Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah says 'be'Shachris, u've'Musaf u've'Minchah Korin al Pihen'. This could mean that at Shachris and at Musaf they Lein the Parshah from a Seifer-Torah, and at Minchah, they read it by heart; but it could also mean that at Shachris, they Lein it from a Seifer-Torah, and at Musaf and Minchah, they read it be heart?

(b) The correct interpretation is - the former one.

(c) Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa asks the Tana Kama, who says 'u've'Minchah, Yachid Korei Osah al Peh' - since when is a Yachid permitted to read words from the written Torah by heart in public?

(d) According to him, at Minchah, they would all recite the Parshah together by heart, which is permitted.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua holds that on days when they brought the Korban Musaf, there was no Ma'amad at Minchah, but there was Ma'amad at Ne'ilah - because Minchah (although it is not really min ha'Torah), was introduced by Yitzchak Avinu (even before the Torah was given), and is therefore treated in this regard, as if it was min ha'Torah; whereas Ne'ilah is purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) The families who donated wood for the Mizbei'ach were entitled to do so, when their turn arrived - even if there was sufficient wood in the stockpile.

(a) In the days of the Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzi'os, the Romans issued a decree - that the Jews were not allowed to bring wood to the Ma'arachah, and Bikurim to Yerushalayim. To enforce their decree, they placed border guards, just as Yerav'am ben Nevat had done many centuries earlier.

(b)

1. The Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzi'os (which were one and the same, as we explained earlier) outwitted the Roman guards - by carrying baskets of Bikurim which they covered with dried figs, and a pestle on their shoulders. When the guards stopped them, they told them that they were only going to grind the figs in the mortar that was just ahead of them, in order to make cakes of dried figs. But once they had passed the guards, they rearranged the fruit in the baskets, in the way that Bikurim were normally arranged, and took them to the Beis Hamikdash. Note: 'Ali' means pestle, 'Ketzi'os', dried figs and 'Salma'i' (see next answer), ladders.
2. The B'nei Salma'i (also the same family) outwitted the Roman guards - by constructing the wood for the Mizbei'ach into ladders. When the guards stopped them, they said that were simply going to fetch young pigeons from dove-cots that were just ahead of them ...

(c) The Pasuk in Mishlei "Zeicher Tzadik li'Verachah" refers to these Tzadikim - and "ve'Sheim Resha'im Yirkav", to Yerav'am ben Nevat.

(a) On the twenty-ninth of Av, the family of Pachas ben Yehudah donated wood for the Mizbei'ach. According to Rebbi Meir, Pachas ben Yehudah was none other than David ha'Melech. In the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - it was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(b) On the twentieth of Elul, the family of Adin ben Yehudah donated wood for the Mizbei'ach. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Adin ben Yehudah was David ha'Melech. According to Rebbi Yossi - it was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(c) It now appears that the author of our Mishnah, which states that Par'osh ben Yehudah donated wood a second time, cannot be Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah or Rebbi Yossi - because, according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana should have pointed out that also David ben Yehudah donated wood a second time, and according to Rebbi Yossi, he should have mentioned it with regard to Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.

(d) We conclude that in fact, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi - and that the Tana who quotes him as saying that Pachas ben Yehudah was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah and the Tana who quotes him as saying that Adin ben Yehudah was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah actually argue (the one who says the one disagrees with the one says the other). Note that neither can Rebbi Yossi hold that Adin ben Yehudah was David (because then David will have brought twice, and the Tana ought to have pointed it out); he must have been someone else.

5)

(a) Our Mishnah says that, whenever they brought a Korban Musaf, there was no Ma'amad at Minchah. We cannot infer that there was a Ma'amad at Musaf - because, says Rav Ashi, if the Korban Musaf negated a 'foreign' Ma'amad, then it would certainly negate its own.

(b) When Mar Keshisha asked Rav Ashi why Hallel negates its own Ma'amad, whereas Musaf does not - he really meant to ask Musaf (like Hallel) ought to negate *only* its own Ma'amad (and not that of Minchah).

(c) Rav Ashi replied - that he was in good company, because that is indeed, the opinion of Rebbi Yossi.

(a) Rebbi Yossi says that whenever there is a Musaf, there is (nevertheless) a Ma'amad. He cannot have been referring to ...

1. ... the Ma'amad of Shachris - because the Tana Kama of the Beraisa also agrees with that.
2. ... the Ma'amad of Musaf - because how can it be that the Musaf does not even negate its own Ma'amad?

(b) So he must be referring to - the Ma'amad of Minchah and Ne'ilah.

(c) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - the Musaf negates the Ma'amad of Ne'ilah and of Minchah.

(d) The difference between Rosh Chodesh Teives (which our Mishnah mentions as a day on which there was no Ma'amad, because they said Hallel on it, as well as bringing a Korban Eitzim) and Rosh Chodesh Nisan - is the fact that whereas Hallel on Chanukah (even though it is only mi'de'Rabbanan) is a firm Takanah (as the Gemara explains in Shabbos), Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is no more than a Minhag. Regarding reciting a Berachah before Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, see Tosfos DH 'Amar'.

(a) In Eretz Yisrael, we say the whole Hallel on eighteen days in the year - one day of Pesach, one day of Shavu'os, eight days of Sukos and eight days of Chanukah.

(b) In Chutz la'Aretz - it is said on three more days: on the second day of Pesach, on the second day of Sukos and on Simchas Torah.

(a) Rav arrived in Bavel on Rosh Chodesh - In Shul, he heard them begin to recite Hallel, and was about to stop them, until ...

(b) ... they began skipping some of the paragraphs - which made him realize that they were merely following local custom, and not fulfilling a Halachic obligation.

10)

(a) According to the Chachamim, the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on the sixth of Sivan. Moshe ascended Har Sinai - on the seventh. We know this from tradition, in spite of the Pasuk, which says that the Cloud covered Moshe for six days and that Hashem called him on the seventh of Sivan (because according to one opinion in Yoma, that Pasuk speaks after Matan Torah).

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi - the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on the seventh of Sivan, and Hashem called Moshe on the same day - on the seventh.

(c) We know that Moshe broke the Luchos on Shiv'ah-Asar-be'Tamuz - because the Torah records that Moshe spent forty full days on Har Sinai, and the forty-first day ended on the seventeenth of Tamuz (twenty-four days in Sivan and seventeen in Tamuz).

(d) We know that the Korban Tamid was stopped on Shiv'ah-Asar-be'Tamuz - from tradition.

(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the walls of Yerushalayim were breached on the *seventeen* of Tamuz, too. We reconcile that with the date given in the Pasuk in Yirmiyah as the *ninth* - by establish the former by the *second* Beis Hamikdash, the latter by the *first*. Note: we commemorate the second Churban, because that is the one from which we still suffering - see Agados Maharsha, who also cites a Yerushalmi, who answers the Gemara's Kashya differently.

(b) We know that Apostomus burned the Torah on Shivah-Asar-be'Tamuz - from tradition.

(c) Menasheh, the son of Chizkiyahu, placed the image in the Heichal - on the same day as the Tamid was stopped.

(d) The Pasuk in Daniel refer to *two* images - because Menasheh actually placed *two* there. One of them however, fell down and broke the other one's hand, and the Mishnah does not bother to mention the broken one.

Next daf