Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, who argue whether Navi she'Meisis receives Sekilah (the Rabbanan) or Chenek (Rebbi Shimon), is confined to Avodah-Zarah (to which the Pasuk we are about to quote refers). They both learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Neilchah ve'Na'avdah" - that he is Chayav for negating Avodah-Zarah completely.
2. ... "Lehadichacha min ha'Derech" - that he is Chayav for negating it in part.

(b) Even the Rabbanan agree however, that if a Navi entices people to commit other sins, he will not receive Sekilah. We know that a Navi she'Meisis (regarding other sins) is Chayav - from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ach ha'Navi Asher Yazid Ledaber Davar bi'Shemi".

(c) According to Rav Chisda, for attempting ...

1. ... to completely negate one of the other Mitzvos - the Navi will receive Chenek.
2. ... to partially negate it - he will be Patur.

(a) The Beraisa explains "Laleches" (written in Parshas Re'ei) - as pertaining to Mitzvos Asei, and "Bah" - to Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh.

(b) Rav Hamnuna asked Rav Chisda, who establishes the Machlokes Tana'im by Avodah-Zarah, which Mitzvas Asei applies to Avodah-Zarah. He replied - the Mitzvah of "ve'Nitatztem ... " (to destroy the idols).

(c) Rav Hamnuna disagreed with this - because, in his opinion, the words "Lehadichacha min ha'Derech" (which precede "Laleches Bah"), do not seem to incorporate the Mitzvah of "ve'Nitatztem" (which incidentally, is written earlier in the Parshah), in which case it can only pertain to other Mitzvos (even though they are not written here either).

(d) Rav Hamnuna concedes to Rav Chisda that a Navi she'Meisis who negates part of another Mitzvah is Patur - because "Ledaber *Davar* bi'Shemi" implies a complete thing ("Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar').

(e) And he argues with him - regarding the Navi negating another Mitzvah completely, where, in his opinion, the Rabbanan will sentence him to Sekilah, (just like Avodah-Zarah).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'ha'Misnabei La'akor Davar min ha'Torah, Chayav. Lekayem Miktzas u'Levatel Miktzas, Rebbi Shimon Poter'. Abaye holds like Rav Chisda, Rava, like Rav Hamnuna. Both Abaye and Rava establish 'ha'Misnabei La'akor Davar min ha'Torah, Chayav', according to everyone.

1. Abaye establishes it - by other Mitzvos, and 'Chayav' means Chenek.
2. Rava establishes it by Avodah-Zarah as well - and 'Chayav' means Sekilah according to the Rabbanan, and Chenek, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b) Both explain ...

1. ... 'Lekayem Miktzas u'Levatel Miktzas, Rebbi Shimon Poter' (which speaks by other Mitzvos, even according to Rav Hamnuna) - 've'Hu ha'Din, le'Rabbanan'.
2. ... the continuation of the Beraisa 'u'va'Avodas-Kochavim, Afilu Omer ha'Yom Ivduhah u'le'Machar Bitluhah, Divrei ha'Kol Chayav' to mean - Sekilah according to the Rabbanan, and Chenek, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(c) Despite the fact that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon in the Reisha of the Beraisa, the Tana says 'Rebbi Shimon Poter', according to ...

1. ... Rav Chisda - to indicate that the opening ruling 'Chayav', means Chenek (like the 'Patur' of Rebbi Shimon) even according to the Rabbanan.
2. ... Rav Hamnuna - for the Chidush aspect (to say that he is even Patur from Chenek, and certainly from Sekilah, according to the Rabbanan).

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if a Navi orders someone (in the Name of Hashem) to perform a sin - he must obey him, with the sole exception of Avodah-Zarah, which can never be permitted.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa, adds that this applies even if he stops the sun in the middle of the sky. Rebbi Akiva comments on this - that Chas ve'Shalom, Hashem would never perform a miracle on behalf of sinners ...

(c) ... and when the Torah talk about a Navi ha'Meisis performing a miracle, it is referring to - a Navi Emes who (such as Chananyah ben Eyzor, who performed a miracle in his time, but who) later became a Meisis, pointing to the miracle that he originally performed as proof of his legitimacy.

(d) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - that Eidim Zomemin of a bas Kohen receive Chenek (like the Bo'el) and not Sereifah (like the bas Kohen), as we already learned in 'Arba Miysos'.

5)

(a) Rebbi placed this Perek after 'Eilu Hein ha'Nechenakin' - because, after discussing the four deaths (which are meant to serve as an atonement, and an entree into Olam ha'Ba), it is appropriate to discuss those who will not go there.

(b) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Amech Kulam Tzadikim, Le'olam Yirshu Aretz" - that (initially at least) all Yisrael have a portion in Olam ha'Ba.

(c) 'Olam ha'Ba' means - Techi'as ha'Meisim (as is evident from the whole Sugya).

(d) Someone who denies Techi'as ha'Meisim will not receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba - 'Midah ke'Neged Midah' (measure for measure).

(a) The other two sinners listed by the Tana who forfeit their portion in Olam ha'Ba are - those who deny the Divinity of Torah and Apikorsim (which will be explained later).

(b) Rebbi Akiva adds someone who reads 'Sefarim ha'Chitzonim' (which will be explained later), and 'ha'Lochesh al ha'Makeh' - which means that he whispers over a wound (to cure it) the Pasuk in Beshalach "Kol ha'Machalah Asher Samti be'Mitzrayim Lo Asim Alecha Ki Ani Hashem Rof'echa" (this too, will be explained later).

(c) Aba Shaul adds to the list - someone who pronounces the Name of Hashem (Havayah) the way it is spelt.

(a) The Tana Kama lists three kings who have forfeited their portion in Olam ha'Ba - Yeravam, Achav and Menasheh.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah - removes Menasheh from the list.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah learns his opinion from the Pasuk "va'Yispalel Eilav, va'Yishma Techinaso va'Yeshivehu Yerushalayim le'Malchuso". The Rabbanan however, counter-claim - that the Pasuk only mentions his return to his throne; nothing is said about his rights in Olam ha'Ba.

(d) The four Hedyotos (non-kings) who lost their portions in Olam ha'Ba are - Bilam, Do'eg and Achitofel (heads of the Sanhedrin in the days of Shaul and David, respectively) and Geichazi, servant of Elisha.

8)

(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the incident with Elisha and the king's officer - that Hashem always punishes 'Midah ke'Neged Midah'.

(b) The latter was trampled underfoot when the starving people ran to buy food - because, on the previous day, he refused to accept Elisha's prediction that food would be available.

(c)

1. Elisha had said - that on the following day, a Sa'ah of wheat would go for a Shekel (two Dinrim), at the gates of Shomron, and so would two Sa'ah of barley.
2. And the officer replied - that if Hashem were to build skylights in the heavens, this would never happen.
3. ... Elisha commented - that as a result of his cynicism, he would see all this taking place, but he would not benefit from it.

(d) We suggest that his death was due to Elisha's curse, since Rav Yehudah Amar Rav stated - that a Chacham's curse always comes true, even if there is a condition attached (and even if the condition is met).

(e) We know that the officer's death was not due to Elisha's curse - because the Pasuk concludes ''va'Yirmesuhu Oso ha'Am *be'Sha'ar* va'Yamos", a word which is superfluous, and which implies that he was killed on account of the 'gate' referred to by Elisha.

(a) We prove from the Pasuk "u'Nesatem Mimenu es Terumas Hashem le'Aharon ha'Kohen" - that Techi'as ha'Meisim is min-ha'Torah, since otherwise, seeing as Aharon died before Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, how could they have given Aharon their Terumos?

(b) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk - to mean that one should only give Terumah to a Kohen who is a Talmid-Chacham (a Chaver, who is careful about Tum'ah), and not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz.

(c) When Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolates from the Pasuk "Vayomer ... Laseis M'nas ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im Lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hashem" - he too, means that only a Kohen who upholds Torah (a Talmid-Chacham) deserves to receive Terumah.

(d) When Rav Acha bar Ada Amar Rav Yehudah compares giving one's Terumah to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz to placing it in front of a lion - he means that like one does not know when a lion takes a sheep from the flock whether he intends to kill it and eat it now or whether he means to store it in his lair and eat it only after it has begun to smell (alternatively, we do not know whether the lion will kill it whilst treading on it in the dust, and eat it when it is disgustingly dirty, or whether it will take it to its lair and eat it later, when it is relatively clean); so too, do we not know whether if one gives Terumah to an Am ha'Aretz, he will be careful to eat it be'Taharah or whether he will eat it be'Tum'ah.

(e)

1. Rebbi Yochanan, based on the Pasuk "u'Meisu Bo ki Yechaleluhu" adds - that (besides denigrating the Terumah) one also causes the Am ha'Aretz to become Chayav Miysah (for eating Terumah be'Tum'as ha'Guf).
2. And de'Bei Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Hisi'u Osam Avon Ashmah, be'Ochlam es Kodsheihem" adds - that one causes him to perform many sins.

(a) Rebbi Simai learns from the Pasuk "ve'Gam Hakimosi es B'risi Itam Laseis *Lahem* es Eretz Cana'an" (which refers to the Avos, who were no longer alive) - that Techi'as ha'Meisim is min ha'Torah.

(b) When the heretics asked Raban Gamliel for a source for Techi'as ha'Meisim - he initially gave them three sources, one min ha'Torah, one from Nevi'im and one from Kesuvim (which we will now discuss).

(c) They queried his proof from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Vayomer Hashem el Moshe Hincha Shochev im Avosecha *ve'Kam*" - on the grounds that the word "ve'Kam" might well refer to the phrase that follows "*ve'Kam* ha'Am ha'Zeh ve'Zanah Acharei Elohim Acherim".
2. ... "Yichyu Meisecha ... Hakitzu ve'Ranenu Shochnei Afar" - on the grounds that this Pasuk was said by Yeshayah, and might well pertain to the dead which Yechezkel (who came after him) brought back to life (and does not therefore really hint to an ultimate Techi'as ha'Meisim).
3. ... "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Levanon ... Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" - on the grounds that it has nothing to do with Techi'as ha'Meisim at all, but pertains to a statement of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, who says ...

(d) ... that the lips of someone whose rulings are quoted after his death move in his grave.

(a) Raban Gamliel finally quoted the Pasuk from the second Parshah of the Shema - "al ha'Adamah Asher Nishba Hashem la'Avoseichem Laseis *Lahem*" (even though the Avos were no longer alive).

(b) According to others, he quoted them the Pasuk "ve'Atem ha'Deveikim ba'Hashem Elokeichem Chayim Kulchem *Hayom*" - which he explained to mean "ka'Yom" i.e. just as they were all alive on that day, so would they all be alive in Olam ha'Ba.

(c) The Romans, like the heretics, queried Rebbi Yehoshua's proof from the Pasuk "Hincha Shochev im Avosecha ve'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh ve'Zanah", though they did accept his proof from there for their second She'eilah - resolving positively, the She'eilah whether there is a Pasuk which proves that Hashem knows the future.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi disproved the heretics' assertion that there is no proof from the Torah for Techi'as ha'Meisim, from the Pasuk in "Hikares Tikares ha'Nefesh ha'Hi, Avonah Bah". If "Hikares Tikares" refers to this Olam ha'Zeh, he explained - then "Avonah Bah" must refer to Olam ha'Ba.

(b) He did not prove it from the double Lashon "Hikares Tikares" - because he knew that the heretics would explain it with the principle 'Dibrah Lashon ki'Leshon B'nei Adam'.

(c) Rebbi Akiva, in a Beraisa, actually learns Techi'as ha'Meisim from "Hikares Tikares". The problem Rebbi Yishmael has with that from the Pasuk "es Hashem Hu Megadef ve'Nichresash" is - that, based on the fact that he interprets that Pasuk by Avodah-Zarah, we already know Kareis by Avodah-Zarah in this world from there, and Kareis in Olam ha'Ba from "Hikareis". In that case, what will we learn from"Tikareis" (seeing as there are only two worlds and not three).

(d) Rebbi Akiva declines to learn like Rebbi Yishmael - because in his opinion, "es Hashem Hu Megadef" refers (not to Avodah-Zarah, but) to Mevarech Hashem.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns - nothing from the double Lashon "Hikares Tikares", because he applies the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei-Adam'.

(b) Both Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva learn from "Avonah Bah" - that one is only Chayav Kareis as long as the sin remains with him, but not once he performs Teshuvah.

(c) Queen Cleopatra learned Techi'as ha'Meisim from the Pasuk in Tehilim "va'Yatzitzu me'Ir ke'Eisev ha'Aretz". She asked Rebbi Meir - whether the dead will arise clothed or naked.

(d) He answered her - with a 'Kal va'Chomer from a grain of wheat, which is planted without any covering at all, but which grows with many coverings (the husks, the chaff, the straw). In that case, the dead, who are buried with their clothes, should certainly reappear clothed.