1)

(a)How did the Bnei Ma'arava (the Bnei Eretz Yisrael) interpret with the Pasuk in Yisro "Vayomer Hash-m el Moshe, Hinei Anochi Ba Elecha b'Av he'Anan ... "? What did they do with it?

(b)What does Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Pesol Lecha"?

(c)And what does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learn from the Pasuk there "Kesav Lecha" in conjunction with the above Pasuk?

(d)What is the connection between this Pasuk and the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tov Ayin Hu Yevorach"?

1)

(a)The Bnei Ma'arava (the Bnei Eretz Yisrael) - divided the Pasuk "Vayomer Hash-m el Moshe, Hinei Anochi Ba Eilecha b'Av he'Anan ... " into three Pesukim.

(b)Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Pesol Lecha" - that the chippings of sapphire from which the Luchos were carved belonged to Moshe.

(c)And in conjunction with the above Pasuk, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk there "Kesav Lecha" - that (following the sin of the Golden Calf) the entire Torah was only given to Moshe and his descendants.

(d)The connection between this Pasuk and the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tov Ayin Hu Yevorach" is - that Moshe generously shared it with the rest of Yisrael.

2)

(a)How do we answer the Kashya of Rav Chisda on Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Devarim "v'Osi Tzivah Hash-m ba'Eis ha'Hi Lelamed Eschem" and "Re'eh Limadti Eschem Chukim u'Mishpatim", (which seem to imply that Hash-m commanded Moshe to teach Yisrael Torah, as we learned on the previous Daf). How do we interpret that to conform with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina?

2. ... Ha'azinu "v'Ata Kisvu Lachem es ha'Shirah ha'Zos", implying that the Torah was given to the whole of Yisrael?

(b)We refute the above interpretation of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement from the continuation of the Pasuk ("Lema'an Tiheyeh Li ha'Shirah ha'Zos l'Ed"). How do we do that?

(c)In which regard then, does the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tov Ayin Hu Yevorach" refer to Moshe Rabeinu exclusively? What did he generously give Yisrael?

2)

(a)To answer the Kashya of Rav Chisda on Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Devarim "v'Osi Tzivah Hash-m ba'Eis ha'Hi Lelamed Eschem" and "Re'eh Limadti Eschem Chukim u'Mishpatim", (which seem to imply that Hash-m commanded Moshe to teach Yisrael Torah, as we learned on the previous Daf), we interpret the Pesukim to mean - that 'Hashem commanded Moshe, and Moshe commanded Yisrael'.

2. ... Ha'azinu "v'Ata Kisvu Lachem es ha'Shirah ha'Zos", implying that the Torah was given to the whole of Yisrael, we confine it to Shiras Ha'azinu only.

(b)We refute the above interpretation of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement from the continuation of the Pasuk ("Lema'an Tiheyeh Li ha'Shirah ha'Zos l'Ed") inasmuch as - if the Torah was not given to Klal Yisrael by Hash-m, then what sort of testimony would the Shirah later testify (seeing as they only accepted the Torah voluntarily)?

(c)The Pasuk "Tov Ayin Hu Yevorach" therefore - refers to Moshe Rabeinu with regard to the Pilpul of Torah, which he received on Har Sinai, and then generously taught to Klal Yisrael.

3)

(a)Two of the four attributes listed by Rebbi Yochanan as prerequisites to prophesy are strength and wealth. What are the other two?

(b)We learn all of these from Moshe. We have already learned about Moshe's excessive wealth. Why is there no proof that Moshe was exceedingly strong from the fact that he was able to erect the Mishkan single-handedly?

(c)Then from where do we learn that Moshe was exceptionally strong?

3)

(a)The four attributes that Rebbi Yochanan lists as prerequisites to prophesy are strength, wealth - wisdom and humility.

(b)We learn all of these from Moshe. We have already learned about Moshe's excessive wealth. His immense strength cannot be proved from the fact that he was able to erect the Mishkan single-handedly- since he might have been exceptionally tall, without being exceptionally strong.

(c)We learn that Moshe was exceptionally strong - from the fact that he was able to hold the two Luchos, which were made of sapphire and each of which measured six by six by three Amos.

4)

(a)What do Rav and Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Vatechasrehu Me'at me'Elokim" that proves Moshe's exceptional wisdom?

(b)What is the significance of the one 'Gate of Knowledge' that remained closed to him?

(c)How do we know that Moshe was humble?

4)

(a)Rav and Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Vatechasreihu Me'at me'Elokim" - that Moshe was acquainted with all but one of the fifty 'Gates of Knowledge' that Hash-m created, proving Moshe's exceptional wisdom.

(b)The significance of the one 'Gate of Knowledge' that remained closed to him - was that he knew everything except the essence of G-d Himself.

(c)We know that Moshe was humble - from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "And the man Moshe was more humble than any other man on the face of the earth".

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan lists four Nevi'im from whom we learn that all the prophets were wealthy. What are the implications of Moshe's statement in Korach "Lo Chamor Echad Meihem Nasa'si"? Why can we not prove from there that Moshe (the first of the four) must have been wealthy (and did not therefore need to hire things from the people)?

(b)How does Rava interpret the Pasuk in Shmuel "u'Teshuvaso ha'Ramasah Ki Sham Beiso"? What does this Pasuk teach us?

(c)In which regard, according to Rava, was Shmuel (the second of the four) even greater than Moshe?

(d)What was Shmuel's reason for adopting this policy?

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan lists four Nevi'im from whom we learn that all the prophets were wealthy. The implications of Moshe's statement in Korach "Lo Chamor Echad Mehem Nasa'si" are - that he even declined to rent animals from them when he needed them. It does not prove however, that he (the first of the four) was wealthy, because it might well have been an indication of his poverty (in that he could not afford to pay for them), and not of his wealth.

(b)Rava interprets the Pasuk "u'Teshuvaso ha'Ramasah Ki Sham Beiso" to mean - that wherever Shmuel (the second of the four) went, he carried his house with him, meaning that, due to his wealth, he always traveled with all his traveling requirements, and that he never needed to come on to anybody.

(c)According to Rava - Shmuel was even greater than Moshe, inasmuch as Moshe would never force anyone to rent him anything, but he would rent from them with their full approval; whereas Shmuel had a policy not to do even that.

(d)Shmuel's reason for adopting this policy was - the fear that people might sometimes acquiesce to rent him something only out of embarrassment.

6)

(a)Amos was the third of the four prophets in Rebbi Yochanan's list. Rebbi Yochanan draws on Rav Yosef's Targum for this information. How does Rav Yosef's Targum explain the Pasuk in Amos (where the Navi said to Amatzyah, the idolatrous High Priest) "Ki Boker Ana u'Boleis Shikmin"?

(b)The fourth in the list is Yonah. How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the Pasuk in Yonah "Vayiten Secharah v'Yarad Bah"? What sum of money are we talking about?

(c)And what does he learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Vayiten el Moshe k'Chaloso Ledaber Ito"?

6)

(a)Amos was the third of the four prophets in Rebbi Yochanan's list. Rebbi Yochanan draws this information from Rav Yosef's Targum - who explains the Pasuk in Amos (where Navi said to Amatzyah, the idolatrous High Priest) "Ki Boker Ana u'Bo'leis Shikmin" 'Because I am the owner of cattle and of Shikmin trees in the lowlands.

(b)The fourth prophet is Yonah. Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk "Vayiten Secharah v'Yarad Bah" to mean - that Yonah paid the full rental for the boat for the entire trip, a sum of four thousand golden Dinarim.

(c)And he learns from the Pasuk in "Vayiten el Moshe k'Chaloso Ledaber Ito" - that until that point, Moshe was learning the Torah and forgetting it, until Hash-m presented it to him as a gift (like a Chasan to a Kalah - see Agados Maharsha).

7)

(a)On what condition does the Tana of our Mishnah permit the Madir to feed the wife and children of the Mudar?

(b)What then, is the reason for permitting it?

(c)Why do we need to say that?

7)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah permits the Madir to feed the wife and children of the Mudar - only if he does so in order to perform a Mitzvah, but not if he intends to pay the husband's debt.

(b)The reason for permitting it is because the Madir is performing a Mitzvah, and the Mudar's benefit is only Gerama (as we have already learned a number of times).

(c)We need to say that - in order to establish the Mishnah even according to the Rabanan of Chanan. Otherwise, the author would have to be Chanan, who permits all cases of 'Mavri'ach Ari' (where it is only a matter of saving the Mudar from a loss).

8)

(a)Why is the Madir not also permitted to feed the Mudar's animals?

(b)What does Rebbi Eliezer say?

(c)How did he explain this distinction to the Chachamim?

(d)How did they counter his argument?

8)

(a)The Madir is not however, permitted to feed the Mudar's animals - because that will raise their value and benefit the Mudar.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer differentiates between Kasher animals and non-Kasher ones - forbidding feeding the former, but permitting the latter.

(c)He explained this distinction to the Chachamim - because, he said, fattening the former, improves the quality of the meat for the Mudar to eat, but permits the latter, which he will not eat anyway.

(d)They countered his argument - by pointing out, that even if he cannot eat the animal, he can sell it a Nochri or feed it to his dogs, and by feeding it, the Madir has raised its value for those purposes.

38b----------------------------------------38b

9)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer's leniency is restricted to fattening (i.e. over-feeding) non-Kasher animals, but does not extend to feeding them. Why ...

1. ... is Rebbi Eliezer bound to agree that feeding them is forbidden?

2. ... does he then argue with the Chachamim and permit fattening? In which point does he basically disagree with them?

(b)Why did he then argue Stam without specifying this distinction?

9)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer's leniency is restricted to fattening (i.e. over-feeding) non-Kasher animals, but does not extend to feeding them. He ...

1. ... is bound to agree that feeding them is forbidden - because it is an undeniable fact that a fed animal is worth more than one that is starved (which is also bound to die).

2. ... argues with the Chachamim and permits fattening them - because, in his opinion, a non-Kasher animal's chief function is for working with, in which case, fattening it lowers its value rather than raising it.

(b)He argues Stam without specifying this distinction - because he is merely responding to the Chachamim, who forbid all animals outright, even non-Kasher ones. To which he replies that sometimes, non-Kasher animals are permitted.

10)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Chananyah states 'ha'Mudar Hana'ah me'Chavero, Mutar Lehasi Lo Bito'. What problem did Rebbi Zeira have with this statement if it was referring to ...

1. ... the Madir giving his daughter to the Mudar?

2. ... the Madir marrying the daughter of the Mudar?

(b)We establish the case when it is the Madir giving his daughter to the Mudar, but when she is a Bogeres. How does this answer the Kashya?

(c)'u'mi'Da'atah' might be the reason for the Halachah. What else might it mean? What might it come to exclude?

10)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Chananyah states 'ha'Mudar Hana'ah me'Chaveiro, Mutar Lehasi Lo Bito'. The problem that Rebbi Zeira had with this statement if it was referring to ...

1. ... the Madir giving his daughter to the Mudar, is - that considering that he is giving him 'a servant to serve him', how can it possibly be permitted?!

2. ... the Madir marrying the daughter of the Mudar, is - that seeing as our Mishnah permits even feeding the Mudar's wife and daughter whilst they are still under his jurisdiction, it goes without saying that he may feed them when after they have left it.

(b)We establish the case when it is the Madir giving his daughter to the Mudar, but when she is a Bogeres (not a Na'arah, as we thought until now) - in which case, he is not giving the Mudar anything, seeing as it is his daughter's consent that is required, and not his.

(c)'u'mi'Da'atah' might be the reason for the Halachah (as we just explained). It might also come to exclude when the Chasan made the Madir a Shali'ach, in which case it will be forbidden.

11)

(a)If someone is Madir his son to Torah-study, does that mean that he is not permitted to derive any benefit from him at all?

(b)On what condition does the Yerushalmi permit the son to purchase his mother or his father something from the store?

(c)Why is that?

(d)Rebbi Yirmeyahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan permits a Madir to give the Mudar the Kos shel Shalom. In Bavel, this was interpreted to refer to handing an Avel a cup of wine. How did they interpret it in Eretz Yisrael?

(e)Which condition must be met before all of these concessions apply?

11)

(a)If someone is Madir his son to Torah-study - he is not permitted to derive any benefit from him that will take his mind off his studies, but small chores such as kindling a light for him or frying him a small fish, are permitted.

(b)The Yerushalmi permits the son to purchase his mother or his father something from the store - provided the latter is an important person ...

(c)... in which case the father is not accustomed to visiting the store (just like the mothers of those days), and it is obvious that this was not included in the Neder.

(d)Rebbi Yirmeyahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan permits a Madir to give the Mudar the Kos shel Shalom. In Bavel, this was interpreted with reference to refer handing an Avel a cup of wine - in Eretz Yisrael, they interpreted it with reference to the cup of hot water that they would hand to each bather (see Rosh), both of which are permitted because of Darkei Shalom.

(e)These concessions will only apply - if the cup or the object that the Madir is handing to the Mudar belongs to the Mudar, but not if it is the Madir's.

12)

(a)Yehoshua Ish Uza permits feeding the Mudar's slaves, but not his animals. What is meant by 'feeding'?

(b)In his opinion, Rebbi Eliezer agrees that non-Kasher animals stand to be sold (and are therefore forbidden for him to feed just like Kasher animals). What does he mean when he says 'Avadav v'Shifchosav li'Menachrusa Avdin'?

(c)Others have the text 'li'Menakrusa' Avdinan'. What does Yehoshua Ish Uza then mean?

12)

(a)Yehoshua Ish Uza permits feeding the Mudar's slaves but not his animals - meaning that he is permitted to feed his slaves excessive food (but not what they need to live on - which is considered Hana'ah). Overfeeding them on the other hand, makes them fat and lazy, and is not considered a Hana'ah for the owner.

(b)In his opinion, Rebbi Eliezer agrees that non-Kasher animals stand to be sold (and are therefore forbidden for him to feed just like Kasher animals). When he says 'Avadav v'Shifchosav li'Menachrusa Avdin' - he means that when they die, they will be torn up (and not eaten - meaning that, as opposed to non-Kasher animals, once they die, they have no use).

(c)Others have the text 'li'Menakrusa' Avdinan' - in which case Yehoshua Ish Uza means that the owner needs them to tidy the house (in which case overfeeding them is not a favor).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF