POINT BY POINT OUTLINE OF THE DAF
@include" http://dafyomi.co.il/dedication.php?gid=2" ?>
@include" http://dafyomi.co.il/specialsection.php?gid=2" ?>
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) THE PARSHA OF VA'YEHI BINSO'A
(a) (Beraisa): There are Simanim (an inverted Nun before and after) Parashas "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron", to teach that this is not its proper place;
(b) Rebbi says, there are Simanim because this Parashah itself is a Sefer.
(c) Question: Like which Tana is the following teaching?
1. (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): "Chatzvah Amudeha Shiv'ah" - these are the seven Seforim of the Torah.
(d) Answer: It is like Rebbi (from the beginning of Bamidbar until "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a", Parashas "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a", and the rest of Bamidbar count like three Seforim).
(e) Question: Who is the Tana that argues with Rebbi?
(f) Answer: It is R. Shimon ben Gamliel:
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Ultimately, Parashas "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a" will be uprooted from here and written in its proper place;
2. It was written here to separate between two punishments of Benei Yisrael - the latter was "Va'Yhi ha'Am k'Mis'onanim" (they complained about the journey, and Hash-m killed some of them] ;
3. The former was "Va'Yis'u me'Har Hash-m";
i. (Rav Chama bar Chanina): They veered from Hash-m (Rashi - they started lusting for meat (even though this is written after Va'Yhi ha'Am k'Mis'onanim. Tosfos - they were eager to leave Sinai lest they get more Mitzvos. Maharsha - we expound this, for it is not called Har Hash-m anywhere else. The punishment was that the Aron was distanced three days from Benei Yisrael, corresponding to three days in which they did not learn.)
(g) Question: What is the proper place for this Parashah?
(h) Answer (Rav Ashi): It belongs by the Degalim (grouping of the Shevatim into four sets of three).
2) DO WE SAVE GILYONIM OF SEFARIM ON SHABBOS?
(a) Question: Do we save Gilyonim (blank areas of parchment) of a Sefer from a fire?
(b) Answer #1 (Beraisa): If 85 intact letters can be found in a deteriorated Sefer Torah, like Parashas "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron", we may save it from a fire; if not, not.
1. We may not save it on account of the margins!
(c) Rejection: A deteriorated Sefer Torah is different (once it deteriorated, also the margins lost their Kedushah).
(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa): If the letters in a Sefer Torah were erased, if 85 intact letters can be found, like Parashas "Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron", we may save it from a fire; if not, not.
1. We may not save it on account of the parchment that used to be written on!
(e) Rejection: We do not ask about the parchment that used to be written on - surely, its Kedushah is on account of the writing, when the writing departs, its Kedushah departs;
1. We ask about the margins above and below, between Parshiyos, between columns [of text], and at the beginning and end of a Sefer.
(f) Suggestion: Even so, the Beraisa answers our question (we save only on account of 85 letters, not on account of these margins)!
(g) Rejection: The case is, all of these margins were cut off [only the parchment that used to be written on remained].
(h) Answer #3 (Mishnah): (Chachamim decreed that Kisvei ha'Kodesh are Metamei hands (above, 14A).) The margins above and below, between Parshiyos, between columns, and at the beginning and end of a Sefer are Metamei hands. (This shows that they have Kedushas Sefer!)
(i) Rejection: Perhaps that is only when the writing is intact (we ask about after the writing was erased).
(j) Answer #4 (Beraisa): One may not save Gilyonim or Sifrei Minim (those written by heretics) from a fire, we let them burn, with the Azkaros (names of Hash-m).
1. Suggestion: This refers to Gilyonim of a proper Sefer.
(k) Answer: No, it refers to Gilyonim of Sifrei Minim.
(l) Question: One may not save Sifrei Minim, there is no need to say that one may not save their Gilyonim!
(m) Answer: It means, Sifrei Minim are like Gilyonim (blank parchments that were never written on).
(n) (Beraisa): One may not save Gilyonim or Sifrei Minim from a fire;
(o) R. Yosi says, on a weekday one cuts out the Azkaros and buries them, the rest we burn.
(p) R. Tarfon: I swear, if I find one I will burn it with the Azkaros!
1. If one is pursued by one who wants to kill him or by a snake, one may enter a house of idolatry, but not a Min's house - idolaters do not recognize Hash-m and deny Him (this is how they were raised), Minim recognize Hash-m and deny Him!
2. It says about Minim "V'Achar ha'Deles veha'Mezuzah Samt Zichronech" (they remember Hash-m and cast Him aside).
(q) R. Yishmael says, we learn from a Kal va'Chomer - to make Shalom between a man and his wife (a Sotah suspected of adultery) the Torah commands to erase Hash-m's name, which was written in Kedushah, into water - Minim, who arouse envy and animosity between Yisrael and Hash-m, all the more so their Azkaros should be eradicated - "Mesan'echa Esna uvi'Skomemecha Eskotat; Tachlis Sin'ah Seneisim".
(r) Just like we do not save them from a fire, we do not save them [even during the week] from a house that collapsed, from water, or anything [else] that will destroy them.
3) REFUTING HERETICS
(a) Question (Yosef bar Chanin): Do we save Seforim of Beis Avidan (debates between Minim and Yisrael)?
(b) R. Avahu could not give a definitive answer.
(c) Rav would not go to Beis Avidan, all the more so not to Beis Nitzrefei (a particular house of idolatry);
(d) Shmuel would not go to Beis Nitzrefei, but he would go to Beis Avidan.
(e) People asked Rava why he doesn't go to Beis Avidan; he attributed this to a date tree in the way. They offered to uproot it; he said that still, it would be difficult to pass through the area (a very frail excuse).
(f) Mar bar Yosef knew the people there, he did not fear to go - once, he went and was almost killed.
(g) R. Eliezer's wife, Eima Shalom, was the sister of R. Gamliel. One of their neighbors was a Min who publicized that he judges without taking bribes (he took covertly). They wanted to mock him (publicly expose him).
(h) She brought to him a gold lamp; she said that she wants to inherit a share of her father's estate - he authorized this.
(i) R. Gamliel: Our Torah says that a daughter does not inherit when there are sons!
(j) The Min: From when Yisrael were exiled, Torah was taken from you, a new Sefer was given to you - it says that daughters and sons inherit equally.
(k) The next day R. Gamliel brought to him a donkey of Luva.
(l) The Min: The end of the new Sefer says 'I do not come to detract nor add to the Torah of Moshe', and Moshe's Torah says that a daughter does not inherit when there are sons!
(m) Eima Shalom: Let your wisdom illuminate like a lamp (remember the bribe I gave to you)!
(n) R. Gamliel: The donkey knocked over the lamp (my bribe overcame yours)!
4) THE PROHIBITION AGAINS READING KISVEI HA'KODESH ON SHABBOS
(a) (Mishnah): We may not read in them [for this draws people away from the Beis Medrash].
(b) (Rav): It is forbidden only at the time of [the lecture in] the Beis Medrash - at other times one may read them;
(c) (Shmuel): It is forbidden even at other times.
(d) Objection: Shmuel was the Chacham of Neharda'a, and in Neharda'a they would learn Kesuvim on Shabbos afternoon!
(e) Answer #1 - Correction: Rather, Rav forbids only in a Beis Medrash [where a Chacham teaches] - in other places he permits;
1. (Shmuel): At the time the Chacham teaches, it is forbidden in the Beis Medrash and outside; when he is not teaching it is permitted everywhere.
2. This is consistent with the custom in Neharda'a to learn Kesuvim on Shabbos afternoon.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The original version was correct - Shmuel holds like R. Nechemyah:
1. (Beraisa): Even though Chachamim forbid reading Kisvei ha'Kodesh, one may expound them; if one needs to see a verse, he may bring the Sefer and read it;
2. R. Nechemyah says, they forbade reading Kisvei ha'Kodesh in order that people will reason - if it is forbidden to read Kisvei ha'Kodesh, all the more so secular documents are forbidden!
5) DO WE ALLOW SAVING MORE THAN WHAT IS ESSENTIAL?
(a) (Mishnah): We may save the case of a Sefer or Tefilin with the Sefer or Tefilin, even if there are coins inside;
(b) Question: To where may we [take them to] save them?
(c) Answer #1: We may take them to a Mavuy (alleyway) that is not Mefulash (open - this will be defined);
(d) Answer #2 (Ben Beseira): We may take them even to a Mavuy Mefulash.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah): If Erev Pesach is on Shabbos, the Korban Pesach is flayed until the chest (on Shabbos), the rest is flayed at night;
1. Chachamim say, it is flayed entirely on Shabbos.
(f) Question: We understand R. Yishmael - he allows only what is necessary for the Avodah (to remove the Eimurim (e.g. Chelev) that are burned on the Mizbe'ach);
1. Why do Chachamim permit flaying it entirely?
(g) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): "Kol Po'al Hash-m la'Ma'anehu" (we do whatever is necessary to honor Hash-m).
(h) Question: How does flaying it entirely honor Hash-m?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): This [cools the meat, which] prevents it from rotting.
(j) Answer #2 (Rabah): It would be dishonorable if Kodshei Hash-m lied around [half-flayed] like a carcass.
1. Question: What is the difference between these answers?
2. Answer #1: If the animal was on a gold table, it would not be dishonorable, but there is still concern lest it rot.
3. Answer #2: On a day when the north wind blows, there is no concern lest it rot, but it is dishonorable.
(k) Question: How does R. Yishmael expound "Kol Po'al Hash-m la'Ma'anehu"?
(l) Answer: This forbids removing the Eimurim before flaying it.
(m) Question: What is the reason?
(n) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson): We do not want hairs (wool) to stick to the Eimurim.
(o) Question: What was Chachamim's response to R. Yishmael?
(p) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): They said, if we may save the case of a Sefer with the Sefer, all the more so we can flay Pesach entirely!
(q) Objection: We cannot learn from a Sefer - there, we are lenient about mere Tiltul (moving something, which is forbidden only mid'Rabanan) - flaying is a Melachah!
(r) Answer #2A (Rav Ashi): They argue about Tiltul (R. Yishmael forbids moving the Pesach after the Eimurim were removed, for the skin is still attached) and Melachah;
1. Chachamim: If we may save the case of a Sefer with the Sefer, all the more so we can move the skin on account of the meat attached!
(s) Objection: We cannot learn from a Sefer - there, the case is a Bosis for (serves) something permitted - here, the skin is a Bosis for something forbidden!