Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina asks why the Parshah of Rotzchim was said in a strong Lashon, by which he means with a Lashon of 'Dibur' (even though throughout the Sefer, he uses a Lashon of 'Amirah').

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos" - that Dibur is a strong Lashon (which stems from the Midas ha'Din).

(c) The Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Yadber Amim Tachteinu", describes "Az Nidberu Yir'ei Hashem Ish el Re'eihu" as gentle. "Yadber Amim Tachteinu" means - that Hashem will lead nations to be under our jurisdiction.

(d) We reconcile Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina with the Beraisa - by differentiating between 'Daber' (which is a strong Lashon of speech) and 'Yadber' (which is a gentle Lashon of leading).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over the previous point; one explains Yehoshua's use of 'Dibur' like Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina. The other one - attributes it to the fact that he failed to tell Yisrael about the Arei Miklat as soon as it was told to him.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah argue over the Pasuk "Vayichtov Yehoshua es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh be'Sefer Toras Elokim". One of them ascribes this to the Pesukim of the Arei Miklat (which we have just been discussing). The other one - to the last eight Pesukim in the Torah (which speak after Moshe's death).

(c) The first opinion explains the words "be'Sefer Toras Elokim" to mean - that Yehoshua wrote in his Sefer things that were already written in the Torah.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir argue over a Sefer-Torah that one stitched with linen threads. One opinion learn from the Pasuk "Lema'an Tiheyeh Toras Hashem be'Ficha" - that just as Tefilin (based on a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai) must be written on Gidin (animal sinews ), so too, must a Sefer-Torah.

(b) The other opinion validates it in spite of the 'Hekesh' - because, in his opinion, the 'Hekesh' only teaches us that, like Tefilin, a Sefer-Torah must be written on K'laf that is made from animals that one is permitted to eat (since this is clearly insinuated in the Pasuk), but does not incorporate what is only Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(c) Rav commented - that the Tefilin (or the Sifrei-Torah) that he saw in the house of his uncle Rebbi Chiya - were stitched with flax ...

(d) ... but that the Halachah was not like him.

(a) A Kohen Merubeh Begadim who died, just like a Mashu'ach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah, would release the murderers from the Ir Miklat. The two could not serve simultaneously - because the former only occurred from the time of Yoshiyahu ha'Melech (when the jar of anointing oil was hidden). Prior to that, every Kohen Gadol was anointed.

(b) A Kohen she'Avar mi'Meshichaso who died would release him too. This refers to a Kohen who stood in for a Kohen Gadol who became Tamei, and who subsequently stood down, when the Kohen Gadol became Tahor once again.

(c) The fourth category of Kohen Gadol that Rebbi Yehudah adds to the list - a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah.

(d) The mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would distribute food and clothes to the murderers, says our Mishnah - to discourage them from Davening that their sons should die (to enable them to go free).

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah learns from the three Pesukim "Veyashav Bah ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol", "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" and "ve'Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" - that the three Kohanim Gedolim listed in our Mishnah release the murderers from the Ir Miklat with their death.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah includes a Mashu'ach Milchamah from the Pasuk "Lashuv ba'Aretz ad Mos ha'Kohen". The Rabbanan disagrees with him - because the Pasuk there omits the word "ha'Gadol", conveying the impression that this Kohen is merely one of the three mentioned earlier.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ke'Tzipor Lanud ki'Deror La'uf Kein Kilelas Chinam Lo Savo" - that a baseless curse will not materialize.

(b) That old man quoting Rava reconciled our Mishnah with this Pasuk - by basing the mothers of the Kohanim fears on the fact that the murders would not have occurred had their sons Davened that such things should not happen in Yisrael. Consequently, the murderers' prayers were not baseless at all.

(c) The alternative version to 'K'dei she'Lo Yispalelu al B'neihen she'Yamusu' - 'K'dei she'Yispaleu al B'neihem she'Lo Yamusu' (because otherwise, they might die automatically).

(d) Before arriving at the same conclusion as we did in the first version, the problem with this is - 'Zigud Chata ve'Tuvya Mangid (receives Malkos)' (or 'Sh'chem Chata u'Mavga'i Gazir' [has to circumcise]), which means that since it is the murderers who killed, why should the Kohen Gadol have to die?

(e) Eliyahu ha'Navi did not speak to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi for three days - because someone was eaten by a lion, and even though this took place at a distance of three Parsah (twelve Mil), such was Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's piety that his Tefilos would have prevented it from happening.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said that the curse of a Chacham - will come true even if it is unfounded.

(b) When David was digging the foundations for the Beis-Hamikdash, and the depths threatened to drown the world, David asked a She'eilah. He was able to dig the foundations of the Beis-Hamikdash, despite the fact that he had not yet purchased the land on which it was to be built, from Aravnah ha'Yevusi - because years earlier, he had already worked out together with Shmuel, its exact location. Presumably, he dug the foundations with Aravnah's permission.

(a) David's She'eilah was - whether it was permitted to write Hashem's Name on a piece of clay and throw it into the depths, to confine the water of the depths to its current location (even though it was bound to get erased).

(b) Eventually, Achitofel resolved David's She'eilah by Darshening a 'Kal va'Chomer - from a Sotah, where Hashem permitted His Name to be erased in order to make peace between man and wife; how much more so to save the world.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learned his Din from that episode - because when initially, nobody responded to David's She'eilah, he placed a curse upon anyone who knew the answer and did not divulge it, to the effect that he would be strangled. Achitofel divulged the information, yet he died by strangulation.

(d) Achitofel strangled himself - because (for the first time in his life), his advice (to Avshalom) was spawned.

9) Rebbi Avahu learned from Eli and Shmuel that the curse of a Chacham materializes even if the condition that accompanies it is fulfilled - because Eli told Shmuel that he would be made to suffer what he was suffering if he did not reveal to him what Hashem had said. He did indeed reveal to Eli Hashem's terrible prophecy, yet his children (like Eli's) did not go in his ways.

10)

(a) And Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from Yehudah, whose bones 'rolled in the coffin' - that a Niduy (Cherem) will materialize, even if the conditions to which it is attached are fulfilled (seeing as Yehudah was punished in this way, even though he returned Binyamin safe and sound, as promised).

(b) Yehudah's bones - were taken out of Egypt by the members of his tribe, as were the bones of the other sons of Ya'akov,

(c) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk "Y'chi Reuven ve'Al Yamos" to that of "ve'Zos li'Yehudah ... " - that (due to the self-imposed Niduy), Yehudah's bones were rolling in the coffin throughout the forty years in the desert, and that Moshe was now Davenning on his behalf.

(d) The connection between Reuven and Yehudah - is that it was Yehudah, who did Teshuvah on his sin (concerning Tamar), who inspired Reuven (who sinned against his father regarding Bilhah's bed) to follow suite, and if Reuven's Teshuvah was excepted, it would not be fair if Yehudah should still be suffering.

(e) When Moshe Davened 'Sh'ma Hashem Kol Yehudah", Yehudah's bones knitted together. When he said ...

1. ... "ve'El Amo Tevi'enu" - he was accepted as a member of the Celestial Beis-Din.
2. ... "Yadav Rav Lo" - he was able to participate in the discussions that went on there.
3. ... "ve'Eizer mi'Tzarav Tiheyeh" - he was also able to answer (according to the Halachah) the Kashyos that were asked there.

(a) We ask whether the death of one of the Kohanim Gedolim will suffice to release the murderers from the Arei Miklat or whether all of them (either a Mashu'ach or a Merubeh Begadim plus the others) must die to release them. The following Mishnah will rule that in a case where the Din of a murderer is concluded when there is no incumbent Kohen Gadol - he will never go free.

(b) We resolve our She'eilah from there - because if it was any of the three (or four Kohanim Gedolim who released the murderers from the Ir Miklat, why should a murderer whose Din was concluded with no Kohen Gadol in office, not go free with the death of one of the other Kohanim Gedolim (a decisive proof that all three Kohanim Gedolim must die, before the murderers can go free).

(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where the Kohen Gadol died ...

1. ... after the murderer's Din was concluded, before he had a chance to run to the Ir Miklat - that he is exempt from having to do so.
2. ... and they appointed a new one, before his Din was concluded - then he can be released only when the second Kohen Gadol dies.

(b) We already cited the Mishnah's ruling that if the murderer's Din was concluded before a new Kohen Gadol had been appointed, then he would never be permitted to go free - and the Tana issues the same ruling in a case where someone killed a Kohen Gadol or the Kohen Gadol killed him.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Asher Nas Shamah" - which incorporates living there, dying there and being buried there.

(d) Even if K'lal Yisrael needed him, like for example, Yo'av the commander-in-chief of the army, who were about to go to war - he was not permitted to leave (and if he did, he was a the mercy of the Go'el ha'Dam).

(a) Once the murderer reached the T'chum (the Shabbos boundaries) of the town - the Go'el ha'Dam was no longer permitted to kill the murderer if he caught up with him, even though he was still outside the walls of the town.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, if a Rotze'ach left the Ir Miklat, it was a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him. For anybody else - it was Reshus (voluntary).

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva - the Go'el ha'Dam had Reshus to kill him, anyone else is not Chayav for killing him (though he ought not to have done it [others have the text, 'Chayavin Alav']).

(a) A murderer does not go into Galus if the Kohen Gadol dies after the G'mar Din, says Abaye - due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from one who is already in the Ir Miklat when the Kohen Gadol dies, which sets him free, how much more so that he it absolves him from having to go there in the first place.

(b) We answer the Pircha that perhaps a murderer who has been in Galus has at least attained a Kaparah, whereas one who has not been in Galus has not - by pointing out that it is not the Galus that serves as a Kaparah, but the death of the Kohen Gadol (see Tosfos DH 'Midi').

(c) Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk "Veyashav Bah ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol Asher Mashach Oso be'Shemen ha'Kodesh", that (seeing as the murderer was not the one to anoint the Kohen Gadol), what the Pasuk must therefore mean is - that if the Kohen Gadol was anointed (only after the murderer had committed the murder, but) before the G'mar-Din, the latter only goes out with his death.

(d) Even though the second Kohen Gadol was not yet anointed at the time when the murderer killed, he is nevertheless partly to blame - because he did not Daven for the murderer's Din to be concluded in his favor.

(a) Abaye rules that if a murderer whose Din is concluded dies before he manages to run to an Ir Miklat - then his remains must be taken to the Ir Miklat to be buried there.

(b) He extrapolates this ruling from the Pasuk "Lashuv Lasheves ba'Aretz ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" - because "Lasheves ba'Aretz" implies to dwell inside the ground, a Lashon that is more applicable to a corpse than to a live person.

(c) And the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Yashuv ha'Rotze'ach el Eretz Achuzaso" - that if a murderer dies before the Kohen Gadol, he is taken to be buried in his family grave (see Aruch la'Ner).

(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over a case where the Kohen Gadol is declared a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah after the conclusion of the murderer's Din. One them says 'Meisah Kehunah' - by which he means that it is as if the Kohen would have died, and the murderer is exempt from running to the Ir Miklat.

(b) The other one says - 'Batlah Kehunah', which means that it is as if the Kehunah was annulled, in which case the murderer would have to remain in the Ir Miklat forever.

(c) Initially, we link the above Machlokes to a Machlokes Tana'im in Terumos. Rebbi Eliezer holds there that if a Kohen who is serving on the Mizbe'ach discovers that he is a ben Gerushah ... , all the Korbanos that he brought until then are Pasul. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - they are Kasher.

(d) We conclude however, that even if Rebbi Eliezer cannot hold 'Meisah Kehunah', Rebbi Yehoshua might concede 'Batlah Kehunah', yet the Korbanos that he brought until that moment are valid - because the Pasuk in ve'Zos-ha'Berachah validates them when it writes "Bareich Hashem Cheilo u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" (even though he is considered a Chalal).