Previous daf

1)

(a) The B'nei Beseira were the princes of Yisrael (the three sons of Rebbi Beseira, Rebbi Yehoshua, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah - see Agados Maharsha). They forgot that the bringing of the Korban Pesach overrides Shabbos.

(b) When Hillel told them that more than two hundred 'Pesachim' are brought annually, all of which override Shabbos - he was referring to the Korbenos Tamid that were brought each Shabbos, two for the Tamid, and two for the Musaf (besides the Musaf of Yom-Tov which fell on Shabbos).

(c) The B'nei Beseira acknowledged Hillel's supremacy and stood down from their position as Nasi.

(a) Hillel blamed the B'nei Beseira for not serving Shemayah and Avtalyon (their predecessors) properly.

(b) Hillel himself subsequently forgot how to transport the Shechitah- knives to the Beis Hamikdash.

(c) Hillel had only himself to blame for forgetting this Halachah, since he behaved towards the B'nei Beseira with pride (as we shall see later in the Sugya).

(d) So he advised those who came to ask him to let the people, who, 'if they were not prophets, were certainly the sons of prophets', settle the issue themselves.

(a) The people placed their knives in the wool of their lambs or between the horns of their goats, and allow the animals to transport them.

(b) We know that the Korban Tamid overrides Shabbos from the Pasuk there "Olas Shabbos be'Shabbato, Al Olas ha'Tamid" ... , from which we can infer that the Olas Tamid was brought on Shabbos, too.

(a) They should have known that Pesach (which is punishable by Kares - should one fail to bring it) overrides Shabbos, from a Kal va'Chomer from the Tamid (which is *not*).

(b) This Kal va'Chomer can easily be refuted, because the Tamid has two Chumros that the Pesach does not - namely, that the Tamid is daily and is completely burnt, whereas the Pesach is brought only once annually and the bulk of it is eaten by the owner.

5)

(a) The lambs that were used to transport their knives were intended to be designated as Korbenos Pesach, but had not been designated yet. Indeed, according to Hillel, one should not designate an animal as a Korban, but rather take it as Chulin to the Azarah and designate it *there*. Consequently, there is no question here of working with Kodshim.

(b) The Mishnah in Beitzah, which forbids the declaration of Hekdesh on Yom- Tov and Shabbos - does not apply to Kodshim which are fixed for that day, such as the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan.

(c) By using their animals, they were not contravening the La'v of Mechamer - since it was only a case of Mechamer ke'Le'achar Yad, which is normally no more than an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan. Here, even the Rabbanan did not issue a decree forbidding it, in face of the Mitzvah involved.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav derives that ...

1. ... a Chacham who is proud, (temporarily) loses his Chochmah - from Hillel, who forgot the Halachah in question, after proudly rebuking the B'nei Beseira.
2. ... a Navi who is proud, (temporarily) loses his (or her) power of prophecy - from Devorah, who spoke with pride when she said "Chidlu Perazon be'Yisrael, Ad sha'Kamti Devorah Eim be'Yisrael" ... , for which she could not pick up the next words of prophecy, and had to pray to Hashem for Divine Assistance ("Uri Uri Devorah, Uri Uri, Dabri Shir").

(b) Resh Lakish derives that ...

1. ... a Chacham who gets angry, (temporarily) loses his wisdom - from Moshe, who, after the battle with Midyan, was angry with the soldiers for not killing the women. As a result, he forgot to tell the people about the Dinim of Hag'alas Kelim, and it was left to Elazar to tell them about it.
2. ... a Navi who gets angry, (temporarily) loses his power of prophecy - from Elisha, who got angry with Yehoram, Ach'av's son, and who was subsequently unable to prophecy until he got a minstrel to placate him by playing music.

(c) Eliav, David's brother, was destined for greatness. He failed to attain that greatness because he got angry with David, thinking that his enquiries about Golyas were just a mark of boyish immaturity. Amazingly, Eli'av had not yet displayed his anger at the time that Hashem rejected him. However, Hashem knew of that latent bad trait, and disqualified him from greatness even before he had demonstrated it.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan initially learns from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yihye Tamei la'Nefesh" - that it is only an 'Ish' (an individual) who must bring the Pesach Sheni in Iyar, but not a community. A community that becomes Tamei, brings the Pesach in Nisan.

(b) Rebbi Lakish argues that, in that case, why should we not Darshen that it is an Ish who brings the Pesach Sheni when he is Tamei, but not a community, who do not bring the Pesach at all if they become Tamei.

(c) A Zav and a Metzora are more stringent than a Tamei Mes - inasmuch as their Tum'ah comes from the body, as opposed to a Tamei Mes, whose source of Tum'ah is external.

(d) Resh Lakish therefore, learns that a Pesach overrides Tum'ah (by a Tzibur), from the Pasuk in Be'ha'aloscha "vi'Yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh". Now surely, having informed us that a Tamei Mes must be sent out of the camp, there is no need to add that the same will apply to a Zav and to a Metzora, who are more stringent, as we explained above? So why *does* the Torah mention it, if not to teach us that there are occasions when a Zav and a Metzora must leave the camp of Yisrael, even though a Temei Mes is permitted to remain inside.

Next daf