None of these explanations are consistent with the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> and <b>SEFER HA'CHINUCH</b>, who rule that the prohibition applies today unconditionally, regardless of where a person comes from or what path he takes to get to Egypt. They write that <i>living</i> there is forbidden, and not merely the act of <i>going</i> there.
</p><p>
Why, then, did the Rambam live in Egypt? The <b>RADVAZ</b> and the <b>KAFTOR VA'FERACH</b> write that perhaps he had no choice, since he was the physician of the Sultan and it was not possible for him to leave.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Radvaz means that one is permitted to travel to Egypt for business or for any other temporary purpose, as long as he intends to leave when he can. One is permitted even to settle there for an extended period, if he plans to leave. The Rambam always intended to leave, and to remind himself of his intentions he adopted the practice of signing his letters as '[he] who transgresses three prohibitions each day.' This understanding is consistent with the words of the Radvaz (in Hilchos Melachim 5:7, and in Teshuvos 4:1145) when he relates that for many years he lived in Egypt, where he founded a Yeshiva and taught Torah until he eventually left and came to Eretz Yisrael. He writes that he certainly acted in a permitted manner, because he did not settle there for the sake of living in Egypt, but in order to teach Torah to those who were already there, and he planned to leave when the opportunity arose.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Great men danced and juggled torches and sang 
          praises.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Levi'im played all manner of instruments while 
          standing on the 15 steps down to the Ezras 
          Nashim (representing the 15 Shir ha'Ma'alos in 
          Tehilim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Two Kohanim trumpeters blew from above the 
          steps at daybreak, descended to the tenth step 
          and blew again, continuing until the eastern 
          gate of the Ezras Nashim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  They turned westward (back upon the Mikdash) 
          and proclaimed that our ancestors angered 
          Hash-m while our eyes turn only to Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  According to R. Yehudah, they repeated Anu 
          l'Kah...
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>INCOMPARABLE EVENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah was a singular 
          Simchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Yerushalayim was a uniquely beautiful city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Beis ha'Mikdash was uniquely magnificent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Which Mikdash?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mikdash built by Hordus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What was its construction?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Green and white marble 
               (alternately, blue and white marble).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Each successive row of stones was slightly 
               recessed from the row below it, to 
               properly retain the Sid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan discouraged Hordus from gold 
               plating the walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah in the Beraisa):</font></b> The Beis 
          ha'Keneses in Alexandria was a unique glory for 
          the Jews at times holding 600,000 (some say 
          twice that number of) Jews.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The building is described in detail, 
               including the wooden Bimah in the middle 
               where the Shamash would wave cloths to 
               tell the masses to answer Amen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> People sat by vocation, and a poor 
               newcomer would join his guild there and be 
               supported.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> They were all killed by Alexander 
          Mokdon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why were they punished?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because they violated the prohibition 
          of returning to Mitzrayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Alexander came there and inferred from the 
          Torah reading, which foretold his miraculous 
          arrival, that he was to carry out the 
          punishment spoken of in that Parashah, and he 
          did so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'TIKUN' 'GADOL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What great thing was instituted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They created a balcony for the women 
          above, since the previous arrangements had led 
          to levity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But how could they add to the 
          Mikdash, which must follow the plans laid out 
          by the Pasuk!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> They learned a Kal va'Chomer from 
          the separation mandated at the eulogy of 
          Mashiach ben Yosef to the separation at the 
          joyous occasions.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE FUTURE EULOGY IN ZECHARYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What death are the people mourning?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Machlokes R. Dosa and Rabanan):</font></b> 
          Mashiach ben Yosef or the Yetzer ha'Ra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is there to weep over the death 
          of the Yetzer ha'Ra!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> As R. Yehudah expounded, the Tzadikim 
          will cry in disbelief that they overcame this 
          mountain while the Reshaim will cry in their 
          dismay over not overcoming this tiny force.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Hash-m will be amazed with them (proof text).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'YETZER' 'HA'RA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Asi):</font></b> The Yetzer ha'Ra appears first as a 
          gossamer thread and ends up as the rope for 
          oxen (proof text).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Mashiach ben Dovid is allowed any request 
               of Hash-m (proof text) and asks for life 
               (given the recent death of Mashiach ben 
               Yosef).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Hash-m tells him that life has previously 
               been granted to him (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  There are seven names for the Yetzer ha'Ra (as 
          listed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The prophecy of Yoel teaches the punishment 
          which will be meted out to the Yetzer ha'Ra for 
          destroying the first and second Batei Mikdash 
          and their scholars and for allowing the nations 
          to oppress Israel
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> He oppresses the Torah scholars more 
          than anyone, as in the reported incident 
          wherein Abaye marvels at the chastity of a 
          young couple in a moment of temptation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  An elderly person then explained to Abaye that 
          he who is greater has a greater Yetzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> One's Yetzer overwhelms the 
          person daily (proof text).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE RIGHTEOUS WILL CRY OVER THE YETZER HA'RA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehudah says that in the future, Hash-m will take the Yetzer ha'Ra and slaughter it in front of the Tzadikim and the Resha'im. Both the Tzadikim and the Resha'im will cry and mourn the 'death' of the Yetzer ha'Ra. The Tzadikim will cry out of their realization that the Yetzer ha'Ra, which they overcame, was like an insurmountable mountain. They will cry, 'How were we able to conquer such a great mountain like this?' The Resha'im will realize that the Yetzer ha'Ra, which they failed to overcome, was like a tiny thread of hair, and they will cry, 'How were we not able to conquer such a small thread of hair?'
</p><p>
The immense remorse of the Resha'im when the truth is revealed to them is easy to understand. Why, though, will the Tzadikim cry? They should rejoice that they were able to conquer the Yetzer ha'Ra in their lifetimes!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> and others suggest that the Tzadikim indeed will rejoice. Their tears will be tears of happiness that they were able to overcome such a daunting challenge.
</p><p>
This explanation is difficult, however, because the Gemara here discusses the Tzadikim's reaction when the Yetzer ha'Ra is <i>eulogized</i>, and it implies that they will take part in the eulogy and cry in <i>mourning</i> and not in joy. If they will not participate in the eulogy, how does the Gemara know that they will cry and not laugh? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> comments that the Tzadikim will cry because they will recall the great pain they underwent in order to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra.
</p><p>
It is still not clear, though, why the memory of their past pain should cause them anguish now (as the Maharsha asks). Perhaps Rashi means that the Tzadikim will realize that had they been able to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra with less effort, they would have had much more time and energy to dedicate to positive service of Hash-m.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> and <b>YA'AVETZ</b> suggest that the reason why the Tzadikim will cry at the death of the Yetzer ha'Ra is because the Yetzer ha'Ra provides them with the opportunity to earn their Olam ha'Ba by conquering it. Once the Yetzer ha'Ra is slaughtered, they will no longer be able to earn their Olam ha'Ba, and therefore they will cry. (The Maharsha adds that the fact that the Yetzer ha'Ra will appear both as a 'mountain' and a 'hair' is hinted to in the name of Esav's homeland, Har Se'ir. Esav, whose spiritual counterpart is the Yetzer ha'Ra (Midrash Rabah, end of Devarim), was 'bequeathed Har Se'ir' (Devarim 2:5). 'Har' (mountain) alludes to the way the Tzadikim will perceive the Yetzer ha'Ra, while 'Se'ir' (from 'Sa'ar,' a thread of hair) alludes to the way the Resha'im will perceive the Yetzer ha'Ra.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>ETZ YOSEF</b> in the <b>EIN YAKOV</b> explain as follows. The Tzadikim will cry when the Yetzer ha'Ra is slaughtered because they will realize that the power of the Yetzer ha'Ra was so great that they did not have it within their ability to conquer it, and the only way that they succeeded was with Hashem's help. They will realize that it was only with Hashem's help that they were able to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra, and it was not due to their own greatness. They will cry when they realize that they are not as righteous and worthy as they thought.
</p><p>
In truth, though, Hash-m will give them reward as if they overcame the Yetzer ha'Ra through their own efforts. (This is what the Gemara means when it says that even Hash-m, as it were, will also be astounded. He will be astounded at the supernatural ability of the Tzadikim to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra, and He will give them reward even though they overcame the Yetzer ha'Ra only because of His help.)
</p><p>
(See also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> who gives another original explanation.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> It also seeks to kill him daily 
          (proof text) and if Hash-m would not aid the 
          person, the Yetzer would succeed (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yishmael):</font></b> When he confronts you, drag the 
          Yetzer to the Beis ha'Medrash where the Torah 
          will cause this 'stone' to crumble or this 
          'metal' to burst (proof texts).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel b. Nachmani citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The 
          Yetzer entices the person in this world and 
          then testifies against him in the next (proof 
          text regarding one who pampers his servant who 
          later becomes Manon).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Whence that Manon means witness?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It means witness in <b>ATB</b>'<b><b><b>CH</b></b></b> of R. 
               Chiya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Huna):</font></b> One Pasuk refers to 
          succumbing to the Yetzer simply as an error, 
          and one Pasuk speaks of an internal success in 
          distorting the person.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> At first it is an error and in the end 
          it takes root in the person.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Yetzer appears first as wayfarer, 
          then as a guest and finally as the Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The small part of a man's body 
          when left hungry is full, and when filled is 
          left hungry (proof text).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HASHEM'S REMORSE, SO TO SPEAK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chana b. Acha citing Bei Rav):</font></b> Hash-m 
          indicated regret over the creation of Galus, 
          Kasdim, Yishmaelim and the Yetzer ha'Ra (proof 
          texts).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> But for the three Pesukim in 
          which Hash-m 'takes blame' for the Yetzer and 
          for correcting its effect on our hearts, we 
          would have no hope.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Papa adds a fourth Pasuk, referring to 
          Acharis ha'Yamim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DERASHOS' REGARDING 'ACHARIS HAYAMIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chana b. Bizna citing R. Shimon Chasida):</font></b> 
          The four Charashim-craftsmen are...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Sheshes):</font></b> Then why does the 
               Pasuk refer to these as scatterers when we 
               know them to be gatherers?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Chana):</font></b> Read the end of the 
               Pasuk and you will see that the scatterers 
               are the nations whom the four shepherds 
               attack.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Sheshes, to himself):</font></b> It is a losing 
               proposition to start up with R. Chana in 
               matters of Agadah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The seven shepherds (Michah 5) are...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The eight princes are...
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE YOUNG KOHANIM BRINGING THE OIL ON THE LADDERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did each young Kohen bring up 120 
          Lug, or were they divided 30 Lug by each of 
          four Kohanim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 30 Lug each.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> These were even more choice men than 
          the son of Marsa bas Beisus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The son of Marsa bas Beisus was able to 
               carry two sides of oxen while walking 
               slowly up the Kevesh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The other Kohanim did not let him carry 
               them alone in order to fulfil b'Rov Am 
               Hadras Melech.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> In what way were these Kohanim 
               superior?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They carried heavier burdens.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Not heavier than sides of 
                    an ox!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They carried their load up a 
               ladder, not up a ramp.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: HOW TO DEFEAT THE YETZER HA'RA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yitzchak states that a person's Yetzer ha'Ra grows stronger and stronger every day, as it says, '[The inclination of the thoughts of his heart] is only evil all of the days' (Bereishis 6:5). Reish Lakish adds that in addition to gaining more power over the person each day, the Yetzer ha'Ra attempts to kill the person, as it says, 'The evil one (the Yetzer ha'Ra) looks towards the Tzadik and seeks to kill him' (Tehilim 37:32). Furthermore, the Gemara adds, if it were not for Hashem's help, a person would not be able to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra, as it says, 'Hash-m will not forsake him (the Tzadik) in his hand, and will not let him be condemned' (Tehilim 37:33).
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (cited in <b>TOLDOS ADAM</b> and in <b>KOL ELIYAHU</b> #207) asks what does the Gemara intend to teach when it says that if not for Hashem's help, a person would not be able to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra? This teaching is clearly expressed already in this verse (Tehilim 37:33) that the Gemara quotes.
</p><p>
Moreover, what is the Gemara's point in teaching that a person cannot defeat his Yetzer ha'Ra without Hashem's help? What does a person gain with this knowledge?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> explains that the Gemara's intention is to teach that if a person does not use all of his might in his struggle against the Yetzer ha'Ra, Hash-m will not grant him assistance. Only when the person exerts all of his energy in his struggle against the Yetzer ha'Ra will Hash-m then help him. This lesson cannot be derived from a simple reading of the verse. The Gemara teaches that even though a person realizes that his own efforts will not be enough to overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra, he will receive Hashem's help only after he first attempts, with all his might, to defeat the Yetzer ha'Ra himself.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: DRAG THE YETZER HA'RA TO THE STUDY HALL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara says that if one meets the Yetzer ha'Ra, he should drag him to the Beis ha'Midrash. If he (the Yetzer ha'Ra) is stone, then he will melt; if he is iron, then he will shatter.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Mishlei 2:16, 21:25, Iyov 2:5, and elsewhere) asks several questions on the Gemara's statement. He infers from the answers to his questions basic qualities of the Yetzer ha'Ra and the tactics which it uses, as well as how to protect oneself from those tactics.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara say that one should drag the Yetzer ha'Ra to the Beis ha'Midrash? One should leave the Yetzer ha'Ra alone and <i>run away</i> from it to the Beis ha'Midrash!
</p><p>
(b) What does the Gemara mean when it says, 'If he is stone... if he is iron'? Is the Gemara in doubt about the nature of the Yetzer ha'Ra, such that it does not know whether the Yetzer ha'Ra is like stone or like iron?
</p><p>
(c) Why does the Gemara use two different descriptions for the Yetzer ha'Ra's demise? The Gemara first says that the Yetzer ha'Ra, if he is like stone, will 'melt,' and then it says that the Yetzer ha'Ra, if he is like iron, will 'shatter'? (If a stone can 'melt,' then certainly iron can.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> Based on these questions, the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> explains the Gemara as follows.
</p><p>
(a) In his commentary to Mishlei (7:13-14), the Vilna Ga'on writes that the Yetzer ha'Ra does not attempt to conquer a person by seducing him to do an outright sin. The Yetzer ha'Ra knows that his victim would not succumb to such tactics. Rather, the Yetzer ha'Ra attempts to convince a person to do a Mitzvah with impure intentions (she'Lo Lishmah). For example, the Yetzer ha'Ra entices a person to eat the meat of a Korban (which is a Mitzvah) in order to enjoy the meat, and not in order to do the Mitzvah. Once the Yetzer ha'Ra succeeds in that small measure, it is able to entice the person to do more severe acts of sin.
</p><p>
The way to defend oneself against this tactic is as follows. When a person feels the Yetzer ha'Ra attempting to persuade him to do a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah, he should learn Torah. The Gemara (Pesachim 50b) encourages one to learn Torah even she'Lo Lishmah, because learning she'Lo Lishmah will lead to Lishmah. (Although the Gemara there refers to all Mitzvos as well, the she'Lo Lishmah act of learning Torah provides spiritual pleasure, and not physical pleasure, and therefore it tends to draw the person to learn Torah Lishmah.) This is what the Gemara here means when it says that one should 'drag' the Yetzer ha'Ra itself into the Beis ha'Midrash. One should use the Yetzer ha'Ra's strategy of enticing a person to do a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah to learn Torah she'Lo Lishmah.
</p><p>
(b) There are two categories of Yetzer ha'Ra. The first is the Yetzer ha'Ra that persuades a person to fall into the trap of arrogance. Arrogance leads to anger and destruction ('Ka'as'). The other Yetzer ha'Ra is the lust for physical pleasures and the desire for honor and wealth ('Ta'avah').
</p><p>
(The Vilna Ga'on's source seems to be the Gemara in Chulin (4a) and in Horayos (11a) which describes two types of apostates, one who rejects the Mitzvos out of arrogance, with intent to anger Hash-m ('l'Hach'is'), and one who rejects the Mitzvos due to his lusts ('l'Te'avon').)
</p><p>
The Yetzer ha'Ra of arrogance and anger (Ka'as) has a masculine element, in that it takes hold of a person's unbridled creativity and misguides it. The Yetzer ha'Ra of lust (Ta'avah), in contrast, has a feminine element, in that it works passively as it quietly prods a person to be drawn after temptations. (These two elements correspond to the two prohibitions of 'Lo Sirtzach' (Ka'as) and 'Lo Sin'af' (Ta'avah), as well as to the qualities of the two antagonists of the Jewish people, Yishmael and Esav.)
</p><p>
The Yetzer ha'Ra of arrogance and anger is referred to as iron. Iron represents the sword and knife that cause lethal damage. The Yetzer ha'Ra of lust is referred to as a stone. Like a stone, the Yetzer ha'Ra of lust is passive, while at the same time it is difficult to conquer. Moreover, the Yetzer ha'Ra of lust makes a person's soul like a stone; it stops up and obstructs a person's heart (Metamtem ha'Lev) and makes the heart dull as stone, such that the person becomes unable to absorb holiness or Torah wisdom (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Kesuvos 104a, DH Lo).
</p><p>
(c) The Gemara says that if one encounters the Yetzer ha'Ra that is 'stone' -- that is, the Yetzer ha'Ra of lust -- in order to conquer it he must learn the parts of Torah which are compared to water, as the verse cited by the Gemara here says, 'All who thirst, go to the water' (Yeshayah 55:1). These parts of Torah are the sections of Agadah and Musar which draw one's heart like water (Chagigah 14a). Since it takes a long time for a person to conquer that Yetzer ha'Ra, the Gemara refers to the process as 'melting,' which is a slow process.
</p><p>
If one finds himself in a battle with the Yetzer ha'Ra of arrogance and anger, he should fight it with the parts of Torah that are compared to fire, as described by the verse cited by the Gemara, 'Behold, My word is like fire, the word of Hash-m, and like a hammer that shatters rock' (Yirmeyahu 23:29). He should direct his creative energy to the fiery exchange of Talmudic discourse between Talmidei Chachamim in the Halachic aspects of Torah. (The Gemara in Ta'anis (4a) associates the creative energy that produces anger with the creative energy that is used in Talmudic discourse: 'If a Talmid Chacham explodes in anger, it is the power of Torah that is burning within him.')
</p><p>
The Yetzer ha'Ra of arrogance and anger does not attempt to convince a person that the sin he should do is necessary and uncontrollable, as the Yetzer ha'Ra of lust attempts to do, and thus this Yetzer ha'Ra is easier to overcome. When one focuses his creative energies on positive endeavors (Torah learning), the Yetzer ha'Ra 'shatters' and leaves him immediately.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'SIMCHAS BEIS HA'SHO'EVAH</font></b>
'(a)	Women could sift wheat by its light.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The sages who had not tasted sin gave thanks 
          for their youth which did not embarrass their 
          old age, and those who had done Teshuvah would 
          give thanks for that.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Both groups proclaimed the blessings of he who 
          had not sinned, calling upon the sinner to then 
          do Teshuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Hillel proclaimed in his joy, in Hashem's name, 
          Im Ani Kan...
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER AGADIC TEACHINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Hillel also proclaimed, l'Makom She'ani Ohev...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the place which Hash-m 
               loves?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If you will come to My house (Beis 
               ha'Mikdash) I will come to yours (proof 
               text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Hillel saw the skull and proclaimed...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A person's own feet deliver him 
          to the place he is to die, as demonstrated in 
          the incident of the two Soferim whom Shlomo 
          ha'Melech tried to save.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'SIMCHAS BEIS HA'SHO'EVAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon b. Gamliel would juggle eight 
          torches.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He alone was able to do Kidah (bowing on his 
          thumbs, kissing the ground then stand up).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Levi did Kidah before Rebbi and became 
               lame.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But R. Elazar taught a different 
               reason for Levi's becoming lame!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Both factors contributed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Levi performed before Rebbi by juggling eight 
          knives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Shmuel performed before the Persian king with 
          eight cups of wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Abaye juggled before Rabah with eight eggs 
          (some say, four).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua b. Chananyah, a Levi):</font></b> We did not 
          sleep during the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah (and 
          he enumerated the activities of the Levi'im) 24 
          hours a day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But from Hilchos Nedarim we see that 
          one cannot go three days without sleep.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we did not taste sleep because 
          we only dozed on one another's shoulder.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE FIFTEEN STEPS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chisda to the Amora of Agadah 
          before him):</font></b> What is the source for Dovid 
          ha'Melech's 15 Shir ha'Ma'alos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Amora citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> It was in 
          order to bring Mei Tehom back up 15,000 
          Garmidi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Dovid ha'Melech dug the Shitin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The depth waters surged up and threatened 
               to flood with world.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then they should not be called 
               Ma'alos!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The waters went too low, as 
               described.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Dovid did not decide regarding the 
               permissibility of erasing Hashem's name to 
               stop the flood, deferring to Achitofel.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIFTEEN PSALMS OF 'SHIR HA'MA'ALOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara describes the source for David ha'Melech's composition of the fifteen psalms of 'Shir ha'Ma'alos' (Tehilim 120-134). The Gemara relates that when David ha'Melech dug the Shisin (the hollow under the place where the Mizbe'ach of the Beis ha'Mikdash eventually would be built, into which the water and wine libations flowed), he inadvertently removed a potsherd that covered (and plugged) the hole of the Waters of the Deep. The waters arose and threatened to drown the world. David ha'Melech inquired whether he was permitted to write the name of Hash-m on the potsherd and to throw it back into the water in order to stop the deluge. No one gave him an answer, until he pronounced a curse on anyone who knew the ruling but would not reveal it to him. Achitofel told him that he was permitted to write the name of Hash-m on the potsherd and throw it into the water, even though Hashem's name would be erased by the water. David ha'Melech followed Achitofel's ruling, and when he saw that the water descended too much as a result of the potsherd, he said fifteen psalms of Shir ha'Ma'alos in order to raise the water level.
</p><p>
What is unique about the fifteen psalms of Shir ha'Ma'alos that enabled them to have such control over the level of the water?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>KLI YAKAR</b> (Bereishis 6:15) cites the Gemara in Sotah (17a) which states that when there is peace between a man and his wife, the Shechinah dwells among them. The letter Yud of the word 'Ish' and the letter Heh of the word 'Ishah' come together and form the name of Hash-m. If, G-d forbid, there is not peace between a man and his wife, the letters of the name of Hash-m, Yud and Heh, depart from the 'Ish' and 'Ishah' and leave two flames -- 'Esh' -- which destroy each other.
</p><p>
We see that the letters Yud and Heh, and the name of Hash-m which they spell, are related to peace in marriage. Similarly, the fifteen rows of steps in the Beis ha'Mikdash which joined the Ezras Nashim with the Ezras Yisrael represented the name of Hash-m (the Gematriya of which is fifteen) which is formed when there is peace between man and wife. (The fifteen steps were comprised of two sets, one of ten and one of five, to correspond to the Yud and the Heh, as the Mishnah (51b) teaches.)
</p><p>
When there is a widespread problem with marital harmony among the people, and wives and husbands are involved in licentious activities, Hash-m punishes the people with water. The world was punished with the Great Flood in the times of Noach because of the sin of immoral relations (Arayos), as the Torah states (Bereishis 6:11-12). (This also may be why the Egyptians were punished by being drowned; the Torah (Vayikra 18:3) describes the people of Egypt as being exceedingly promiscuous.)
</p><p>
This explains why the waters of the Flood rose fifteen Amos above the highest mountain. The people sinned by abusing the Yud and Heh that spell Hashem's name that dwells among the people when there is peace between man and wife, and therefore they were punished with water that rose fifteen Amos above the highest point. Similarly, the rain descended for 150 days, a multiple of fifteen. Each of the three levels of Noach's Teivah (the Ark) was 50 Amos wide, 300 Amos long, and 10 Amos high, or a total of 150,000 cubic Amos. This multiple of fifteen alludes to the fact that it was the name of Hash-m, Yud and Heh, which protected Noach and his family in the Teivah, for they were not involved in Arayos.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara in Berachos (10a) relates that Chizkiyahu ha'Melech was threatened with death in this world and in the next because he refused to bear children, having foreseen that he would have wicked descendants. When he repented and agreed to bear children, he was granted fifteen extra years as a reward for restoring the honor to Hashem's name of Yud and Heh.
</p><p>
The Gemara here relates that David ha'Melech wrote the name of Yud and Heh upon the potsherd in order to prevent the waters of the depth from flooding the world. By doing so, David ha'Melech called upon the merit of the people who guarded themselves from sins of immorality to protect the world from the water.
</p><p>
Perhaps this also explains why Achitofel initially did not want to permit David ha'Melech to cause the name of Hash-m to be erased in order to protect the world from the deluge. Achitofel was the grandfather of Bas Sheva (Sanhedrin 69b), and he was of the opinion that David ha'Melech was guilty of an impropriety with her. As a result, he felt that David ha'Melech did not have the power to protect the world from the flood waters with Hashem's name of Yud and Heh. Hash-m, however, knew that David ha'Melech had sincerely repented and had the power to restore the peace of the world with the name of Yud and Heh.
</p><p>
Why are flood waters the punishment for sins that create disharmony between man and wife? The Gemara in Ta'anis (6b) compares rain to the male element and the earth to the female element -- 'rain is the husband of the land.' The rainwater irrigates the earth which then produces crops. When man and wife are unfaithful to each other, Hash-m punishes the world with water. The water floods the world instead of irrigating it, just as the man and wife betrayed each others faith to each other.
</p><p>
The Kal v'Chomer upon which Achitofel based his ruling involved the Halachah of erasing Hashem's name for the sake of bringing peace <i>between a man and his wife</i>. Causing the waters to subside was a form of making peace between the water and the land, which represents the peace between man and wife. That is why the water descended 16,000 Amos below the ground level, which is 15,000 Amos (a multiple of fifteen) below the original water level. In order to bring the water back to a reasonable level and to restore peace to the world, David ha'Melech recited the <i>fifteen</i> psalms of Shir ha'Ma'alos, which restored the influence of Hashem's name of Yud and Heh in the world.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Achitofel permitted it based on a Kal 
               va'Chomer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The waters went down too far, and Dovid 
               ha'Melech elevated them with his Shirim to 
               a depth of 1000 Garmidi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> This implies that the groundwater is at 
          that depth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find water at much less 
          depth!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That water comes from Sulma d'Fras.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'KOHANIM' COMING DOWN TO THE TENTH STEP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Did they come down ten 
          steps, to the fifth, or five steps to the 
          tenth?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>THEY TURNED THEIR BACKS ON HASH-M</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If they faced eastward, is it not 
          obvious that their backs were to the Heichal?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They would defecate in affront to 
          Hash-m.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>''ANU L'KAH UL'KAH EINEINU''</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Zeira taught that such 
          repetition is forbidden (like Modim Modim)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> [They bowed to the East while] we bow 
          to Hash-m, and our eyes turn to Hash-m.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE 'TEKI'OS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  There are not fewer than 21 Teki'os in the 
          Mikdash and, on some days, it can be as many as 
          48, as enumerated.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YEHUDAH AND RABANAN ON 'TEKI'OS' AND 'TERU'OS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah seems to not follow R. Yehudah who 
          taught that the minimum Teki'os is seven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is their Machlokes?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah sees a set of 
          Tekiah-Teruah-Tekiah as one Mitzvah, while 
          Rabanan see each sound separately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah's rationale is the Pasuk Us'katem 
          Teruah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rabanan understand that Pasuk as obligating 
          every Teruah to have a Tekiah before and after 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rabanan's rationale is the Pasuk which speaks 
          of blowing Tekiah and not Teruah (when 
          gathering the People) thus demonstrating that 
          Tekiah and Teruah are separate Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah counters saying that such Tekios are 
          calling the People, but not as a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rabanan counter that this 'calling' is rendered 
          a Mitzvah by the Pasuk!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then whom does the teaching of R. 
          Kehana that there must be nothing but the 
          briefest interruption (v'Lo Klum) between 
          Tekiah and Teruah follow?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But that is too obvious!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Without R. Kehana we might have 
          misinterpreted the Rabanan as allowing (as per 
          the view of R. Yochanan) long separations 
          between Tekios.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps that is not an error and R. 
          Kehana is teaching his Din even according to 
          Rabanan!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The words v'Lo Klum preclude even the 
          brief interruption allowable according to 
          Rabanan.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) ERASING THE NAME OF HASH-M IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WORLD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when David ha'Melech dug the Shisin (the hollow under the place where the Mizbe'ach of the Beis ha'Mikdash eventually would be built, into which the water and wine libations flowed), he inadvertently removed a potsherd that covered (and plugged) the hole of the Waters of the Deep. The waters arose and threatened to drown the world. David ha'Melech inquired whether he was permitted to write the name of Hash-m on the potsherd and to throw it back into the water in order to stop the deluge. No one gave him an answer, until he pronounced a curse on anyone who knew the ruling but would not reveal it to him. Achitofel told him that he was permitted to write the name of Hash-m on the potsherd and throw it into the water, even though Hashem's name would be erased by the water.
</p><p>
What was David ha'Melech's question? Any situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, where human life is in danger, overrides almost all prohibitions (except Avodah Zarah (idolatry), Shefichus Damim (murder), and Giluy Arayos (immorality)). The waters posed a mortal danger to the world, and thus David ha'Melech certainly was permitted to erase the name of Hash-m to save the world.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> answers that David ha'Melech was concerned that his action might involve a Chilul Hash-m. The transgression of Chilul Hash-m does <i>not</i> override Piku'ach Nefesh.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> in Sanhedrin (73a, as cited in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) writes that the law that Piku'ach Nefesh does <i>not</i> override the prohibitions of Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos, and Shefichus Damim ('Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor'), includes any <i>branch</i> ('Abizraihu') of those prohibitions. Accordingly, David ha'Melech was unsure whether or not erasing the name of Hash-m is included in a subcategory of Avodah Zarah, and therefore he waited until he received a Halachic ruling in the matter.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) suggests that the water posed no actual mortal danger to the world. Rather, the rising water threatened to disrupt the normal lifestyle and routine of the world's inhabitants. There was no question of Piku'ach Nefesh, and therefore David ha'Melech waited until he received a Halachic ruling in the matter.
</p><p>
(d) Perhaps David ha'Melech's doubt can be understood based on the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (in <b>MOREH NEVUCHIM</b>, cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> in Teshuvos 1:413; see Insights to Shabbos 67:2:b). The Rambam rules that one may not desecrate Shabbos in order to heal a person in a manner that is not medically proven and accepted. David ha'Melech's doubt was whether this ruling also applies to violating any Torah prohibition in an unconventional manner in order to save a life, such as by erasing Hashem's name in order to stop a flood.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'TEKI'OS' OF' EREV SHABBOS' DURING SUKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why are the Teki'os of the tenth step 
          not listed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah is the opinion of R. 
          Eliezer b. Yakov (who argues with the Tana Kama 
          and holds that, rather than on the tenth step, 
          the Teki'os were blown when the Aravos were 
          arranged around the Mizbe'ach).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is R. Eliezer b. Yakov's 
               rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The tenth step is not a gate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is Rabanan's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Teki'os are for filling the 
               water, to which the tenth step relates, 
               while the Aravos are unrelated!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TEKI'OS' FOR EACH OF THE 'MUSAFIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa cited by R. Acha b. Chanina):</font></b> Yiska'u 
          teaches that the Teki'os go according to the 
          Musafin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Acha b. Chanina):</font></b> This means that we blow 
          for each Musaf which is brought.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, then the Mishnah should have 
          listed Shabbos within Sukos as an example of 51 
          Teki'os!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The three Teki'os for 
          opening the gates are not blown on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Questions (Rava, astonished by R. Zeira's 
          suggestion):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah says they blew for the opening 
               of the gates ever day!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it were true that Erev Shabbos during 
               Sukos is the same (48 Teki'os) as Shabbos 
               during Sukos, then the Mishnah would 
               surely have listed Shabbos, given that we 
               could then learn both the rulings of R. 
               Eliezer b. Yakov (1.b. above) as well as 
               that of R. Acha b. Chanina (Teki'os for 
               each Musaf)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, there were none of the Teki'os 
          associated with filling the water on Shabbos 
          (which was done Erev Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (on R. Acha):</font></b> The Mishnah should have 
          listed Rosh ha'Shanah (48 Teki'os, owing to 
          three Musafim)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We would still opt for Erev Shabbos 
          during Sukos (as the example of 48) since it 
          teaches us the Din of R. Eliezer b. Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The question implied that the Mishnah 
          should list both!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah does not provide an 
          exhaustive list of days with 48 Teki'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What other instances were omitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Erev Pesach (given the three Teki'os 
          for the Halel said three times by each group).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MAI SHAYAR D'HAI SHAYAR' -- WHAT DID THE TANA LEAVE OUT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Acha bar Chanina says that when multiple Korbenos Musaf are offered, a separate Shir is recited for each one, and a separate set of Teki'os is sounded for each one.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks several questions on Rebbi Acha's opinion. One question is based on the Mishnah (53b) which lists only one day on which 48 Teki'os are sounded in the Mikdash -- Chol ha'Mo'ed Sukos which occurs on Erev Shabbos. According to Rebbi Acha, the Mishnah should also mention Rosh Hashanah which occurs on Shabbos, since on that day, too, 48 Teki'os are sounded (the 21 Teki'os of every day, and an additional 27 Teki'os for the three different Musaf offerings offered on that day). The Gemara answers that the Tana simply left out that case. The Gemara asks, 'What else did the Tana leave out?' -- 'Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar' (literally, 'What [else] did the Tana leave out that he [also] leaves out this'). The Gemara's question is based on the rule that whenever the Tana omits something from a list, he omits more than just one case.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Tana also omitted Erev Pesach, on which an additional 27 Teki'os are sounded (9 for each of the 3 groups into which the Jewish people are divided when they bring the Korban Pesach). However, the Gemara eventually rejects this answer and says that the case of Erev Pesach is not considered a case which the Tana omitted, because the Tana of the Mishnah may follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Erev Pesach. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the last of the three groups on Erev Pesach did not complete the recitation of Hallel even once, and thus only one set of Teki'os, at most, was sounded for them. Consequently, according to Rebbi Yehudah the maximum number of Teki'os on Erev Pesach is only 42 (21 normal Teki'os, 9 for the first group, 9 for the second group, and 3 for the third group).
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that even if the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, there still exists another case which it omitted. On Erev Pesach that falls on Erev Shabbos, 48 Teki'os are sounded even according to Rebbi Yehudah (42 as described above, 3 to warn the people to abstain from Melachah, and 3 to announce the onset of Shabbos). Accordingly, the Mishnah does not contradict Rebbi Acha, because it left out several cases.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara reject its original answer for Rebbi Acha by asserting that the Mishnah follows Rebbi Yehudah? What forces the Gemara to say that the Mishnah follows Rebbi Yehudah? The Gemara should answer simply that the Mishnah follows the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah and maintain that Erev Pesach indeed has 48 Teki'os, and that is the additional case which the Mishnah left out, in addition to the case of Rosh Hashanah that occurs on Shabbos. Why does the Gemara insist that the Mishnah follows Rebbi Yehudah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> to Bava Kama 15a) and the <b>RITVA</b> offer a novel explanation for the phrase that the Gemara often uses, 'What else did the Tana leave out?' The accepted meaning of, 'Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar,' is that it is not the manner of the Tana to leave out just one case from a list of cases; the Tana leaves something out only when there are two or more cases to leave out. This is how Rashi seems to explain this expression in Ta'anis (13b, DH Mai).
</p><p>
The Ra'avad and Ritva write that this is not the correct meaning of the phrase. Rather, 'Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar' is a rhetorical question, a declaration that we may not assume that the Tana omitted anything. The only valid way to propose that the Tana omitted a case is by <i>proving</i> that the Tana did not intend to list every case. This can be proven by demonstrating that there is at least one other case which the Tana indisputably omitted even though it belongs on his list. That unquestionable omission shows that the Tana did not intend to list every case, and thus we may assume that the Tana also omitted the case in question.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the only way to prove that the Mishnah here omitted the case of Rosh Hashanah that occurs on Shabbos is by demonstrating that the Mishnah definitely omitted another case. The Gemara suggests that the Mishnah left out Erev Pesach. It responds that this does not prove <i>conclusively</i> that the Tana did not intend to list every case, because it is <i>possible</i> that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah and the case of Erev Pesach is not an omission.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> explains that the expression, 'Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar,' can be understood in the usual sense. He explains the Gemara as follows.
</p><p>
In general, why does a Tana not omit one case from his list? The Tana is concerned that his words will be misunderstood; people might think that his list is comprehensive and that he omitted nothing (as a consequence, they will assume that the case which the Tana omitted was omitted because it does not <i>belong</i> in the list). In order to prevent incorrect conclusions from being drawn, when the Tana intends to omit a certain case, he omits a number of cases so that everyone will know that his list is not exhaustive.
</p><p>
The Gemara here says that just as it is not the manner of the Tana to omit one case alone (when he omits no other case), it is also not the manner of the Tana to omit a case when that case is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana does not leave out such a case for the same reason he does not omit a single case: the Tana is concerned that he will be misunderstood. If he omits a case which is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, people might think that the reason he omitted that case is because he rules like the Tana who maintains that the case does not belong in the list at all. Therefore, if such a case really belongs in the list, the Tana certainly will include it in order to avoid such a misunderstanding.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Erev Pesach could, if we follow 
          the assertion of R. Yehudah (that the third 
          group did not even finish the first Halel), 
          have only 42 (and not be an omitted example at 
          all)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But we said (53b) that the 
               Mishnah is <i>not</i> the view of R. Yehudah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps this Tana subscribes to 
               one view of R. Yehudah (regarding the 
               completion of Halel by the third group) 
               and argues with the other (regarding how 
               to figure a group of Teki'os)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then, all in all, which other 
               instance was left out of our Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Erev Pesach which falls on Erev Shabbos 
          (48 Teki'os, after we remove the six which R. 
          Yehudah would have us delete, and add the six 
          of Erev Shabbos).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>NO MORE THAN FORTY EIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What about Erev Pesach which falls on 
          Shabbos (even following R. Yehudah there would 
          be 51, and according to Rabanan there would be 
          57)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We list those instances which occur 
          annually.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then what of Erev Shabbos in Sukos, 
          given that there is not necessarily an Erev 
          Shabbos during Sukos (if the first day of Yom 
          Tov is Erev Shabbos)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is always an Erev Shabbos during 
          Sukos because we adjust the calendar to prevent 
          the first day of Yom Tov from falling on Erev 
          Shabbos (which meant that Yom Kipur would have 
          occurred directly after the previous Shabbos - 
          two days of Shabason!).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah speaks of the 
          Chalavim of Shabbos being brought on the Yom 
          Kipur which follows it (and R. Zeira taught 
          Halachos regarding Yom Kippur on Erev and 
          Motzei Shabbos)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah is Rabanan (according to 
          whom we adjust to calendar to prevent Yom 
          Kippur falling next to Shabbos) while Acherim 
          allow for this occurrence (as the Beraisa 
          indicates that Acherim let the days fall where 
          they will, four or five days further than their 
          occurrence on the previous year).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. ACHA AND THE 'TEKI'OS' FOR EACH 'MUSAF' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa speaks of one Shir (Rosh 
          Chodesh) overriding another (Shabbos), whereas, 
          according to R. Acha, they should be saying 
          both, just as they are Tokei'a for each Musaf!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Safra):</font></b> The overriding means that it 
          is placed first, before the Shir of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Tadir should place Shabbos 
          first!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is done so as a Heker 
          to assert our confidence in the setting of Rosh 
          Chodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we already have a Heker in the 
          higher placement of the Rosh Chodesh Musaf on 
          the Kevesh!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There are indeed two Hekerim.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. ACHA AND THE 'TEKI'OS' FOR EACH 'MUSAF' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Bereisa cited by Rava b. Shmuel):</font></b> We 
          are taught (based on uv'Roshei Chodsheichem) 
          that we do <i>not</i> blow Teki'os on each Musaf!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This refutes R. Acha.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does uv'Roshei Chodsheichem 
               imply that we do not blow for each Musaf?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It teaches that all Roshei 
               Chodoshim are alike, even if it falls on 
               Shabbos with its additional Musaf.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> Chodsheichem (written 
               singular) contrasts with Roshei (plural) 
               to teach that the day with two 'heads' ie. 
               Rosh ha'Shanah, has one Teki'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (another Beraisa cited against R. 
          Acha):</font></b> We see that only one Shir (and, by 
          extension, one set of Teki'os) is said on 
          Shabbos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This also refutes R. Acha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Acha based himself in a Pasuk 
          and a Beraisa!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The Beraisa (ha'Kol l'Fi 
          ha'Musafin) teaches that we must extend the 
          nine Teki'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabbis of Keisari citing R. Acha):</font></b> It 
          teaches that there are more players when there 
          are two Korbanos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>RECITING 'KORBANOS' OUTSIDE OF 'ERETZ' 'YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How are we to allocate the recitation 
          of the Korbanos in Chutz La'Aretz (two days of 
          Yom Tov)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The recitation of Day Two is 
          omitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Day Seven is omitted, and a 
          Beraisa supports Rava (we see that Yimotu is 
          omitted).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Ameimar instituted in Naharda'a that the two 
          (possible) days are mentioned on each day of 
          Chol ha'Moed.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'SONG OF THE DAY' ON SPECIAL DAYS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa discusses the various Shirim that are recited on the different days of Chol ha'Mo'ed Sukos. <b>RASHI</b> writes that the Beraisa refers to the Shir that is recited at the time the Korban Musaf is offered (as opposed to the Shir at the time the Korban Tamid is offered).
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Beraisa cannot refer to the Shir of the Korban Tamid, because if the Beraisa refers to that Shir, then the Gemara has no proof from the Beraisa that on Shabbos Chol ha'Mo'ed only one Shir is recited during Musaf: when the Beraisa says that on Shabbos Chol ha'Mo'ed only one Shir is recited, it refers only to the Shir of the Tamid, but at the time of the Musaf <i>two</i> Shirim are sung. It must be that the Beraisa refers to the Shir of the Korban Musaf, and it teaches that only one Shir is sung for the two Musafim.
</p><p>
How, though, does the Gemara know that the Beraisa refers to the Shir of the Korban Musaf? It seems that the Gemara takes for granted that there is no special Shir for the Tamid on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The only unique Shir on Chol ha'Mo'ed is the one recited at the time of the Korban Musaf.
</p><p>
However, this contradicts the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (30b and 31a). The Gemara there states that it happened once, at the end of the month of Elul, that witnesses who came to testify about the sighting of the new moon arrived late in the day, after the afternoon Tamid had been offered. The Leviyim, unaware that the day was going to be declared Rosh Hashanah, mistakenly sang the weekday Shir at the time of the Tamid and not the special Shir for Rosh Hashanah which they were supposed to sing. The Gemara there then lists the unique Shirim of Rosh Hashanah and of Shabbos which are recited with '*each of the three Korbanos*' -- the two Temidim and the Musaf!
</p><p>
The Gemara there clearly says that the Shir of the Korban Tamid on the festival differs from the Shir on a weekday. How is the Gemara there to be reconciled with the Gemara here which implies that the Shir of the Korban Tamid does not change on the festival? (<b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> #312)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> explains that the Shir of the Korban Tamid differs only on a day that is sanctified and on which Melachah is forbidden, such as Rosh Hashanah, Shabbos, and Yom Tov. In contrast, on Chol ha'Mo'ed and Rosh Chodesh, days on which Melachah is permitted, the normal Shir of the Tamid is recited. Since the Beraisa here refers only to Chol ha'Mo'ed, the special Shir that it discusses must be the Shir of the Korban Musaf.
</p><p>
The <b>TUREI EVEN</b> (Rosh Hashanah 30b) seems to follow the same logic as the Minchas Chinuch, because he says that on Rosh Chodesh there is no special Shir for the Korban Tamid.
</p><p>
(b) The Minchas Chinuch cites the <b>RAMA MI'PANO</b> (in Asarah Ma'amaros, Ma'amar 'Em Kol Chai' 2:19), who says that the Shir of the Tamid differs only on Rosh Chodesh and Rosh Hashanah. He gives the same reason that the Gemara (54b) gives to explain why the Shir of the Korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh that occurs on Shabbos takes precedence over the Shir of the Musaf of Shabbos: it is to publicly affirm that Beis Din is correct in their determination of the date of Rosh Chodesh. Similarly, on Rosh Chodesh the Shir of the Tamid is changed to show the people that the Beis Din is correct in their declaration of the day as Rosh Chodesh. On Rosh Hashanah, too, the Rabanan enacted that a special Shir be recited at the time of the Tamid in order to publicize that Beis Din is correct in their establishment of the new month.
</p><p>
(This might be the intention of the <b>RE'AH</b> in Beitzah (4b) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Kidush ha'Chodesh 3:5) as well. They write that the same mishap that occurred on Rosh Hashanah (when the witnesses came late in the afternoon of Rosh Hashanah and the Leviyim sang the wrong Shir for the afternoon Tamid) could occur on any Rosh Chodesh, 'since every Rosh Chodesh has not only a Korban Musaf, but a special Shir [for the afternoon Tamid].')
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Sukah) suggests that Rosh Hashanah is unique among all the festivals. The Rabanan instituted that a special Shir be recited on Rosh Hashanah at the time the Korban Tamid is offered due to the day's special status as the Day of Judgment. That Shir (Tehilim 29), which mentions Matan Torah, was instituted 'in order to mention the merit of the Shofar blasts of Matan Torah' (Rashi to Rosh Hashanah 30b, DH Kol). The Rabanan did not establish a special Shir for the Korban Tamid of any other festivals.
</p><p>
Although Shabbos also has a special Shir for the afternoon Tamid (as the Gemara says in Rosh Hashanah 30a), that Shir is recited because Shabbos is separate from the other days of the week, and thus it deserves its own Shirim for both the morning Tamid and the afternoon Tamid.
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that the <b>TUR</b> (OC 133) and <b>ORCHOS CHAYIM</b> (cited by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> OC 133) write that we do not recite the daily Shir Shel Yom after Minchah, because no Shir was recited at the time of the afternoon Tamid. Support for their words is found in the <b>HAGAHAOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Tefilah 3:5). He proves that the Shir said with the Korban Tamid was said only during the day and not at night from the fact that 'no Shir was said after the afternoon Tamid, even though some time remained before nightfall.' (No Shir was said at that time presumably because it was so close to nightfall.)
</p><p>
Their view is clearly contradicted by the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah cited above, which states that a Shir <i>is</i> recited for the afternoon Tamid. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Temidim u'Musafim 6:9, 11) also writes that the procedure done for the afternoon Tamid is the same as the procedure done for the morning Tamid, which implies that the same Shir is recited for the afternoon Tamid. (The <b>SEDER OLAM</b> (ch. 14) also mentions which Shir was recited in the morning and which Shir in the afternoon during the period in which the Aron ha'Kodesh was in Ir David, before the Beis ha'Mikdash was built.)
</p><p>
The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 132:4) cites the <b>ALSHICH</b> who explains that the Tur agrees that a Shir is recited in the afternoon. When the Tur says that there is no Shir, he means that the Shir is not 'Me'akev' -- the service is valid even without the Shir. The <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> challenges this answer. There is no basis to suggest that the morning Tamid would be invalid without the Shir, such that the Tur would need to teach that the afternoon service would be valid without the Shir.
</p><p>
The <b>PERISHAH</b> (133:9) suggests that perhaps the Tur understands that the Shir of the afternoon Tamid was entirely voluntary. However, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah seems to refute this suggestion as well, because the Gemara says that it would have been improper (a 'Kilkul') to offer the afternoon Tamid without singing any Shir.
</p><p>
The Magen Avraham himself suggests that the Tur means only that <i>at times</i> no Shir was said with the afternoon Tamid, such as when the Nesachim were offered after nightfall (the Shir is said when the Nesachim are offered, but the Shir may not be said at night), as <b>TOSFOS</b> in Rosh Hashanah (30b, DH v'Niskalkelu) writes.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE ALLOCATION OF THE 'KORBANOS' TO THE 'MISHMAROS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The formula for allocating the Korbanos to the 
          24 Mishmaros is given and applied to each day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Each day, one less Mishmar participates in 
               the Parim-Eilim-Sair
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The 14 Kevasim are then divided into the 
               remaining Mishmaros, with the maximum 
               number of Mishmaros being given two 
               Kevasim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Korbanos of Shemini Atzeres are allocated 
          by lots.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Parim are allocated to those who had not 
          yet offered them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SHEMINI ATZERES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah (which seems to mandate 
          lots between all the Mishmaros on Shemini 
          Atzeres) appears to be the opinion of Rebbi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi allows that the Payis is among all 
               the Mishmaros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim maintain that only the two 
               Mishmaros which had not received three 
               Parim drew lots.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah does not necessarily mean 
          that all the Mishamros were involved, since the 
          remaining two Mishmaros also needed a Payis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The statement which says that all but 
          two Mishmaros received three Parim seems to be 
          consistent with Rebbi (since according to 
          Chachamim one of those two Mishmaros received 
          the Korban Shemini Atzeres)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It refers to those who did not receive 
          a third during Sukos itself (not altogether).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Of what Chidush is this Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that the ones who 
               received Parim one day did not do so the 
               next day.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>SEVENTY AND ONE OFFERINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The 70 Parim are to atone for the 
          70 nations of the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The one Par of Shemini Atzeres is associated 
          with the One Nation, alone (Mashal to the 
          King...).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Nations don't know what they 
          lost now that there is none to atone for them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' ALLOCATING THE 'MATANOS' AMONG THE 'MISHMAROS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  On the three Regalim all Mishmaros shared in 
          all of the Matanos (including the Eimurei 
          Regalim, the Lechem ha'Panim [Matzah] and the 
          Shtei ha'Lechem [Chametz] on Shavuos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The one distributing the Lechem said, 'here is 
          your Matzah, here is your Chametz.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Mishmar whose week falls on the Regel 
          receives the Temidim, Nedarim, Nedavos and 
          other Korbanos Tzibur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  That Mishmar offers everything.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: SEVENTY COWS, SEVENTY NATIONS, AND ONE GOAT</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Mishnah discusses the number of Parim (cows) that were brought as a Korban Olah each day of Sukos. The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kol Eliyahu #100) points out that the difference in the number of Parim brought each day sheds light on a discrepancy in the verses in the Torah (Bamidbar 29:16-34) that describe the Se'ir (goat) that was brought as a Korban Chatas each day of Sukos.
</p><p>
The verses which refer to days one, two, and four of Sukos describe the goat as a 'Se'ir <i>Izim</i>.' In contrast, the verses which refer to days three, five, six, and seven refer to the goat merely as a 'Se'ir.' What is the reason for this strange difference?
</p><p>
The Zohar (Tikunei Zohar) teaches that the seventy nations of the world are under the authority of either Yishmael or Esav. There are 35 nations under the authority of Yishmael, and 35 nations under Esav. (See Insights to Avodah Zarah 2:4, Sotah 13:1:c.)
</p><p>
In addition, the Zohar teaches that the term 'Se'ir Izim' alludes to Yishmael, who was 'Az' (brazen), and the word 'Se'ir' alone alludes to Esav, who was an 'Ish Sa'ir' (Bereishis 27:11). (Reference is also made in the Selichos of the Seventeenth of Tamuz to the 'Tzefir' -- which is always used by the verse with the modifying word 'Izim,' as in 'Tzefir <i>Izim</i>' -- and to the 'Se'ir,' which refer to Yishmael and Esav, respectively.)
</p><p>
The Korbanos of Sukos atone for the seventy nations, 35 of which are under the dominion of Yishmael and 35 of which are under the dominion of Esav. The Korbanos of the first day are brought for the nations under the dominion of Yishmael, who was the older of the two. On the first and second days, when the cows that are offered atone for the nations under Yishmael's dominion, the Chatas-offering is also brought for those nations. Since the Chatas-offering of the first two days are brought for the nations under Yishmael, the verse which describes that offering calls it 'Se'ir Izim,' an allusion to Yishmael.
</p><p>
In contrast, the verse that describes the offerings of the third day does not say 'Se'ir Izim.' This is because that day's offerings are not brought for the nations under Yishmael (because if they were, there would be too many offerings for Yishmael's nations -- 13 are brought on the first day, 12 on the second day, and 11 on the third day, for a total of 36). The rest of the Korbanos for the nations under Yishmael are brought on the fourth day, when 10 Parim are offered, which brings the total number to 35 Parim for the 35 nations (13 on the first day, 12 on the second day, and 10 on the fourth day).
</p><p>
The Korbanos of the other days -- the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh -- total 35 Parim (11, 9, 8, 7), which correspond to the 35 nations under Esav's dominion. For that reason, the verses which describe the Korbanos of those days say only 'Se'ir,' an allusion to Esav.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) ONE WHO EATS THE KORBAN HA'OMER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists the Korbanos of the festival which are shared by the Kohanim of all of the Mishmaros, as well as the Korbanos which are offered and eaten only by the Mishmar of that week. The general rule is that any Korban which is offered because of the festival is shared by all of the Mishmaros, and any Korban which is not related to the festival is offered (and eaten) by the Kohanim of the Mishmar of that week. The only exception is the Lechem ha'Panim, which is not related to the festival but nevertheless is eaten by the Kohanim of all of the Mishmaros, as derived from a verse (56a).
</p><p>
The Mishnah mentions an example of a situation in which two different flour-offerings are divided among all of the Kohanim during the festival. When Shavuos occurs on Shabbos, the Shtei ha'Lechem (of Shavuos) and the Lechem ha'Panim (of Shabbos) are distributed among all of the Mishmaros. When the loaves are given out, each Kohen is told that he is being given a portion of the Shtei ha'Lechem (Chametz) and a portion of the Lechem ha'Panim (Matzah), in order to make it clear that no Korban is being allocated in place of another Korban.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah choose the Shtei ha'Lechem as an example of a second type of flour-offering that is distributed to all of the Kohanim? It should choose instead the Korban ha'Omer as an example, in a case in which the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbos, because the Korban ha'Omer is brought fifty days before the Shtei ha'Lechem. The Korban ha'Omer consists of barley flour, and the Lechem ha'Panim consists of wheat flour. The two must be distributed equally, and one may not take the place of the other, and thus the recipient must be informed that he is being given 'your barley portion (the Korban ha'Omer) and your wheat portion (the Lechem ha'Panim).'
</p><p>
In addition, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 4:5) lists all of the items that are distributed among all of the Kohanim on the festival, but he makes no mention of the Korban ha'Omer. The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> asks why the Rambam omits the Korban ha'Omer, and he leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> suggests that the verse cited by the Gemara (55b) teaches that the only Korbanos divided among all of the Mishmaros are the Korbanos that are brought primarily on the first day of the festival (even though they may be brought during the other days if they were not brought on the first day). This is derived from the Derashah that teaches that all of the Kohanim share the Korbanos 'when all of Yisrael enter through one gate [in order to be together in one city, Yerushalayim],' and the only time that the people enter the city is on the first day of Yom Tov. In contrast, the primary day for the Korban ha'Omer is the <i>second</i> day of the festival. The Korbanos which are distributed to all of the Mishmaros are those for which one must come to Yerushalayim. One does not need to come to Yerushalayim for the Korban ha'Omer. In fact, the Torah permits one to return home on the morning of the first day of Chol ha'Mo'ed before the Omer is offered (Rosh Hashanah 5a).
</p><p>
(Based on this approach, the Aruch la'Ner suggests that perhaps the portions of the Chazeh and Shok (the parts of a Korban Shelamim that are given to a Kohen for his personal consumption) of the Korbenos Shalmei Simchah offered on the other days of the festival are <i>not</i> distributed to all of the Mishmaros, because people are not required to stay in Yerushalayim until the end of the festival. Although each day's Korban Musaf is divided among all of the Mishmaros, the Aruch la'Ner contends that the Musaf is different, because 'Hukshu Kol ha'Musafim Zeh l'Zeh.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV MORDECHAI RABIN</b> (of Yerushalayim, formerly of London) explains that the Korban ha'Omer differs from the other Korbanos distributed on the festival. The Korban ha'Omer is not offered <i>because of</i> the festival of Pesach. It is offered because of the day of the sixteenth of Nisan. Although that day happens to be the second day of Pesach, the Korban itself is unrelated to Pesach. Since the Korban ha'Omer is not offered because of the festival per se, it is given only to the Mishmar of that week. That is why the Mishnah does not mention it among the Korbanos which are divided among all of the Kohanim.
</p><p>
In contrast, the Shtei ha'Lechem, and all of the other Korbanos listed in the Mishnah, are offered specifically because of the Yom Tov. (Even though the Torah says that the Shtei ha'Lechem is offered on the fiftieth day after the Omer, which implies that it is not offered because of Shavuos but because of the <i>fiftieth day</i> after the sixteenth of Nisan, nevertheless the fact that the Torah itself defines Shavuos as the fiftieth day after the Omer shows that the Shtei ha'Lechem is considered a Korban offered because of the festival.)
</p><p>
This approach was actually suggested by <b>RAV YECHEZKEL ABRAMSKY</b> zt'l (in <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b>, Chidushim on Shabbos 134), who points out that when the Torah (in Parshas Pinchas) discusses the Korbenos Musaf of the various festivals, it mentions the Shtei ha'Lechem as well, but it makes no mention of the Korban ha'Omer. (In fact, the Torah even calls Shavuos, 'Yom ha'Bikurim,' because of the Shtei ha'Lechem, which is offered from the first harvest of the wheat crop on that day.) This demonstrates that the Shtei ha'Lechem is a Korban of the festival, while the Korban ha'Omer is not.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ''EIMUREI HA'REGALIM''</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Eimurim are not distributed, they are 
          burnt!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chisda):</font></b> It refers to that which is 
          taught regarding the Eimurei Regalim (that 
          every Kohen has equal rights in the Korbanos of 
          the Regalim, and only of the Regalim).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE 'LECHEM HA'PANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for equally 
          dividing the Lechem ha'Panim among all the 
          Mishmaros?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chelek k'Chelek teaches that just as 
          they are equal in the Avodah, they are equal in 
          Achilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What Achilah is being referred 
               to?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Eating the Korbanos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But that is learned from the 
               Pasuk LaKohen ha'Makriv Osa Lo Sihyeh!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Chelek k'Chelek teaches 
               about allocating the Lechem ha'Panim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa goes on to exclude other 
               Chovos (unrelated to the Regel) from equal 
               allocation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Rather, those Korbanos go to the Mishmar 
               of that week (Mimkarav - that which was 
               bartered between the Batei Av of the 
               Kohanim, ie. the Mishamaros).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SUKAH' AND THEN 'SHE'HECHEYANU', OR THE REVERSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> Recite Leshev ba'Sukah, then 
          Shehechiyanu (Z'man).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Z'man then Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav's rationale):</font></b> Chiyuv of the day comes 
          first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Tadir takes precedence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This Machlokes seems to be originally 
          between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beis Shamai):</font></b> Sanctification of Shabbos 
               then wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beis Hillel):</font></b> Wine then Yom (Kidush).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Two rationales for Beis Shamai:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Yom causes the wine to precede the 
                    Seudah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The Day is Kodesh (on its own) even 
                    before the wine is introduced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Two rationales for Beis Hillel:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Without wine he could not say Kidush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Tadir takes precedence.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rav appears to follow Beis Shamai and 
               Rabah bar bar Chanah follows Beis Hillel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> My position could follow Beis 
          Hillel as we see that Tadir alone was not 
          enough to place wine first (he needed another 
          reason).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> My position 
          could follow Beis Shamai since the Yom causes 
          the wine, whereas by Sukah the Z'man is 
          independent, and would be said even by those 
          who were exempt from Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (on Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah puts the Tadir 
          ahead of the Chovas ha'Yom (Lechem ha'Panim 
          [Matzah] is distributed before the Shtei 
          ha'Lechem [Chametz])!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> It is a Machlokes Tanaim (Aba 
          Shaul says that the Chametz was given out 
          before the Matzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Nachman bar R. Chisda):</font></b> We recite Z'man and 
          then Sukah (unlike Rav).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> Sukah then Z'man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is Sukah then Z'man (like Rav).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SET 'MISHMAR 'ALSO RECEIVES THE OTHER' KORBENOS TZIBUR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To what Korbanos does this phrase 
          refer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Par He'elem Davar and Se'irei Avodah 
          Zarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does the phrase <i>Makriv Es 
          ha'Kol</i> add?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' EARLY AND LATE 'MISHMAROS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  When Shabbos precedes or follows Yom Tov, all 
          the Mishmaros share in the Lechem ha'Panim of 
          that Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  When a day intervenes, the early or remaining 
          Mishmaros take only two of the twelve Lechem 
          ha'Panim (whereas normally it is divided six 
          and six between the incoming and outgoing 
          Mishmaros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is normally seven (incoming) 
          and five (outgoing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The incoming Mishmar receives from the North; 
          outgoing from the South.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Mishmar Bilgah always gets from the South; 
          its Taba'as was sealed (so the animal's head 
          could not be placed inside) and its window (for 
          storing their knives) was closed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHABBOS BEFORE AND AFTER YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is <i>before</i> and <i>after</i>?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Before means the Shabbos following the 
          first day of Yom Tov (or Shabbos Chol ha'Moed); 
          and after means the last Yom Tov follows 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But that is the same as Shabbos 
          within the Chag, which does not teach us 
          anything about the equal allocation on the 
          Shabbos approaching the Chag!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Before must mean the last day of Yom 
          Tov falls on Erev Shabbos and after refers to 
          the first day of Yom Tov falling after Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we institute this equal 
          distribution?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishmaros must be there (and remain 
          for the following Shabbos since they cannot 
          travel on Yom Tov.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'TASHLUMIN' OF SHAVUOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from verses that the Korbanos of the festivals, and the Lechem ha'Panim of every Shabbos that coincides with a festival, are distributed among the Kohanim of all of the Mishmaros. Similarly, when a festival comes either immediately before or immediately after Shabbos, the Korbanos and the Lechem ha'Panim are distributed among all of the Kohanim. The Torah gives each Mishmar a portion of everything even though Shabbos is not its turn of duty, because they came for the sake of the festival.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Chagigah (17a) teaches that if one was unable to bring the Korbanos of Shavuos (the Korban Chagigah and the Korban Re'iyah) on Yom Tov itself, he may bring them during any of the six days that follow the Yom Tov of Shavuos. These days are called the days of 'Tashlumin.' In a sense, these days are like the days of Chol ha'Mo'ed of Pesach and Sukos, during which the Korbanos of the festival (Korban Chagigah and Korban Re'iyah) may still be offered.
</p><p>
When the Korbanos of Shavuos are brought during the six days after the Yom Tov, do all of the Mishmaros share them? On one hand, those Korbanos are brought because of the festival. On the other hand, they are not being offered on Yom Tov (and thus there is no reason for the Mishmaros to be in the Beis ha'Mikdash at that time). Are those Korbanos distributed among the Kohanim of all of the Mishmaros? (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>, 55b)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> infers from the wording of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Temidim u'Musafim 4:13) that the days of Tashlumin for the Korbanos of Shavuos are <i>not</i> like the festival itself, and thus the Korbanos offered during those days are not divided among all of the Mishmaros. The Rambam writes that if Shavuos occurs on a Thursday, then on the following Shabbos the Mishmar of that week receives the Lechem ha'Panim (ten of the twelve loaves). The Rambam clearly learns that the days of Tashlumin of Shavuos are not considered days of the festival, because if they were, then all of the Mishmaros would share the Lechem ha'Panim.
</p><p>
However, the Yerushalmi (Chagigah 2:4, cited by the <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 4:5) cites a dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish with regard to who receives the hides of the Korbanos offered on the 'Yom Tevo'ach' that follows Shavuos when Shavuos occurs on Shabbos. ('Yom Tevo'ach' refers to the Sunday that follows Shavuos when it occurs on Shabbos. Since the Korbanos of Shavuos cannot be offered on Shabbos, the Korbanos are offered instead on Sunday, the first day after Shavuos on which they can be brought.) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Korbanos are divided among all of the Mishmaros. Reish Lakish maintains that they are given only to the Mishmar of that week. When Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue, the Halachah usually follows Rebbi Yochanan. Why, then, does the Rambam imply that the Korbanos are <i>not</i> distributed to all of the Kohanim, like Reish Lakish?
</p><p>
The Aruch la'Ner suggests that the dispute in the Yerushalmi applies only to the 'Yom Tevo'ach,' and not to all of the days of Tashlumin. The Rambam agrees that on the 'Yom Tevo'ach,' everyone receives a share of the Korbanos. (The Aruch la'Ner's approach is slightly problematic, because the Yerushalmi seems to associate Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that all of the Mishmaros share the Korbanos on the 'Yom Tevo'ach' with his opinion that Shavuos has Tashlumin for six days (and not just one day) after Yom Tov.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> apparently disagrees with the Rambam and rules like the Yerushalmi. He says that the days of Tashlumin of Shavuos are considered like the festival with regard to dividing the Korbanos among all of the Mishmaros.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Bein mi'Lefaneha) explains that when the Mishnah says that the Korbanos are divided among all of the Mishmaros when Shabbos immediately follows Yom Tov, it refers to the Shabbos that immediately follows <i>Shemini Atzeres</i>. The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> asks why Rashi explains that the Mishnah refers specifically to Sukos, when it seems to apply to all of the festivals (like the previous Mishnah).
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is as follows. The Mishnah here would be problematic if it would refer to all of the festivals, including Shavuos. The Mishnah says that when Shabbos is the day after the festival, the Korbanos of the festival are divided equally. This implies that when Shabbos occurs <i>two</i> days after the festival, the Korbanos are not divided equally, but rather they are given to the Mishmar of that week. Why, though, should the Korbanos not be divided among all of the Mishmaros when Shabbos occurs two days after the festival? Since it is still within six days after Shavuos, the days are considered like Shavuos itself and the Korbanos should be divided equally, as the Yerushalmi concludes according to Rebbi Yochanan. It must be that this statement of the Mishnah refers back to the festival of Sukos (the topic of the rest of the Maseches), and it is not a continuation of the previous Mishnah which refers to all of the festivals. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YEHUDAH TEACHES SEVEN AND FIVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why the extra two for the incoming 
          Mishmar?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> For closing the gates which the 
          outgoing Mishmar had opened.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let the outgoing Mishmar tell the 
          incoming Mishmar to abolish this practice, and 
          rather give six now and receive six at the end 
          of their week, rather than take seven now only 
          to lose two at week's end!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Take the small gourd offered 
          now, rather than wait for a potentially larger 
          gift later.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE HIDES OF THE 'MUSAF KEVASIM 'ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> These hides are divided equally 
          between the outgoing and incoming Mishmaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that the 
          outgoing Mishmar does the morning Tamid and 
          Musaf while the incoming Mishmar does the 
          afternoon Tamid and the Bazichin, and there is 
          no mention of the hides!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That Tana was not dealing with 
          allocations!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> But even the Beraisa dealing 
          with allocations (Tana d'vei Shmuel) does not 
          mention the hides!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This refutes R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The incoming Mishmar takes from the 
          North (the main area, where Kodeshei Kodoshim 
          are slaughtered) to indicate that they are 
          arriving while the outgoing Mishmar shows they 
          are leaving by taking from the South.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MISHMAR' OF BILGAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The terrible acts of a daughter of 
          this Mishmar led to their privileges being 
          revoked.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Others say it was because they would 
          procrastinate in coming, indicating their 
          disdain for the Avodah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In their absence, Yeshvav took their 
               place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even though neighbors of evil people 
               generally lose out, in this case they 
               profited.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> While Bilgah always took from the South, 
               Yeshvav always received in the North.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should the whole Mishmar be 
          penalized for one wayward daughter?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> This is correct, since a child 
          imitates its parents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then the whole Mishmar is punished 
          owing to one set of derelict parents!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Woe to the evil one and woe to 
          his neighbor (as we see by the stones of the 
          house of the Metzora and his neighbor) and weal 
          to the righteous and to his neighbor (proof 
          text).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: A SUKAH TALLER THAN 20 AMOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara presents four opinions for why a Sukah taller than 20 Amos is Pasul. There are practical differences between these opinions with regard to whether there are exceptions to the Pesul of a Sukah taller than 20 Amos, and under what circumstances those exceptions apply.
</p><p>
1. Rabah (2a) says that the reason for why a 20-Amah-tall Sukah is Pasul is because the Sechach is not readily noticeable. According to this reason, if the walls of the Sukah reach all the way up to the Sechach, then a person's eye follows the walls and notices the Sechach, and thus the Sukah is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.
</p><p>
2. Rebbi Zeira says that it is Pasul because the Sechach does not provide shade to the lower part of the Sukah when it is so high. According to this reason, if the length and width of the Sukah are at least four by four Amos, then the Sechach does provide shade even though it is higher than 20 Amos, and such a Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
3. Rava says that a Sukah taller than 20 Amos is Pasul because the Torah requires that the Sukah be a 'Diras Arai,' a temporary dwelling. A structure taller than 20 Amos is normally built as a 'Diras Keva,' a permanent dwelling. A Sukah cannot be built in the manner of the type of building that is a 'Diras Keva.' According to Rava, no Sukah taller than 20 Amos can be valid.
</p><p>
4. The Gemara (2b) cites a fourth opinion. Rav Chanan bar Rabah says that a 20-Amah-tall Sukah is Pasul only when it is so narrow that it 'contains only his head, most of his body, and his table,' which is defined as seven Tefachim long by seven Tefachim wide. (<b>TOSFOS</b> explains that such a small structure is considered a chicken coop and is not called a dwelling place.) If, however, the length and width of the Sukah are larger than seven by seven Tefachim, the Sukah is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.
</p><p>
Which opinion does the Halachah follow?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> says that the Halachah should follow the view of Rabah. His reasoning (as cited by the Rif) is that Rabah was an expert in Rav's teachings and knew best what Rav taught. If Rabah stated that a tall Sukah is valid when its walls reach the Sechach, then he must have known that this is what Rav taught. Since Rav was a very early Amora, the Halachah should follow his view. (This is how the <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> understands the intention of Rabeinu Chananel.)
</p><p>
The Halachah certainly should not follow Rava, because when the Amora'im (Rav Yoshiyah, Rav Huna, and Rav Chanan bar Rabah) quote Rav, none of the statements they quote in his name is consistent with Rava's opinion. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> and <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b> add that Rava was a student of Rabah, and thus the Halachah should follow the teacher, not the student.
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>ROSH</b> points out that the <b>RIF</b> rules in accordance with Rava. The Rosh explains the Rif's reasoning as follows. First, of all the Amora'im quoted in the Gemara, Rava is the latest ('Basra'), and the Halachah normally follows the latest opinion (even though he was a Talmid of Rabah). Second, later in the Gemara (7b) Abaye records a list of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah is a 'Diras Keva,' and he includes Rebbi Yehudah of the Mishnah. This implies that the Rabanan and most other Tana'im maintain that a Sukah is <i>not</i> a 'Diras Keva,' and that any Tana who maintains that it is a 'Diras Keva' is expressing the opinion of a minority. According to all of the Amora'im other than Rava, the Rabanan of the Mishnah <i>do</i> permit a Sukah over 20 Amos tall even though such a structure is a 'Diras Keva.' Hence, it is evident from Abaye that the Halachah should follow Rava, who says that a structure that is fit to be a 'Diras Keva' should <i>never</i> be a valid Sukah.
</p><p>
According to Rava, the Mishnah is more precise. The Mishnah makes no mention of any exceptions to the Halachah that a Sukah 20 Amos tall is Pasul, as Rava maintains. This is the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 633:1).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: THE MINIMUM SIZE OF A SUKAH </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records two arguments between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. The first argument involves the minimum size of a Sukah. Beis Shamai says that a Sukah must be at least seven by seven Tefachim (large enough to hold a person's head, most of his body, and his table). Beis Hillel says that the minimum size is only six by six Tefachim (large enough to hold a person's head and most of his body, without his table).
</p><p>
The second argument involves a person who sits in a Sukah while his table is outside of the Sukah. According to Beis Shamai, the Rabanan decreed that he does <i>not</i> fulfill his obligation in such a case, because of the concern that he might be drawn after his table and eat outside of the Sukah. Beis Hillel maintains that the Rabanan made no such decree.
</p><p>
In both cases, Beis Shamai's opinion is the more stringent one. According to Beis Shamai, is the Sukah in each case invalid mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan? In addition, what is the Halachah in each case?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> (13a of the pages of the Rif) writes that in <i>both</i> cases, the Halachah follows the view of Beis Shamai, because the rulings in the two cases 'depend on the same reason.' The <b>RAN</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that the Rif maintains that the Pesul of a small Sukah is mid'Rabanan, just like the Pesul of a large Sukah with the table outside. In both cases, the Rabanan decreed that the Sukah is invalid, lest the person be drawn after his table. Since the Rif says that both types of Sukah (a small one, and one with the table outside) are invalid for the same reason (because of the enactment of the Rabanan), he clearly maintains that Beis Shamai invalidates them only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 634, in Bi'ur Halachah DH Afilu) asks that although the Rif implies that a small Sukah is invalid only mid'Rabanan, whenever the Gemara discusses the minimum size of a Sukah (see, for example, 7a and 16a-b) it seems to take for granted that there is no minimum size mid'Oraisa other than seven by seven Tefachim. If that requirement is mid'Rabanan, then the Gemara should make some mention of the size required <i>mid'Oraisa</i>.
</p><p>
To answer this question on the Rif, the Mishnah Berurah (in Sha'ar ha'Tziyun #7) suggests that perhaps the Rif means to say that a small Sukah is invalid <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. How does the Mishnah Berurah explain the Rif's statement that both a large Sukah with the table outside and a small Sukah are invalid for the same reason?
</p><p>
The Rif apparently understands that the fact that the Torah invalidates a small Sukah (the size of which is not large enough to contain one's table) reveals that the Torah itself is concerned that if the table is outside of the Sukah because of its small size, one might be drawn after the table. From that Torah law, the Rabanan deduced that they should enact a Gezeirah to invalidate a large Sukah when the table is outside, even though the Torah does not invalidate such a Sukah (since it is <i>possible</i> for the table to be inside the Sukah; see <b>RAN</b>).
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>ROSH</b>, <b>RAN</b>, and others explain that the two arguments are completely unrelated. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who rules like Beis Shamai, says that a Sukah must be large enough to contain 'his head, most of his body, and his table.' He rules like Beis Shamai only with regard to the minimum size of a Sukah.
</p><p>
Beis Shamai's reason in the case of a large Sukah with the table outside is different. In that case, Beis Shamai maintains that the Rabanan invalidated the Sukah out of concern that a person might be drawn after his table. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak does not say that the Halachah follows Beis Shamai in that case. Consequently, a Sukah less than seven by seven Tefachim is invalid <i>mid'Oraisa</i>, while a large Sukah with the table outside is valid mid'Oraisa. Even according to Beis Shamai, a large Sukah with the table outside is invalid only <i>mid'Rabanan</i>.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 634, end of Bi'ur Halachah DH Pesulah) suggests that this is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 4:1, 6:8).
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (3a, DH d'Amar Lach) and <b>TOSFOS RABEINU YEHUDAH HE'CHASID</b> (Berachos 11a) suggest that in both cases, the Sukah is invalid mid'Oraisa according to Beis Shamai. When the Gemara says that a large Sukah with the table outside is invalid because of the decree of the Rabanan, it means that the Rabanan decreed that when a person sits in his Sukah with the table outside he does not fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah <i>even mid'Oraisa</i>. The Rabanan have the authority to decree that a person who does not perform a Mitzvah in the way that they prescribed does not fulfill even the Torah obligation.
</p><p>
How, though, are the Rabanan able to prevent one from fulfilling his obligation mid'Oraisa? Perhaps a person performs every Mitzvah 'according to the will of the Rabanan' (as the Gemara says with regard to the act of Kidushin, 'Kol d'Mekadesh a'Da'ata d'Rabanan Mekadesh,' Kesuvos 3a). The will of the Rabanan is that the act not be considered the fulfillment of a Mitzvah when it is done in a way contrary to the way the Rabanan prescribed. Even if one fulfills a Mitzvah when he does not have specific intent (Kavanah) to fulfill it, a person who specifically intends <i>not</i> to fulfill a Mitzvah does not discharge his obligation (as <b>TOSFOS</b> rules in Menachos 40b, DH mi'Mai).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Halachah follows the view of Beis Shamai in the case of a small Sukah, because Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak rules like Beis Shamai in that case. In the case of a large Sukah with the table outside, <b>TOSFOS</b>, the <b>ROSH</b>, and many other Rishonim rule like Beis Hillel. Since Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak does not discuss that case (according to their understanding of his words), the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, because of the general principle that whenever Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue the Halachah follows Beis Hillel.
</p><p>
However, the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> rule like Beis Shamai even in the case of a large Sukah with the table outside, because they maintain that both cases depend on the same reasoning (see (a) above). Hence, if the Halachah follows Beis Shamai in one case, then it must follow him in the other case as well. This is how the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> rules (OC 634:4).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'SHI'URIM' ARE KNOWN THROUGH 'HALACHAH L'MOSHE MI'SINAI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites Rav's assertion that the Halachic Shi'urim are known only through a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. The Gemara challenges his assertion from Rav Chanin's teaching that the Shi'urim are derived from the verse, 'Eretz Chitah u'Se'orah...' (Devarim 8:8, which lists the seven species of fruits of Eretz Yisrael). From Rav Chanin's teaching, it is evident that the Shi'urim are learned from an explicit verse and not merely from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that the verse is merely an Asmachta, and the primary source for the Shi'urim is the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara consider Rav Chanin's statement to contradict Rav's statement? Perhaps Rav means that <i>other</i> Shi'urim, which do not depend on the sizes of the items mention in the verse of 'Eretz Chitah...,' are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? For example, the minimum size (one cubic Tefach) of an Ohel (roof of a shelter) that spreads Tum'ah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, as Rashi mentions (Berachos 19b, DH Devar Torah, and Sukah 4a, DH Hachi Garsinan). Similarly, the length of time for which one is punishable with Kares when he stays in the Azarah while he is Tamei is learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (Rashi to Shevuos 14b, DH Chayav). Many other Shi'urim are presumably learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai as well, such as the smallest amount of Sheretz that is Metamei (k'Adashah), the size of a Nega Tzara'as (Gris), and the number of black hairs (two) that invalidate a Parah Adumah. (<b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b>; <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shi'urin) seems to answer this question with the addition of the words, 'Shel Isurin.' The Gemara assumes that Rav's Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is identical to Rebbi Yochanan's Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai in Yoma (80a). Rebbi Yochanan specifies that 'Shi'urim Shel <i>Onshin</i>' are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. This refers to the minimum size for which a person is punishable when he transgresses a prohibition with that object. Why does Rebbi Yochanan add the words 'Shel Onshin' (as the <b>RASHASH</b> there asks)? Perhaps his intention is to emphasize that even the Shi'urim for transgressions, which Rav Chanin derives from 'Eretz Chitah...' (among other Shi'urim) are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Other Shi'urim are not related to an object involved in a prohibition, but rather to general laws of Tum'ah and other matters.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rav also means that the Shi'urim of <i>Onshin</i>, punishments (or as Rashi writes, the Shi'urim of Isurin, transgressions), are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Those Shi'urim are the very Shi'urim that Rav Chanin learns from the verse. (However, when the same Sugya is discussed in Eruvin (4a), Rashi does not mention the word 'Isurim.') (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, from the fact that Rav does not qualify his statement and limit it to specific Shi'urim, it is evident that his intention is to make a general statement about all Shi'urim. The Gemara asks that since there are <i>some</i> Shi'urim which are learned from a verse, why does Rav make a general statement that all Shi'urim are learned from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?
</p><p>
This approach answers several another questions on the Sugya. The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> asks, why does the Gemara (6a) challenge Rav by saying that the laws of Chatzitzah are learned from a verse? The laws of Chatzitzah apply not only to a person who immerses in a Mikvah, but also to the Kohanim who perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The source of some of those laws (such as whether Tefilin is considered a Chatzitzah; see Zevachim 19a and Tosfos there, and Insights to Pesachim 77:1) seem to be a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Why does the Gemara not assume that these are the laws to which Rav refers?	
</p><p>
Similarly, why does the Gemara ask what law of Mechitzah is derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? Even if the minimum height of a Mechitzah is learned from a verse, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is necessary to teach the law that the third wall of a Sukah requires a width of only one Tefach, as the Gemara itself says (6b)! (See <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>, <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b>, and <b>RASHASH</b>, who all suggest forced answers.)
</p><p>
According to the approach mentioned above, the Gemara could not have suggested such answers for Rav's statement. If the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches one specific law of Chatzitzah (that Tefilin are not a Chatzitzah) or of Mechitzah (that the third wall of a Sukah needs only one Tefach), Rav would not have made a general statement that 'Chatzitzin u'Mechitzin' are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Rather, he must have meant that some general and common Halachos of Chatzitzah ('Rubo u'Makpid Alav') and of Mechitzah ('Gud v'Lavud...') are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A SUKAH UNDER A TREE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a Sukah under a tree is invalid. In the Gemara, Rava says that if the branches over the Sukah let through more sunlight than make shade, then the Sukah is valid. The Gemara asks why the Sukah is valid in such a case. Since the Sukah is underneath the tree, the branches of the tree (which are invalid Sechach) join the Sechach of the Sukah and invalidate it.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? Why should the invalid Sechach (the branches of the tree) combine with the valid Sechach of the Sukah and invalidate it? Since the Sukah's Sechach is valid and there is more shade than sunlight, what can the branches of the tree to do invalidate it? If the Gemara means that the valid Sechach on the Sukah is considered as though it is not there because it is under the tree, then the Gemara should not say that the branches of the tree are 'Mitztaref' (combine) with the valid Sechach, but rather that the branches of the tree are 'Mevatel' (annul) the valid Sechach.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Ha Ka Mitztaref, and 10a, DH Mahu d'Teima) seems to understand that the Sechach of the Sukah underneath the tree indeed produces more shade than sunlight and is a valid Sukah by itself. The Gemara's question is that the Sechach underneath the tree should be discounted. Why, then, does the Gemara ask that the tree is 'Mitztaref' with the valid Sechach, and not that the tree is 'Mevatel' it? Rashi understands that it is obvious that the Sechach beneath the tree is Batel. Once the Sechach underneath the tree is annulled, the branches of the tree (the invalid Sechach) now replace the original Sechach. Consequently, the tree combines (Mitztaref) with the Sechach of the Sukah, so that the majority of shade is produced by the combination of the invalid Sechach with the valid Sechach. (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>, <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> #100; see also <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b>, Hilchos Sukah 5:70, for a different understanding of Rashi.)
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RIVA</b> (as cited by the <b>ROSH</b> 1:14 and the <b>TUR</b> OC 626), the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (2a), the <b>RITVA</b> and others.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ha) says that in the Mishnah's case, the Sukah's valid Sechach lets in more sunlight than shade. Only when it is combined with the branches of the tree above does it produce more shade than sunlight. That is why the Gemara says that the Sukah is not valid when the shade comes only from a combination of the invalid Sechach with the valid Sechach.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara know that the Mishnah is discussing a case of a Sukah in which the sunlight is more than the shade? The Gemara reasons that if the shade is more than the sunlight, then it is obvious that a tree -- the branches of which let through more sunlight than they produce shade -- cannot invalidate the Sukah. Only if the invalid Sechach (branches) on top of the Sukah produces more shade can it ruin the Sukah (the valid Sechach of which also produces more shade); the Sukah, in such a case, is like a Sukah underneath another Sukah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> suggests that the status of the Sukah depends on which Sechach was placed there first. In a normal case of a Sukah underneath a tree, the tree existed before the Sukah was built. The tree's branches let through more sunlight than shade. When one adds more Sechach to make more shade than sunlight, the Sukah is invalid, because part of the shade of the Sechach is created by the branches of the tree, which was there before the Sukah. The Sukah will remain invalid regardless of how much valid Sechach is added afterwards, because the tree was part of the Sechach (which helped produce a majority of shade) when the Sukah was originally built. If, on the other hand, one built a Sukah which had more shade than sunlight, and only afterwards was a tree placed there (and the branches let through more sunlight than shade), the tree will not affect the status of the Sukah, because the Sukah was built first and was valid when it was built. Presumably, the Mishnah is discussing the normal case, where the tree preceded the Sukah. This is why the Gemara says that the tree should invalidate the Sukah, even if the Sukah now has more shade than sunlight.
</p><p>
According to the Ba'al ha'Me'or, what is the Gemara's answer to its question? The Gemara says that the Sukah underneath the tree is valid 'when he lowered the branches down to the Sechach' ('b'she'Chavtan'). How does that help? If the Sechach above the Sukah was invalid, then the Sukah should remain invalid forever, as the Ba'al ha'Me'or posits.
</p><p>
The Ba'al ha'Me'or suggests a new interpretation for the phrase, 'b'she'Chavtan.' He explains that it means that one shook the tree until all of its leaves fell off the branches. The reason why a Sukah underneath a tree is invalid is because the tree becomes part of the Sukah. When one shakes the branches, he shows that it <i>was not his intent</i> for the tree to be part of the shade-producing Sechach of the Sukah, and thus it does not become part of the Sukah. Since there is enough valid Sechach to create more shade than sunlight, the Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
(For a summary of the Halachic rulings in this matter, see Insights to Sukah 10:3.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: A FOREIGN OBJECT PLACED ON TOP OF THE SECHACH OF A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi told his servant Minyamin to take down a wet cloak that Minyamin had spread on top of the Sechach to dry. Rav Ashi told him to take it down after it became dry so that people would not think that the Sechach is valid while the cloak is on top of it. He did not insist that it be removed while still wet, because while it is still wet everyone realizes that it was put there to dry and not to serve as Sechach.
</p><p>
It is not clear why Rav Ashi permitted the cloak to remain on the Sechach while it was wet. Even though onlookers realize that it was placed there to dry and not to serve as Sechach, the cloak on top of the Sechach should be no different from a tree above a Sukah. Just as the tree's branches (which are invalid Sechach) annul (Mevatel) the valid Sechach beneath them, the cloak should also annul the valid Sechach beneath it. The Mishnah itself (10a) says that when one places a sheet on top of the Sukah to protect it from the sun, the Sukah becomes invalid for this reason. What is the difference between a sheet placed on the Sechach to protect the Sukah from the sun and a cloak spread out on the Sechach to dry?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Lo Shena) seems to address this question. Rashi writes that when one spreads a sheet on top of the Sechach in order to protect it from the sun, he intends to use the sheet to shield what is beneath it. Since the sheet's purpose is to shield or protect, it serves the same purpose as the Sechach. Accordingly, it can annul the valid Sechach. (It does not become secondary and annulled to the Sechach, but rather it annuls the Sechach.) In contrast, when an object is placed on the Sechach to dry, it does not disqualify the Sechach because its purpose is not the same as the purpose of Sechach; it does not serve to protect anything beneath it. Therefore, it becomes annulled to the Sechach, just as a sheet that serves as a decoration for the Sukah becomes annulled to the Sukah.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> similarly says that a cloak placed on the Sechach to dry is not comparable to a sheet placed on the Sechach to shield the Sukah from the sun or to a sheet placed beneath the Sechach to catch falling pieces of Sechach. A sheet that shields the Sukah from the sun or that catches the falling objects is something that is needed for the Sukah, and therefore it is not considered a temporary addition. A cloak that is spread out to dry does not serve the Sukah, and thus is considered a temporary addition that does not invalidate the Sechach. It becomes annulled to the Sechach even if it serves no decorative purpose.
</p><p>
(b) Other Rishonim do not differentiate between a protective covering and a cloak or sheet spread out to dry. The only thing that is annulled to the Sechach is a decorative object, in which case it serves the Sechach by beautifying it and thus it is annulled to the Sechach. Anything that does not serve the Sechach is not annulled to the Sechach (see Hagahos Ashiri). Why, then, does a wet cloak not invalidate the Sechach?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (10a, DH Pires) explains that when the Sukah has more shade than sunlight, nothing spread on top of it will invalidate it, even if the object spread on the Sechach makes more shade. In the Mishnah, the reason why the Sukah is invalid when a sheet is placed on top of it is because the Sechach of the Sukah let in more sunlight than shade before the sheet was placed there (<b>TESHUVAS HA'GE'ONIM</b>), or because the sheet itself causes the Sechach to make more shade than sunlight (either by holding up the leaves or branches that became bent, or by protecting the Sechach from the sun so that it does not dry out) (<b>RABEINU TAM</b>). The Sechach of Rav Ashi's Sukah made more shade than sunlight, and thus it was not affected by a wet cloak on top of it. (See Insights to Sukah 9:2:b.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> explains that when a Sukah had more shade <i>before</i> a foreign object (invalid Sechach which lets in more sunlight than shade) was placed on top of it, then it remains valid even if one adds invalid Sechach afterwards. In the case of Rav Ashi, Minyamin put the cloak up after the valid Sechach was placed on the Sukah, and thus the cloak did not invalidate the Sechach, since it covered only a small part of the Sukah. In the Mishnah, the sheet that was placed atop the Sechach made more shade than sunlight, and invalid Sechach that makes more shade always invalidates what is below it. (See Insights to Sukah 9:2:c.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>RAN</b> explain that Rav Ashi was not in his Sukah at the time, and therefore he was not concerned that something was on top of the Sukah. The cloak certainly invalidated the Sukah, but since Rav Ashi was not eating there he did not need the Sukah to be valid.
</p><p>
According to the Ritva and Ran, if Rav Ashi did not need a valid Sukah, then what difference does it make if the cloak is wet or dry? The answer is that if the cloak is wet, no one will eat in that Sukah, as the water from the cloak will drip on anyone below. Consequently, anyone who sees the Sukah empty of occupants will not mistakenly think that the Sukah is valid. If, however, the cloak is dry, then one might think that Rav Ashi intended to eat in the Sukah, and he will assume that a cloak is a valid form of Sechach. Therefore, Rav Ashi required the cloak to be removed once it dried.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> As mentioned above, the Rishonim dispute whether an object placed on top of a Sukah to dry invalidates the Sechach or not. Rashi says that it is similar to a decoration and does not invalidate the Sechach. Other Rishonim say that it is similar to an object placed on the Sukah to protect it from the sun or to catch falling leaves, and it invalidates the Sechach.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> writes that one should conduct himself stringently and not sit underneath an object placed on top of the Sechach, even it was placed there to dry or for any other purpose unrelated to the Sukah. The <b>TUR</b> (end of OC 627 and 629), however, seems to cite contradictory opinions whether an object placed on the Sechach to dry is like a decoration or is like an object that protects the Sukah from the sun or from falling leaves (see <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b>, end of 627). The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (end of 629) writes that in practice one should be stringent and not place anything on the Sechach to dry while one eats in the Sukah.
</p><p>
The Rishonim also disagree whether a Sukah (with more shade than sunlight) becomes invalidated when it is later covered with a sheet or with invalid Sechach. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 626:1, 629:19) cites the opinion of Rabeinu Tam who says that a Sukah does not become invalid if it has more shade than sunlight even if there is a tree or other invalid Sechach above it. He also cites the opinion of Rashi and other Rishonim (see Insights to Sukah 9:2:a) who say that such a Sukah <i>does</i> become invalid. The Poskim write that one should not sit in such a Sukah unless it is a She'as ha'Dechak, an extenuating circumstance (see Mishnah Berurah OC 626:7, 629:58).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE MITZVAH OF LULAV OUTSIDE THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara earlier (29b) teaches a difference between the first day of Sukos and the other six days with regard to the Mitzvah of Lulav. On the first day of Sukos, the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim is mid'Oraisa. On the other six days, the Mitzvah is mid'Rabanan in all areas of the 'Medinah' and 'Gevulin' (outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash), as the Mishnah says earlier (41a). The Gemara here again raises this point in its discussion of when and where the Lulav may be held when Sukos occurs on Shabbos.
</p><p>
When the Mishnah and Gemara refer to the 'Medinah' or the 'Gevulin,' the places where the Mitzvah of Lulav is mid'Oraisa only on the first day of Sukos, to what areas do they refer?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (41a, DH b'Medinah) explains that 'Medinah' refers to any part of Eretz Yisrael outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, including the city of Yerushalayim. Only in the Beis ha'Mikdash itself is the Mitzvah mid'Oraisa all seven days of the festival. Although the words 'Medinah' and 'Gevulin' imply places that are far away, here it refers to any place outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Sukah 3:10, Ma'aser Sheni 3:4, Shekalim 1:3, and Rosh Hashanah 4:1) writes that 'Medinah' refers to all of Eretz Yisrael outside of Yerushalayim. Yerushalayim itself, however, is included in 'Mikdash,' and thus in all of Yerushalayim the Mitzvah of Lulav applies mid'Oraisa for all seven days of Sukos. This also appears to be the opinion of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (44a, 'b'Gevulin <i>Zulas Yerushalayim</i>').
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> (41a, 43a; <b>BIKUREI YAKOV</b> OC 658) writes that nowadays if, during Sukos, one finds himself in the area of Yerushalayim which had Kedushas Yerushalayim, according to the Rambam he fulfills the Mitzvah d'Oraisa when he holds the Arba'as ha'Minim on all seven days. However, since the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa according to the Rambam, one must be careful with regard to all of the Pesulim which normally apply only on the first day of Sukos (such as 'Lachem' -- the requirement that one own the Lulav and not borrow it from someone else, and 'Chaser' -- the requirement that the Lulav be complete), because those Pesulim apply all seven days mid'Oraisa in the 'Mikdash' (according to Rashi and Tosfos on 29b; see Insights there).
</p><p>
The Acharonim discuss whether a person is obligated to go to Yerushalayim in order to fulfill the Mitzvah d'Oraisa with the Lulav (see <b>MIKRA'EI KODESH</b>, Sukos volume 2, p. 60 et seq.; <b>MO'ADIM U'ZEMANIM</b>, end of volume eight).
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (in Chidushim to Sukah 42b) strongly opposes this view. He argues that nowadays when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash, Yerushalayim does not retain its Kedushah with regard to the Mitzvah of Lulav even according to the Rambam. The Rambam means that only <i>when the Beis ha'Mikdash stands</i> is there a Mitzvah d'Oraisa of Lulav in all parts of Yerushalayim. This is evident from the fact that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai saw the need to institute that the Arba'as ha'Minim be held for all seven days of Sukos as a 'Zecher l'Mikdash.' If the Mitzvah still applies mid'Oraisa for all seven days in Yerushalayim nowadays, why does it need to be commemorated with a 'Zecher'? The Mitzvah needs no commemoration if it is still in effect mid'Oraisa in Yerushalayim for all seven days. (Another way of expressing this logic is that if the Mitzvah applies mid'Oraisa in Yerushalayim even when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash, then it clearly is not related to the Beis ha'Mikdash, and thus an enactment that it be observed in all places does not serve to commemorates the '*Mikdash*.') The Or Same'ach cites other proofs for his assertion.
</p><p>
It is important to note that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam makes no mention of the opinion he expresses in Perush ha'Mishnayos, that Yerushalayim is included in 'Mikdash' with regard to the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. Therefore, in practice, a person may be lenient and fulfill the Mitzvah with a Lulav that does not fulfill the requirement of 'Lachem' during the last six days of Sukos in all parts of Yerushalayim. (See Insights to Rosh Hashanah 29:2.)
</p><p>


