Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Meir explains "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei" to mean that the Kohen Gadol should not negate his Kedushah, as we learned in our Mishnah, and not literally, like Rebbi Yehudah - because according to Rebbi Yehudah (who forbids him to go to the Levayah at all), the Torah could just as well have written "u'mi'Beiso Lo Yeitzei". Why does it need to mention "Mikdash"?

(b) In spite of the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Heim', the Torah is afraid that the Kohen Gadol, of all people, might - in his anguish, inadvertently desecrate his Kedushah and make himself Tamei, even though it has forbidden him to do so.

(a) Our Mishnah describes how the S'gan would walk on the outside of the Kohen Gadol as he walked past the Aveilim. According to the Beraisa - the Mashu'ach she'Avar walked with the S'gan on his right.

(b) The Rosh Beis-Av walked on his left, the Kohen Gadol on one side, and the Aveilim and the people on the other.

1. The Rosh Beis-Av was - the chief of the group of Kohanim that served in the Beis-Hamikdash on that day.
2. The Mashu'ach she'Avar was - the deputy Kohen Gadol who once stood in for the Kohen Gadol proper on Yom Kipur when he became Tamei and was unable to serve that year.

(c) When the Kohen Gadol was an Aveil, the S'gan again stood on his right as the people filed past him. Of the two who stood on his left when he comforted others - the Mashu'ach she'Avar was missing here, because the Kohen Gadol might instinctively feel that he was quietly smirking at his misfortune.

(d) Rav Papa extrapolates three things from this Beraisa: 1. that the S'gan and the Memuneh are one and the same; 2. that the Aveilim stand still and the people file past - and 3. that the mourners stand on the left of the comforters.

(a) Nowadays, we do the reverse, and it is the Aveilim who walk in between two rows formed by the comforters. This change of custom came about, the Beraisa tells - following a squabble between two families in Yerushalayim as to who should file past the mourners first.

(b) Rebbi Yossi instigated in Tzipori - to revert to the original custom.

(c) According to Rami bar Aba, the author of the current statements, he also instigated in Tzipori, that ...

1. ... a woman taking her son for a walk in the main road - should let him walk in front of her (and not behind her [because of an incident that once occurred, where evil men abducted a woman's son from behind her, and subsequently used it as a means to lure her to a secluded spot in order to rape her]).
2. ... women should make a point of conversing in the bathrooms in the fields, to avoid the possibility of men walking in inadvertently and transgressing the laws of Yichud.

(d) The great Rebbi Yashiyah informed Rebbi Menashya bar Avas that a Shurah requires ten people - excluding the Aveilim, irrespective of whether the mourners ...

1. ... stood still and the comforters filed past them, or whether they ...
2. ... filed past the comforters.

(a) According to the Beraisa, after a Levayah - the Kohen Gadol says 'Tisnechamu' ('be comforted').

(b) The Tana cannot be referring to his reply to those who comfort him - because that would be a terrible curse (insinuating that one of the comforter's relations should die).

(c) We therefore prove from here - that this is what a Kohen Gadol would say to an Aveil.

(a) The Pasuk writes "Beis David Koh Amar Hashem, Diynu la'Boker Mishpat", from which Rav Yosef extrapolates that a king can be judged - because otherwise, how could he possibly judge others (as we learned on the previous Daf in the name of Resh Lakish)?

(b) Rav Yosef reconciles this with our Mishnah, which precludes a king from either judging or being judged - by establishing the latter by a king of Yisrael, whereas he is speaking about one of the Malchei Beis David.

(c) The prohibition of a King of Yisrael to judge or to be judged was the result of an episode that took place during the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash - involving Yanai Hamelech.

(d) Shimon ben Shetach called him to court - because his Eved had killed someone, and the Torah says "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" (obligating the master of the damaging property to come and 'stand by his ox').

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "v*e'Amdu ha'Anashim* Asher Lahem ha'Riv *Lifnei Hashem*" - that a. litigants are obligated to stand and b. they are standing not only before Beis-Din, but before Hashem, too (since Hashem is present when Beis-Din sits, as we learned in Pirkei Avos).

(b) Yanai Hamelech continued to remain seated even after Shimon ben Shetach ordered him to stand - because he expressed willingness to adhere to the instructions of the other members of Beis-Din, and he was waiting to hear what they would say.

(c) The reaction of the other judges to the king's challenge was - to bury their faces in the ground.

(d) Shimon ben Shetach's response to the judges' irresponsible behavior was - to accuse them of being great thinkers (see Agados Maharsha), and to ask the Master Thinker to therefore punish them.

(e) Hashem responded to that - by sending the Angel Gavriel, who knocked them into the ground and they died.

7)

(a) Rav Ashi permits a Nasi to forego his Kavod, but not a king.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless permits a king to perform Yibum or Chalitzah (as we learned in our Mishnah) - because the prohibition does not apply to a Mitzvah.

(c) The Rabbanan interpret the Pasuk "ve'es Neshei Adonecha be'Cheikecha" (from which Rebbi Yehudah proves that a king may marry the Almanah of a king, as we learned in our Mishnah) to mean (not, 'the wives of your master', but) - 'the women ... ', with specific reference to Shaul's two daughters Meirav and Michal.

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, seeing as Meirav and Michal were sisters, David must have married Michal only after Meirav's death. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah however, explains - that David's betrothal to Meirav was void ...

(b) ... because it was based on a loan (the wealth Shaul had promised David, and which David had agreed to forego in return for Meirav).

(c) Rav explains Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's proof for this from the Pasuk "T'nah es Ishti es Michal Asher Erasti Li be'Me'ah Orlos P'lishtim" as - the inference from "es Ishti Michal", 've'Lo Meirav Ishti'.

(a) After having betrothed her to David , Shaul gave Michal to -Palti ben Layish ...

(b) ... because, even though he had added a hundred Orlos of P'lishtim to the loan which he asked as Kidushin money - he maintained that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Milveh' (the woman's mind is on the [more valuable] loan).

(c) David believed his betrothal to be valid - because he held that 'ha'Mekadesh ... Da'atah a'Perutah' (because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush').

(d) The basis of their Machlokes, assuming that they both held 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Perutah' - is whether a hundred Orlos is worth anything (David), because they can be fed to cats and dogs, or not (Shaul).

(a) The problem we now have with Rebbi Yossi (who holds that David married Michal after the death of Meirav her sister) is - what does the Pasuk now imply when it writes "T'nah *es Ishti* es Michal".

(b) And we answer this by first presenting another problem, based on the Pasuk which speaks about the five sons of Michal, whom Shaul had given to Adrichal ha'Mecholasi. Rebbi Yossi explains - that the Pasuk comes to compare the Kidushin of Meirav to that of Michal, inasmuch as, like the Kidushin of the latter, it was invalid (seeing as she was already betrothed to David).

(c) Consequently- the Pasuk "T'nah es Ishti es Michal", according to Rebbi Yossi, now comes (not for the inference, but) to teach us the basic fact that the betrothal of Michal to Palti ben Layish was void (and the second Pasuk teaches us that that of Meirav was void, too).

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah declines to learn the Kidushin of Meirav from a Pasuk that talks about Michal. In his opinion therefore, the Pasuk mentions Michal when it is really speaking about the sons of Meirav - to teach us the principle that someone who brings up somebody else's children is considered as if they were his/her children.

(a) Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Rus (in connection with the birth of Rus' son Oved) "va'Tikrenah Lo ha'Shechenos Shem Leimor *Yulad ben le'Naomi*" - the same principle that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah just learned from Michal.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Ishto ha'Yehudiyah Yaldah es Yered, Avigdor ... Eileh B'nei Bisya bas Paroh, Asher Lakach Mered". "Yered, Avigdor ... " - were two of the names of Moshe.

(c)

1. Kalev (Bisya's husband) was called "Mered" - because he rebelled against the spies.
2. Bisyah is referred to as "Yehudiyah - because she denounced idolatry and converted, and anyone who denounces idolatry earns that title.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's principle from this Pasuk - from the fact that it refers to Moshe as Bisya's son (which is not technically true).

(e) And Rebbi Elazar learns it from the Pasuk "Ga'alta bi'Zero'a Amecha, B'nei Ya'akov *ve'Yosef* Selah" - where it refers to Yisrael as Yosef's children, because he sustained them.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "ve'Eileh Toldos Aharon u'Mosheh" - is that it goes on to list the sons of Aharon, but not those of Moshe.

(b) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from there - that someone who teaches his friend's son Torah is considered as if he had conceived him.

(c) As we do not find anywhere that Ya'akov redeemed Avraham, when the Pasuk writes that he did - it means that he relieved him from the onus of rearing twelve, which he was originally meant to shoulder. (d) When the Pasuk there writes ...

1. ... "Lo Atah Yevosh Ya'akov", it refers to - Yitzchak, and ...
2. ... "ve'Lo Atah Panav Yechvaru" - to Avraham (see Agados Maharsha).

(a) The Pasuk sometimes refers to Palti ben Layish as 'Paltiel' - because 'Hashem (perhaps based on Chazal 'If not for Divine assistance, it would be impossible to resist the Yeitzer-Hara') saved him from sinning.

(b) Knowing that Michal was betrothed to David, to avoid sinning - he placed a sword between himself and Michal each night, and declared that whichever of them would succumb to the evil inclination, would be pierced by it.

(c) When the Pasuk describes how, when she was taken back to David, he followed her in tears, those were not tears of sorrow at losing a wife, but of losing the trial of temptation.

(d) The significance of the place 'Bachurim' where he turned back is - that they both remained bachelor and virgin (respectfully) after their parting.

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan says ...

1. ... 'Tokfo shel Yosef Invesanuso shel Bo'az', he means to say that Bo'az was that much greater than Yosef - inasmuch as whereas Yosef was dealing with a married woman, Boaz was dealing with a Penuyah, and what's more, she was lying on the same bed as him.
2. ... 'Tokfo shel Bo'az Invesanuso shel Palti ben Layish - he means that Palti was that much greater than Boaz, inasmuch as the latter only went through the Nisayon once, whereas he had to live with it for a number of years.

(b) When the Pasuk writes "Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah, Vayecherad ha'Ish *Vayilafes"* - it means that his Eiver became hard like the tip of a turnip.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk in "Eishes Chayil". When Shlomoh wrote ...

1. ... "Rabos Banos Asu Chayil", he had in mind - Yosef and Boaz.
2. ... "ve'At Alis al Kulanah", he had in mind - Palti ben Layish.

(d) And according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, when Shlomoh wrote ...

1. ... "Sheker ha'Chein", he had in mind - Yosef.
2. ... "ve'Hevel ha'Yofi" , he had in mind Boaz.
3. ... "Ishah Yir'as Hashem hi Sis'halal" - he had in mind Palti ben Layish.

(a) According to others, "Sheker ha'Chein" refers to the generation of Moshe, "ve'Hevel ha'Yofi", to that of Yeshua, and "Ishah Yir'as Hashem hi Sis'halal" - to the generation of Chizkiyahu Hamelech, whose generation learned Torah even more intensely that the previous two (as we will learn in Cheilek, where Chazal describe how they searched from Dan to Be'er-Sheva, but were unable to find an Am ha'Aretz).

(b) According to yet others, "Sheker ha'Chein" refers to the generation of Moshe and Aharon, and "ve'Hevel ha'Yofi", to that of Chizkiyah, whereas "Ishah Yir'as Hashem hi Sis'halal" refers to the generation of Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i - who studied Torah with immense self-sacrifice, and out of extreme poverty (as was said about the Talmidim in his generation, that six of them would share one cloak as they studied Torah).