Why is semen on the third day Metamei her?

Rashi: It did not yet already putrefy. It is still proper to impregnate, so it is called Shichvas Zera - proper Lehazri'a.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rambam (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 5:11) rules like R. Elazar ben Azaryah; one who emits semen on the third day is Tehorah. In Hilchos Terumos (7:7), he rules that she is Temei'ah! The Kesef Mishneh said that he means until the third day; this is difficult. Sidrei Taharah (196:35) answers that she cannot immerse before the third day, lest she emit afterwards. Since she immerses on the third day, she is a Tevul Yom and forbidden to eat Terumah that entire day.

How do we learn from "Heyu Nechonim li'Shloshes Yomim"?

Rashi: The Torah was adamant that there be no Tum'as Keri at Matan Torah. Bnei Yisrael abstained from relations on Wednesday; they immersed on Shabbos night, and Matan Torah was on Shabbos, the fourth day from relations. There is no concern for emissions, for the semen already spoiled. Emissions on Erev Shabbos, the third day from relations, would be Tamei. This is why they abstained three days before Matan Torah.

Tosfos: This was before Matan Torah! (Only Jews can be Tamei when alive. We were not yet considered Jews!) Even so, presumably, the Torah was adamant about Tum'ah that will apply after Matan Torah. Even though it was not adamant about Zavim, Metzora'im and Bo'alei Nidah, we say in Berachos (22a) "v'Hodatam l'Vanecha uli'Venei Vanecha... Yom Asher Amadta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha b'Chorev" -- learning Torah should always be done with awe, fear, and trembling, just like at Matan Torah. Therefore, a Zav, Metzora or Bo'el Nidah may learn Torah, but a Ba'al Keri may not. He is not in fear - Keri came from lightheadedness!

Maharsha: Even R. Yehudah ben Beseira, who says that Divrei Torah do not receive Torah, and a Ba'al Keri may learn, can agree that Hash-m was more stringent about Matan Torah.

Rav Elyashiv: This is astounding, that Matan Torah was delayed for the sake of women, so all will be Tehoros. Men could immerse right after relations, and they are Tehorim! (NOTE: The Torah was proper to give on the sixth of Sivan (Rashi Bereishis 1:31). Hash-m forbade relations earlier, so also women would be Tehoros. Rav Elyashiv discusses R. Yosi's opinion, that Moshe delayed Matan Torah for a day, so all women would be Tehoros. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Why did Tosfos mention Zavim and Metzora'im? All were healed before Matan Torah! Tzara'as is an illness, and presumably, also Zivah! Even though they were healed from the illness, the Tum'ah persisted; the Torah was not adamant about the Tum'ah. Even though a Bo'el Nidah is a Ba'al Keri, Rashi (Berachos 22a) said that he immersed after relations, but is still Tamei due to Bo'el Nidah. Mishneh l'Melech (Hilchos Bi'as Mikdash 3:3) says that he had Bi'ah without semen. Rashi did not say so - a Ba'al Keri may not learn, for it comes from lightheadedness - the same applies if there was no semen! (Ha'arah - the decree was because usually, Keri is via lightheadedness, but the decree does not distinguish how Tum'as Keri came!) If a woman emits semen, this is not lightheadedness, but it came via lightheadedness (Bi'ah). (NOTE: It can be without lightheadedness, e.g. her husband had Bi'ah with her when she was asleep! Or, a man saw Keri due to overeating, or he immersed after Bi'ah before urinating, and when he urinates, a drop of remaining semen is Metamei him again! I found no source that the decree applies to one who is not a Ba'al Keri. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: If a woman emits semen, there is no lightheadedness! Chidushei ha'Rim - if the semen was not absorbed, there was lightheadedness. They were told so before Matan Torah, to hint that the men should absorb the matters in their hearts, like we bless 'v'Chayei Olam Nata b'Sochenu.'

Rav Elyashiv: R. Yehudah exempts a Zav who saw Keri or a Nidah who emitted semen (Berachos 26a), since they are Temei'im even without the Keri. If so, how did they become Tahor for Matan Torah? There was no Tum'as Nidah or Zivah before Matan Torah.

If a woman washed the area with hot water after Bi'ah, she is not concerned for emitting semen afterwards (YD 196:13). If so, why did they need to abstain beforehand? They could have washed and immersed immediately! The Rema says that we are not experts about this, but surely then they were experts! I answer that if she was proper to become pregnant, she may not do so. (NOTE: Every woman became pregnant after Matan Torah! Perhaps Hash-m did not want to inform them now, lest they think about this at the time of Matan Torah. Further, if they wash now, they might do so also at other times. - PF) Therefore, they were commanded to refrain beforehand.

Why may we wash the Milah on the third day?

Rashi: Even on the third day he is in danger.

Rav Elyashiv: i.e. one may heat water on Shabbos for this (134b). Rashi holds that even the third day is permitted. Some Rishonim permit only on the third day.

Sefas Emes: One could have explained that there is no danger on the third day, only pain - "bi'Hyosam Ko'avim", they were too weak to fight. The Mishnah permits bathing, an Isur mid'Rabanan, but not to heat water. However, the Rishonim explain that there is danger. Do we need a verse to permit Piku'ach Nefesh? Perhaps the verse teaches that the danger is only on the third day - this is why Shimon and Levi waited until the third day! However, Rashi explains that even the third day is permitted.

Daf Al ha'Daf: A Beraisa (134b) permits washing [normally] on the day of Milah, and on the third day, to sprinkle by hand. R. Elazar ben Azaryah permits washing on the third day. There is no proof, but there is a Zecher - "va'Yhi va'Yom ha'Shelishi..." It is not a proof, for a baby's wound heals faster than an adult's. Mizrachi (Reish Vayera) says that for an adult, it is a proof. This is why Hash-m visited Avraham on the third day from Avraham's Bris!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Tashbatz (1:21) forbids to circumcise a convert on Thursday, lest they need to be Mechalel Shabbos for him. Tzitz Eliezer (10:25:2) infers that we are Mechalel Shabbos for one who circumcised, even before he immersed, for we do not immerse him until the wound heals. Had Tashbatz discussed one who already immersed, he would have said so, lest people learn from his words to permit Chilul Shabbos for one who did not circumcise yet. Mishnah Berurah (331:33) brings from him that the same applies to a baby that was ill and recovered; we do not circumcise him on Thursday; the Shach, Magen Avraham and Eliyahu Rabah permit - we do not delay Mitzvos. (NOTE: One can leave hot water on a fire from before Shabbos, and there should be no need for Chilul Shabbos. Milah on day eight [when it is Shabbos] overrides Vadai Chilul Shabbos - surely [on Thursday] it should override a small chance of Chilul Shabbos, e.g. if the hot water will spill! Do we discuss one who has enough fuel to heat water to wash the baby, but not enough fuel or insulation to keep water hot from before Shabbos? - PF)

The goat carried the thread on its head, until the cliff. This is Mechamer (causing an animal to do Melachah!

Rav Elyashiv: (Ha'arah - most forbid even if it is not his animal!) Tosfos Yeshanim (Yoma 67a) says that carrying it on its head is Lo k'Darkah, so there is no Torah Isur. Or, they brought the thread to the cliff before Yom Kipur. Or, the Midbar is not Reshus ha'Rabim; it is Karmelis (6b). Yerushalayim was Reshus ha'Yachid (Eruvin 6b), so there was no Torah Isur. They did not tie a knot; they made a mere bow.

Chashukei Chemed: Beis Efrayim (OC 53): Since it is a need of the Rabim, Chazal did not decree against it. Based on letter of the law, Mechamer does not apply to Kodshim. The initial custom, to tie a thread to Pesach ha'Heichal, caused great pain to Yisrael when it did not whiten, so they were lenient to tie it to the goat. We find that one who is in pain may suckle [from a goat] on Shabbos. It is Mefarek kil'Acher Yad, so they did not decree in a case of pain (Kesuvos 60a). They permitted a Torah Melachah kil'Acher Yado - all the more so we permit Mechamer (a Lav without Kares) kil'Acher Yad, due to the pain of all of Yisrael. (NOTE: There, the only way to remove the pain is via suckling. Here, they could have refrained from using a thread, or put it in a covert place, e.g. a chamber in the Mikdash! - PF) Perhaps there is no Isur of Mechamer on Yom Kipur! (NOTE: There is no source that they did not do so when Yom Kipur fell on Shabbos! - PF)

Chashukei Chemed: If a Beis ha'Keneses was locked, may one put a key on a dog, between its neck and the chain around its neck, so it will take it to Beis ha'Keneses? Perhaps we forbid only for pain of individuals. It seems that we may permit if Akirah and Hanachah are both in Reshus ha'Yachid, and it does not stop to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, for then a person is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, and here it is Shevus di'Shvus; Pnei Yehoshua (51b) says that Mechamer of Hotza'ah is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. However, perhaps here it is forbidden, for one may not use animals on Shabbos (OC 305:18). (NOTE: This is like Ramban (Shabbos 97a), that Rabanan exempt one who carried from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid via Reshus ha'Rabim. Tosfos (Eruvin 33a) holds that all obligate. If one was carrying his wallet when Shabbos entered he puts it on an animal while it is walking, so the animal will not do Akirah (below, 153b, and according to the Rambam even Hanachah). - PF) This requires investigation.

Does the verse permit this? Initially, they tied a thread to Pesach ha'Heichal. In the years before the Churban, it did not whiten, so instead they tied it to the goat!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tosfos Chadashim: The Mishnah mentions the latter practice, for there is some Isur in cutting the thread and the goat carrying it outside the Techum. (Tosfos Yeshanim mentioned above discussed why it is not Mechamer mid'Oraisa.) The verse is an Asmachta to permit it.

What do we learn from "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo vecha'Shemen b'Atzmosav"?

Rashi: This equates anointing to drinking.

Tosfos: The verse is not a proof, for the verse discusses bathing, and not drinking. Just like oil is on the body and not ingested, also water. However, in Yoma (76a), based on this, Rav Zutra learned that [not] bathing is Inuy. We asked that this is unlike our Tana. What was the question? Our Tana said that it is not a proof (for the verse discusses bathing)! Ri answered, if the verse proves that bathing is like anointing, our Tana should not bring even a Zecher (support, that anointing is like drinking).

Tosfos: Why did we bring a mere support? There is a proof from "v'Yayin Lo Va El Pi v'Soch Lo Sachti"! It is a real Drashah. We learn from it that [not] anointing is called Inuy!

Rav Elyashiv: Some forbid washing with soap made from Chelev, for anointing is like drinking. Some say that it is like drinking only for Yom Kipur, for the Isur is pleasure. Regarding Isurei Achilah, it is not like drinking. The Vilna Gaon (OC 326:10, and Bi'ur Halachah there) is stringent; 'anointing is like drinking' implies always. This does not apply to our soaps, for a dog would not eat them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R E.M. Horowitz explains that "va'Tavo cha'Mayim..." cannot teach about anointing. It is not an absolute Hekesh, for there is no Kares for anointing. Rather, after we know from Daniel that not anointing is Inuy, "va'Tavo..." forbids anointing even not of pleasure, like the Yerushalmi says. This is why the Rambam forbids anointing even not of pleasure, but permits bathing not for pleasure. The verse in Daniel forbids anointing of pleasure, due to Inuy; "va'Tavo..." forbids anointing even not of pleasure, for it is like drinking.

Rav Elyashiv: Yoma 83b learns the five Inuyim from the five times Inuy is written about Yom Kipur. Some Rishonim say that they are mid'Oraisa; others say that this is an Asmachta; only eating and drinking are mid'Oraisa. If the others are mid'Oraisa, why do we need a verse to forbid anointing? If they are mid'Rabanan, why do we bring a verse only for anointing? If one must bathe or anoint for Piku'ach Nefesh, he must bathe; anointing is more stringent, for it is like drinking, for which there is Kares.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Tosfos Yom Tov (Terumos 6:1) says that 'anointing is like drinking' is a mere Asmachta. The Isur is only mid'Rabanan. We say that the verse is a mere Zecher. Tosfos R. Akiva Eiger (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1) asked, the Rambam considers it like drinking even to be lenient - he permits anointing with [oil of] Ma'aser Sheni! R' S. Rozovsky and the Griz (Chidushim Al ha'Rambam, b'Sof) answered that 'anointing is like drinking' is only a Zecher, i.e. it is not an act of eating. Ma'aser Sheni is for eating and drinking - this is not due to the act of eating. Rather, this is what it is used for. In this way, anointing is just like drinking.

Do all agree that Moshe always ascended early and descended early?

Tosfos: No. This is according to R. Akiva.

What is the source that all ascents were early? Perhaps it was only this one!

Maharsha: Hash-m told Moshe to ascend "ba'Boker". This is until four hours, like it says in Berachos 27a. Moshe ascended early on his own. Presumably, this was because Zerizim Makdimim l'Mitzvos (the zealous do Mitzvos promptly), like we expound from "va'Yashkem Avraham."

What is the source that "Lech Red v'Alisa" equates descending to ascending?

Maharsha: It could have said Lech v'Alisa. Red is extra, to equate them.

Iyun Yakov: He ascended early, for 'the zealous do Mitzvos promptly.' He descended early in order to give Torah and Mitzvos to Yisrael.

What was the question 'why did Moshe need to tell them'?

Rashi: Why did he need to tell them in the morning to abstain? In any case, they would not have relations before evening!

Why do Kedoshim not have relations during the day?

Rashi: "Boze Derachav Yamus" - modesty is required, not to look [at covered places].

Tosfos: Yisrael are called Kedoshim - "Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh." They need not be told not to have relations during the day.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though this was before Matan Torah, since Hash-m called them Goy Kadosh, surely he was Mekadesh them, and not one of them would have Bi'ah during the day.

Why is only a Chacham permitted to cover with his garment [in a house with light]?

Rashi: He is modest, and he will not look.

Rav Elyashiv: According to Rashi, this is a continuation of the answer. Modest people, even not Chachamim, are permitted, so Moshe needed to forbid Bi'ah during that day, even though they had received only a few Mitzvos, so there were no Chachamim among them. (NOTE: How can he say so? The Avos knew, learned and fulfilled all the Mitzvos. Surely some of their descendants did! Before Matan Torah, Moshe said that anyone who has a claim should go to Aharon and Chur - surely they were Chachamim! - PF) (Ha'arah - after Matan Torah, only a Chacham is permitted - Ein Am ha'Aretz Chasid (Avos 2:5).) We could explain the Gemara simply. The Heter of a Chacham did not apply then; it was brought only to teach the Halachah nowadays.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Mishmar ha'Levi (p.36): Then, a Chacham was one who was expert in the Mitzvos that they had received.

What was the question 'they were Tevulei Yom!'?

Rashi: Since they immersed on Shabbos night, and Torah was given before the next nightfall, according to all opinions they were Tevulei Yom at Matan Torah! Rather, presumably, they immersed before Shabbos [for even if one has an emission afterwards, it will be Tahor]!

What is the meaning of 'it was proper to be given to Tevulos Yom'?

Rashi: The Torah could be given to Tevulei Yom. The Torah was stringent about a Tevul Yom only for Kodshim. They immersed before Shabbos; if someone had a subsequent expulsion of semen, she would have immersed again after dark, just this did not occur.

What is the difference whether or not they were Tevulei Yom? Also, if they immersed before Shabbos, perhaps someone emitted semen afterwards!

Rav Elyashiv #1: In Shevu'os (18b) we expound "v'Hizartem..." to obligate separate from one's wife in the Onah close to her Veses (when she expects to menstruate). Simply, if her Veses is at night, he separates the entire night; if it is during the daytime, he separates the entire daytime. Avi'asaf says that Onah is 12 hours; if it is a long day, it suffices to separate for 12 hours. What is his source?! Pleisi (184:4) says that he learns from our Gemara. One opinion holds that they immersed before Shabbos, before five Onos finished. Perhaps she will emit afterwards! Rather, an Onah is 12 hours. The Torah was given in Sivan, when the days are long. They immersed during the day, after five Onos finished. Perhaps this was the Gemara's Safek. If an Onah is 12 hours, they could immerse during the day; if not, they could not!

Rav Elyashiv #2, Daf Al ha'Daf citing R' A. of Strikov: Based on letter of the law, Tevulei Yom could receive the Torah. It was Hidur to immerse before Shabbos, to be totally Tahor at the time - sanctify yourself via [refraining from] what is permitted to you (Yevamos 20a). Yisrael understood that this was Hash-m's desire, to give Torah in total Taharah. We learn to all generations - sometimes there is Hidur to sanctify yourself via what is permitted to you.

What was the question 'they could have immersed Bei Shimshi, and received the Torah Bei Shimshi?

Rashi: Bei Shimshi is Shabbos night, for its Bein ha'Shemashos is different than that of other days. We challenge R. Akiva. Why was Matan Torah delayed until the morning? Is it not because an emission on Shabbos night would have been Tamei?!

Tosfos: This challenges also R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Yishmael. This shows that the Torah is adamant about Onos. If not, the Torah could have been given at night!

What was the answer "Lo mi'Rosh ba'Seser Dibarti"?

Rashi: Hash-m did not speak (give the Torah) in a dark place (at night).

Maharsha: This was lest Goyim claim 'had You given Torah publicly, we would have accepted it!' (NOTE: Hash-m offered the Torah to all the nations! This is not explicit; perhaps later generations would make this claim. - PF)

What was the question 'they could have immersed on Shabbos morning'?

Rashi: We challenge R. Akiva. Why did Moshe need to descend early Wednesday morning, so Yisrael will refrain then? It would have sufficed to abstain from Wednesday afternoon. Any emission on Shabbos morning would be Tahor, for five Onos passed in between (Wednesday night, Thursday morning and night, Friday morning and night).

Tosfos #1: This is not difficult for R. Elazar and R. Yishmael. They hold that the Torah was adamant about days!

Tosfos #2: We challenge also R. Elazar and R. Yishmael. Perhaps the Torah was adamant about days and Onos!

Rav Elyashiv: The Rambam (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 5:12-13) rules like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. He holds that the semen is Tamei for three Onos, in addition to the Onah of the Bi'ah, so it is always Tahor on the third day. If so, there is no challenge to R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

Since R. Yitzchak holds that it is improper that some head to receive the Torah, while others go to immerse, why did he need to expound "Lo mi'Rosh ba'Seser Dibarti"?

Tosfos: If not for the verse, people could have immersed in the first half of the night, and Matan Torah would be in the second half. We do not say that they could have done so during the day, due to Bitul Torah.

Tosfos ha'Rosh: If not for the verse, they would immerse at night and receive the Torah later in the night. There was no Havah Amina to immerse in the morning and delay Matan Torah [for this is Bitul Torah].

How can the first Tana say that Aseres ha'Dibros were given on the sixth? "Va'Ychasehu he'Anan Sheshes Yamim va'Yikra El Moshe ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i"!

Rashi: He holds like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who says (Yoma 4a) that this was after Aseres ha'Dibros. R. Yosi holds that Moshe and all of Yisrael stood to receive Aseres ha'Dibros, and the verse shows honor to Moshe.

Here it is clear that "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" was said on Rosh Chodesh. In Pesachim (6b), we ask what is the source that it was said on Rosh Chodesh!

Tosfos: Surely it was on Rosh Chodesh, like the Mechilta says, that Hash-m showed [the new moon] to Moshe. In Pesachim, R. Shimon ben Gamli`el said that Moshe taught Hilchos Pesach to Yisrael on Rosh Chodesh, two weeks before Pesach. The Gemara asked, what is the source that he taught them on Rosh Chodesh? Even if Hash-m told Moshe on Rosh Chodesh, perhaps Moshe taught Yisrael afterwards!

Tosfos: In Pesachim, we conclude that we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] Midbar-ba'Midbar. Also here, we could learn so, for it says "Ba'u Midbar Sinai"! However, it is better to learn ha'Zeh from ha'Zeh than to learn from Midbar from ba'Midbar.

Why do we expound "ba'Yom ha'Zeh"?

Maharsha: It should have said ba'Yom ha'Hu. Therefore, we use it for a Gezeirah Shavah. Surely the other ha'Zeh is needed - Hash-m told Moshe, see [the moon] like this, and be Mekadesh the month. (NOTE: If a Gezeirah Shavah is not free on either side (both occurrences of the word are needed), some say that we do not learn from it at all, and some say that we learn only if there is no question against it (Nidah 22b). - PF)

Why was Matan Torah on Shabbos?

Iyun Yakov #1: It was not due to the Neshamah Yeserah. The Zohar says that before the sin (Egel), Yisrael had Neshamah Yeserah even on weekdays! Rather, there are three that testify about each other - Hash-m, Shabbos and Yisrael. They received the Torah on Shabbos, so Shabbos could testify "Mi k'Amecha Yisrael Goy Echad ba'Aretz." The other nations did not want to accept the Torah!

Iyun Yakov #2: It was to show that the reward for Mitzvos is not in this world, rather, in the world to come, which is totally serenity and Shalom. Therefore, the Torah warned not to burn fire on Shabbos, i.e. arguments. Shabbos is Kodesh, therefore the Kadosh Torah was given on Shabbos.

Iyun Yakov #3: 'On Shabbos we do not scream [in prayer for Refu'ah,] and the Refu'ah will come soon - Yisrael were healed from their blemishes at Matan Torah (Tanchuma Yisro).

Anaf Yosef citing Derech Chayim: Had the Torah been given on a weekday, one would say, just like there is cessation from Melachah, on Shabbos, there is cessation from Torah. Rather, it was given on Shabbos - there is cessation from Melachah, but not from Torah. All the more so, on weekdays, when there is no cessation from Melachah, there is no cessation from Torah!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shefa Chayim (Yemei ha'Selichos, Drush 3): The world exists only due to Torah - "Im Lo Vrisi Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti." Ohr ha'Chayim (Bereishis 2:3) explains, Hash-m created the world to last for six days, and every Shabbos sustains the world for another week. It was proper to give Torah on Shabbos, for both of them sustain the world.

After bringing the argument about the date of Aseres ha'Dibros, why does it say 'all agree that Torah was given on Shabbos'?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Mishmar ha'Levi (p.36) brings that in Yoma (4a) it says 'to receive the rest of Torah', and Rashi wrote 'to receive the Luchos.' The Rashash wrote 'both of these are Emes.' Perhaps he means that they received both. Or, it is like Beis ha'Levi (2, Drush 18) says, that all of written and oral Torah was on the first Luchos. The Yerushalmi (Shekalim 6:1) expounds "mi'Zeh umi'Zeh Hem Kesuvim" - between every Dibur and Dibur, the details and letters of Torah. The 620 letters in Aseres ha'Dibros hint to the 613 Mitzvos and seven special Mitzvos mid'Rabanan (Birkos ha'Nehenin, and the six mid'Rabanan laws on which we bless 'Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav'). Rashi (Shemos 24:12) brings that Rav Sadya Gaon brought hints from Aseres ha'Dibros to all 613 Mitzvos. The Lev Simchah explains (in Musaf Rosh Hashanah) 'b'Haglosecha Malkenu Al Har Sinai Lelamed l'Amecha Torah u'Mitzvos' - Aseres ha'Dibros include all Torah and Mitzvos.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Mishnah Berurah (494:12) said, the custom to eat dairy on Shavu'os is because Yisrael received Aseres ha'Dibros, which include all the Mitzvos. There are many preparations needed to eat meat, e.g. to slaughter with a checked knife, remove the Chelev and blood, to rinse and salt, to cook in new Kelim (Kelim used for cooking in the last 24 hours were forbidden due to absorptions). Therefore, they ate dairy; our custom commemorates this. Pnei Menachem asked, all agree that Torah was given on Shabbos - in any case they could not slaughter! Merafsin Igra (p.182, citing R. Simchah Zissel) says that perhaps they descended from Har Sinai after Shabbos, so only Hilchos Kashrus prevented them from eating meat. (NOTE: Perhaps they had left food in hot pots from before Shabbos, so on Motza'ei Shabbos the pots were still Bnei Yoman. After hearing Dibros, Yisrael retreated 12 Mil (88b). Meforshim ask, one who leaves the Techum has only four Amos (see Bi'urei Agadah for Shabbos 88:3:f). Perhaps R. S. Zissel holds that this is why they stayed until Motza'ei Shabbos! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv (88a): The Mishnah Berurah explains according to R. Yishmael, who says that Besar Nechirah (an animal killed via its Simanim, without Shechitah) was forbidden in the Midbar (Chulin 17a). According to R. Akiva, they could have eaten Besar Nechirah! However, Shechitah is forbidden on Shabbos! The Mishnah Berurah explains even according to Pirkei d'R. Eliezer (46), who holds that the Torah was given on Erev Shabbos.

A Gezeirah Shavah teaches that Matan Torah was on Shabbos. How can R. Yosi say that it should have been Erev Shabbos, just Moshe decided to add a day?

Rav Elyashiv citing Pnei Yehoshua: Had Moshe not added a day, it would have said only Shamor. Since he added a day, it says also Zachor, to teach that it was on Shabbos. (NOTE: "Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos Lekadsho" teaches the Mitzvah of Kidush! Perhaps this would have been taught without the word Zachor, and no Gezeirah Shavah. However, Hash-m could have written Zachor, and not given this Gezeirah Shavah! - PF)

All agree that Matan Torah on Shabbos. This was 51 days after Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, which was on Thursday. Why is Shavu'os on the 50th day after Pesach?

Maharsha (Avodah Zarah 3a): Day 50 completed the Taharah of Bnei Yisrael necessary for Matan Torah. (NOTE: Ravina was unsure whether or not some people had to immerse on Shabbos. He must have had an answer to this question unlike the Maharsha! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Magen Avraham (494, introduction) gave a difficult answer (it hints to Yom Tov Sheni of Galus). Chak Yakov (494:1) says that Shavu'os does not depend on Matan Torah. When they fixed Rosh Chodesh according to witnesses, Shavu'os could fall on Sivan 5 or 7. It is always the 50th day from the Omer, even though the Torah was given on the 51st. We say 'Zman Matan Torasenu' because it was given on the sixth [according to the Rambam].

Rav Elyashiv: According to the Hafla'ah (Panim Yafos, Yisro), before Matan Torah, Yisrael were like Bnei Noach; the night follows the day. We needed 49 full days from Macharas ha'Pesach before Matan Torah. The first day (Macharas ha'Pesach) was Friday, Nisan 16 (during the day), so day 49 was Thursday. The weeks must be Temimos, including the nights, so they ended on Thursday night. At the time of Matan Torah, we received the law of Yisrael, so Thursday night was considered part of Friday, so Matan Torah needed to be the next day, i.e. Shabbos. After Matan Torah, we begin counting on the night after the 15th of Nisan, for it is part of the 16th. (NOTE: So explains the Magihah in Ha'aros Rav Elyashiv; I see no other way to explain Rav Elyashiv's intent. Daf Al ha'Daf brings similarly from Avodas Avodah (Avodah Zarah 3a), Sefas Emes (Shavu'os 5643) and Kedushas Levi (Shevu'os). - PF)

NOTE: Rav Elyashiv (88a) brings from Pirkei d'R. Eliezer (46) that the Torah was given on Erev Shabbos. This was the 50th day! (PF)

Why were Yisrael weak from traveling? "Va'Esa Eschem Al Kanfei Nesharim"!

Rav Elyashiv: To receive Torah, i.e. Hash-m's command, a higher level is required. There was a small Chisaron due to weakness from traveling.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Imrei Emes: We find that after Reish Lakish accepted to learn, he could not jump across the Yarden (Bava Metzi'a 84a); Rashi explained, his strength waned due to his acceptance. Also Yisrael, after they accepted to learn, they were weak due to the Derech. Torah is called Derech (Kidushin 2b), therefore this is called weakness due to the Derech. Likewise, "va'Tere Ki Mis'ametzes Hi Laleches Itah va'Techdal Ledaber Eleha" - when Na'ami saw that Rus was weak, and struggled to walk, she knew that her acceptance was true, so she ceased speaking to [try to discourage] her.

Even if Yisrael were not weak from traveling, it was not proper for Hash-m to command Yisrael, for Moshe always ascended early in the morning!

Maharsha citing Mizrachi: He ascended early only when he ascended on his own.

Maharsha: This is wrong. Each time it says that he ascended early, it says beforehand "v'Alisa ba'Boker"! Also, 'all his ascents' implies that we do not distinguish.

Maharsha: Rava holds that it is possible that they came early to Har Sinai. This is reasonable, for Zerizim Makdimim l'Mitzvos. We find that on Yom Revi'i, Moshe ascended and descended b'Hashkamah. The previous day, Yisrael camped close to Har Sinai. If not for weakness from traveling, they could have reached Har Sinai and Moshe could have ascended b'Hashkamah.

When did Hash-m tell Moshe to tell Yisrael "v'Atem Tihyu Li..."?

Rashi: On the second day, Moshe ascended early, and Hash-m told him to say so to Yisrael.

Both opinions hold that Moshe commanded Hagbalah before telling them to abstain from relations. In the Torah, it mentions abstaining before Hagbalah!

Rashi: Really, Hagbalah was said first, for Moshe returned Yisrael's response to Hash-m "Na'aseh." It says "Hine Ani Ba Elecha... va'Yaged Moshe Es Divrei ha'Am El Hash-m." What were Divrei ha'Am? Rather, it was Mitzvas Hagbalah.'

Tosfos: It says "va'Yomer" three times in the Parshah. Presumably, each was said on one of the three days before separation. On the first day, Moshe was sent to tell Yisrael "v'Atem Tihyu Li...", on the last day, he was told to command about separation and Hagday. (Presumably, separation or Hagbalah was commanded that day.) We should say that it was Hagbalah, and separation was on the last day, for separation is written right after the last Amirah. (NOTE: The first time, it says "va'Yikra Elav... v'Atem Tihyu..." (19:3, 6), not va'Yomer. Tosfos means, there are three expressions of Hash-m talking to Moshe from when they came to Har Sinai until, but not including, the day of Matan Torah. - PF)

Maharsha: "Hine Ani Ba Elecha..." itself is Mitzvas Hagbalah! Only Moshe will enter the cloud on the mountain; all others will hear from below. "They will believe in you", for only you were permitted to ascend.

Rav Elyashiv: Rishonim say that "Hine Ani Ba Elecha..." is Mitzvas Hagbalah, i.e. to prepare themselves for Hash-m's coming and Matan Torah.

What was the question from "v'Kidashtem ha'Yom u'Machar"?

Rashi: This implies that there were only two days of abstention, Thursday and Friday.

R. Yosi holds that Moshe added a day, and the Torah was given on Sivan 7, for he holds that one must separate six Onos [before the semen putrefies]. So we hold in YD 196. If so, why do we say on Sivan 6 'Zman Matan Torasenu'?

Magen Avraham (Reish 494): Our custom on Shavu'os is like the Rambam, who rules [according to his text] that it suffices to wait three Onos. It is a mere stringency to wait six.

Rav Elyashiv: According to the Rishonim who require six Onos, we cannot say 'Zman Matan Torasenu' on Shavu'os. Also, when they fixed Rosh Chodesh according to witnesses, if Shavu'os fell on Sivan 5 or 7, they would not say it.

Why did Moshe add a day?

Rav Elyashiv citing Beis Shmuel: It was so all of Yisrael would be Tehorim, even a woman who emitted semen on the third day.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Eretz Tzvi 1:43: A Mitzvah done on Shabbos or Yom Tov is more Kadosh than a Mitzvah done on a weekday, even if it is not a Mitzvah of Shabbos. 'Does Shabbos or Yom Tov help to be Mekadesh Musaf, but not the Tamid?!' (Zevachim 91a). Moshe wanted the first Mitzvah of Matan Torah to be on Shabbos, for its Kedushas is from Hash-m. Hash-m wanted it to be on Erev Shabbos, for it will be Shavu'os; Yisrael are Mekadesh Yom Tov.

Is 'ha'Yom k'Machar' a proper Drashah?

Tosfos: No. If it were, Moshe did not add a day on his own initiative!

Maharsha: Even according to the Drashah, Wednesday is included. If not, there were only four Onos of separation, and R. Akiva, who holds like R. Yosi, holds that there were five! Mizrachi explains that Moshe added, for "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi" includes the first day; we cannot say that it is after three full days. We find that "va'Ye'esof Osam El Mishmar Sheloshes Yamim; va'Yomer... ba'Yom ha'Shelishi." This is not a proof. Rashi said that ba'Yom ha'Shelishi does not imply full days, but it can be full days.

Rav Elyashiv citing Panim Yafos (Yisro): Only after Matan Torah, the day follows the night. Before Matan Torah we were like Bnei Noach; the night follows the day - "v'Yom va'Laylah Lo Yishbosu." Today can be like tomorrow, i.e. it includes the following night. There is no source to obligate a third day! (NOTE: Perhaps today must be a full day, like tomorrow! Even if Moshe ascended and descended early, he told Yisrael after the day began (dawn)! - PF) Rather, Moshe decided that since Hash-m is giving the Torah, the law of Yisrael applies, and the day follows the night. Therefore, he added a day.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes (Shavu'os 5643, Kedushas Levi Shevu'os): Hash-m said "ha'Yom u'Machar", for every year these two days of Kedushah (NOTE: the 48th and 49th days of the Omer) descend on Yisrael before Zman Matan Torah. The year of Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael did not know from the start of the first day, so a third day was needed. (Why did Hash-m not inform Bnei Yisrael in advance? Perhaps they merited the two days due to their response 'we want to hear from You!' (Rashi Shemos 19:9), after Moshe descended on the third, so it was not proper to tell Moshe on the third before he descended, even though Hash-m knew what will be. - PF)

What is the consequence of not fixing a time for Moshe?

Rashi: Moshe did not know in advance when Hash-m will speak with him, that he could separate from his wife beforehand.

Rav Elyashiv citing Beis Shmuel, introduction to EH: Hash-m never spoke with him at night! Moshe could have relations at night, immerse, and be Tahor when day comes! It is because he would be a Tevul Yom. A Tevul Yom may not offer a Korban, and all the more so he is not proper to receive Nevu'ah. This is why he delayed Matan Torah, so Yisrael will be fully Tehorim, and not Tevulei Yom. Even so, if not for a Drashah, he would not have done so, for it is not imperative to be totally Tehorim.

Tosfos: Just the contrary - it is more proper that Yisrael separate, for Hash-m was Vadai going to speak with them at the designated time! We can say that also Yisrael had a Safek, if one will emit semen. They did not need to separate due to Keri - one day suffices to be Metaher from it. Rather, it was due to concern lest women emit semen, a light [Tum'ah]. All the more so, I (Moshe) should separate amidst concern for Keri, a severe Tum'ah! (NOTE: A Ba'al Keri is Tamei because the semen touched him, just like a woman who emits! However, Tum'ah that initially came from one's body is more stringent. - PF)

Maharsha: 'Hashem spoke with Yisrael only once, and He fixed a time' is all one matter. He spoke with them only once, and even for that one time, He fixed a time. He speaks with me at all times, without fixing a time - all the more so I should separate!

How do we learn from "Lech Emor Lahem Shuvu Lachem l'Ohaleichem v'Atah Po Amod Imadi"?

Rashi: Bnei Yisrael are permitted to [be intimate now with] their wives, which had been forbidden, but you (Moshe) should remain with Me.

Maharsha: Imadi is extra, to teach that he should separate from his wife. In Megilah (21a), we expound it to teach that the Rebbi should stand with his Talmid (the Rebbi should not sit on a bed, and the Talmid is on the ground). These Drashos are equal (there is no reason to favor one over the other, therefore we learn both of them).

Rav Elyashiv: Even though Yisrael were forbidden only until Matan Torah, we learn (Beitzah 5) that anything forbidden via a Minyan (count of Chachamim) needs another Minyan to permit it.

Why do we say that Moshe himself decided to separate from his wife? What we learn from a Kal va'Chomer is Torah law!

Tosfos: It was not a proper Kal va'Chomer. There is different, due to Aseres ha'Dibros. (Perhaps they require greater Taharah than Moshe's Nevu'os. - PF)

Maharsha: Tosfos in Yevamos (62a) answered, Yisrael were Batel from Peru u'Rvu only once, but Moshe will always be Batel from it!

What is the source that Moshe decided to separate, and Hash-m agreed? Perhaps he separated only after Hash-m commanded "v'Atah Po Amod Imadi"!

Tosfos: Had Hash-m commanded him, Miryam and Aharon would not have spoken against him! Rather, first he totally separated, and afterwards Hash-m consented. Aharon and Miryam disapproved in spite of Hash-m's consent, for Hash-m leads a person in the way he wants to go - He did not tell them to separate! However, the Midrash implies that they found out that he separated only much later. Eldad and Meidad were prophesizing, and Miryam said 'happy are their wives, that their husbands were chosen to be leaders over the Tzibur!' Tziporah said 'woe to their wives, for from when the Shechinah came on your brother, he separated from me!' Immediately, "va'Tedaber Miryam v'Aharon..." Did they not know "v'Atah Po Amod Imadi"? R. Tam says, they knew, but they thought that he separated due to Hash-m's command, until Tziporah said that he initially chose to separate.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps "v'Atah Po Amod Imadi" was only to receive the Torah, but afterwards Moshe should return to his wife!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sefas Emes questions Tosfos. How would Aharon and Miryam know what Hash-m told Moshe? Even according to the opinion that the Torah was written Megilah Megilah (one Parshah at a time), perhaps it was not written immediately! "V'Atah Po Amod Imadi" is in Devarim, after Aharon and Miryam died! Some answer, "Hash-m does not do anything without revealing it to His servants the Nevi'im." i.e. what He tells one Navi, He tells others (Sanhedrin 89b). Chida (Sof Beha'alosecha) says that Aharon and Miryam said, "Gam Banu Diber" - had Hash-m commanded Moshe to separate, He would have told us! Hash-m corrected them. Moshe's Nevu'ah is different. He sees through a clear glass; others see via a foggy glass. The Admor of Gur explained Devarim Rabah (9:9) to say that Yehoshua heard what Hash-m said to Moshe. If so, we can say that also Aharon and Miryam heard.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (89b, citing Sichos Chachamim) - Hash-m rebuked Aharon and Miryam, that Moshe is different. Other Nevi'im do not hear his Nevu'os - "b'Chol Beisi Ne'eman Hu." "Ha'Kol Medaber Elav" - only Moshe heard Hash-m's Dibur to him. Avak Soferim (Tazri'a, 53b) says that Hash-m tells all Nevi'im a Nevu'ah about the Klal. A Navi could tell each individual about what is in his holes and cracks (in his house) - this He did not tell to all Nevi'im. (NOTE: We must say so. Sanhedrin 17a implies that Moshe did not know Nevu'as Eldad u'Medad that Yehoshua will bring Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. Eli did not know Shmuel's Nevu'ah about Bnei Eli. Avraham and Yitzchak did not know Nevu'as "v'Rav Ya'avod Tza'ir" - if not, why did Rivkah need to ask Shem? - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Devarim Rabah (Sof v'Zos ha'Berachah) - Moshe's Neshamah said, from when Hash-m revealed Himself to Moshe at the Sneh, Moshe separated from his wife. Mat'amaei Yakov there says, this is unlike our Gemara, which says that Moshe separated due to a Kal v'Chomer. He could not make the Kal va'Chomer before Matan Torah! (NOTE: Kal va'Chomer applied before this, e.g. Yishmael should not inherit with Yitzchak, who has both attributes (he is Ben Sarah, and is more proper - Rashi Beraisa 21:10), if we returned Kesef that we found, all the more so we would not steal (ibid. 44:8, from Bereishis Rabah 92:7), "Bnei Yisrael did not heed me - all the more so Pharaoh will not" (Shemos 6:12)! Rather, Hash-m told Moshe only that Yisrael will serve Hash-m on Har Sinai. He did not mention separation from wives, so Moshe had no basis for his Kal v'Chomer! Also Tosfos cites 'from when the Shechinah came on him, he separated' - this implies at the Sneh! - PF)

What can we learn from "Peh El Peh Adaber Bo"?

Maharsha citing Rashi on Chumash: I told him mouth to mouth to separate from his wife - "Lech Emor Lahem..."

Maharsha: 'Some say' implies that this is a different proof!

Etz Yosef: Tosfos says, Aharon and Miryam thought that Hash-m led Moshe in the way that he wanted to go - how did "Peh El Peh" refute them? Rashi means, He said 'even had he not separated on in his own, I would have commanded him to separate.'

Maharsha: Hash-m said "Lo Chen Avdi Moshe Peh El Peh Adaber Bo" - this shows that He consented.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "V'Atah Po Amod Imadi" could mean now, to receive the Torah, but afterwards Moshe should return to his wife! "Peh El Peh Adaber Bo" shows that Hash-m wanted him to separate permanently.

Who is "Ben Nechar"?

Rashi: It is a Mumar; his deeds are Nisnakru (estranged from) Hash-m.

Why does it mention the entire Torah?

Rashi: The entire Torah depends on the Luchos.

Was the Kal v'Chomer from Pesach a proper Kal va'Chomer?

Tosfos: No. Pesach is a Korban. We cannot learn from it to withhold Torah, which can cause them to repent!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Birkas Eliyahu: Since Torah can cause them to repent, why did Moshe break the Luchos? Chidushei ha'Rim and others asked, why was Nes Chanukah (of the oil) needed? Tum'ah is permitted b'Tzibur! He answered, we do not begin with such a Heter. Likewise, Torah can help people to repent, but it cannot be given initially in such a state [to sinners, before they repented].

Rav Elyashiv: It was not enough to leave the Luchos, and not give them to Yisrael, just like a Korban whose owners became disqualified, it must be burned.

How do we infer that Hash-m consented? Many times "Asher" is not an expression of happiness!

Ha'Kosev: I heard that it is from His command to put the broken Luchos in the Aron. If it was a Chet to break them, a prosecutor would not become an advocate! Rather, Hash-m approved. A Midrash says that Yehoshua and 70 Zekenim held Moshe's hands to stop him from breaking them, and they could not stop him. Hash-m said, his hand should have Shalom - "ul'Chol ha'Yad ha'Chazakah Asher Asah." Perhaps this is why we expound Asher like Ashrei!

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m needed to give Yeishar Kochacha, for when Moshe became angry, he erred. One might have thought that due to his anger, he erred and broke them. The Drashah teaches that this is not so.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: The verse should have said Asher Shibarta earlier, when it discussed making new Luchos like the first ones. Rather, it wrote so about writing on them like on the first ones, to teach that it is good that you broke them, lest Yisrael receive the punishments written on them.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: It should have said ha'Shevurim. Why must the verse say that Moshe broke them? Rather, Hash-m comes to show gratitude and happiness that he broke them.

What was the question from "v'Hayu Nechonim la'Yom ha'Shelishi", and how does R. Yosi answer it?

Rashi: Hash-m said so. Moshe said "li'Sheloshes Yamim - three full days, with their nights.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rashi means that granted, we can expound "ha'Yom u'Machar" - today should be like tomorrow, i.e. a full day, including the night. However, "v'Hayu Nechonim la'Yom ha'Shelishi" implies the third day from today! He answers that due to the Drashah 'today should be like tomorrow', "la'Yom ha'Shelishi" can mean three full days from today.