1)

(a)The reason Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel gives to explain why the Chachamim nixed the idea of reciting the Aseres ha'Dibros every day in Shul - is because this would enable the Miynim (those who did not believe that the entire Torah was min ha'Shamayim) to point out to the Amei ha'Aretz the rest of the Torah is false.

(b)Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa said - exactly the same thing.

(c)When Rabah bar Chanah tried to introduce the recital of the Aseres ha'Dibros in Sura and Ameimar in Neherda'a, Rav Chisda and Rav Ashi, respectively, pointed out to them - that the Chachamim had nixed it for the reason that we just gave.

(d)The Beraisa on the previous Amud referred to the B'rachah of the outgoing Mishmar. The outgoing Mishmar would say to the incoming one - 'May the One who rests His Name in this House, grant you love and brotherhood, peace and harmony'.

2)

(a)If someone recites a B'rachah over a cup of wine, and thinking that it is beer, he begins the B'rachah intending to conclude 'Shehakol', but nevertheless concludes 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', is it obvious that he is Yotzei - because, even if he had concluded 'Shehakol', he would have been Yotzei ...

(b)... based on the Mishnah in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin - 've'al Kulam, Im Amar "Shehakol ... " Yatza'.

(c)The She'eilah is where he is holding a cup of beer and thinking that it is wine, he begins the B'rachah intending to conclude 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', but nevertheless concludes 'Shekakol ... ', where he might ...

1. ... not be Yotzei - because if we go after the beginning of the B'rachah ('Baruch Atah Hash-m ... '), he would not have been Yotzei had he concluded 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

2. ... nevertheless be Yotzei - because we go after the conclusion of the B'rachah, which in this case, was correct.

3)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa which discusses someone who makes a similar error in the B'rachos before the Sh'ma. The Tana rules that someone who begins the B'rachah of Yotzer Or (in the morning) with the intention of saying ...

1. ... 'Yotzer Or' but ends up by saying 'Ma'ariv Aravim' - is not Yotzei, whereas if he intends to say ...

2. ... 'Ma'ariv Aravim' but ends up by saying 'Yotzer Or' - he is.

(b)Likewise, the Tana rules that someone who begins the B'rachah of Ma'ariv Aravim (in the evening) with the intention of saying ...

1. ... 'Ma'ariv Aravim', but ends up saying 'Yotzer Or' - is not Yotzei, whereas if he intends to say ...

2. ... Yotzer Or, but ends up saying Ma'ariv Aravim - he is.

(c)We refute the proof from there that we contend with the beginning of the B'rachah - by pointing out that one is Yotzei in the morning because he concluded 'Baruch ... Yotzer ha'Me'oros', (and in the evening, 'Baruch ... 'Ma'ariv Aravim').

4)

(a)This answer is acceptable according to Rav, who maintains that a B'rachah is valid even it does not include Malchus, but problematic according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says - that any B'rachah that does not include Malchus is not considered a B'rachah, and the conclusion of this Berachah does not include Malchus.

(b)To reconcile it with Rebbi Yochanan, we therefore explain - that the Shem u'Malchus mentioned at the beginning of the B'rachah covers both night and day, such that a proper Berachah for both day and night was made whether one began with Ma'ariv Aravim or whether he began with Yotzer Or.

(c)This is based on a statement of Rabah bar Ula, who said - that one is obligated to mention daytime in the night Berachah and nighttime in the day Berachah (as we learned on the previous Amud).

5)

(a)So we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa of the Beraisa 'ha'Kol Holech achar ha'Chitum' - ostensibly to include our case (i.e. a proof that we go after the conclusion without taking into account the beginning).

(b)We refute this however, by establishing the case with regard to bread and dates. This cannot refer to someone who ate bread, and thinking that he ate dates, he begins the Berachah intending to say 'al ha'Eitz' but actually says 'ha'Zan' - because that is precisely our She'eilah.

(c)It must therefore be referring to - where one ate dates, and then thinking that he ate bread, he begins the Berachah intending to conclude 'ha'Zan', but actually concluded 'al ha'Eitz'.

(d)This is not similar to our She'eilah - because, based on the fact that dates satisfy like bread, had he concluded 'ha'Zan', he would have been Yotzei.

6)

(a)Rabah bar Chin'na (or Chanina) the elder in the name of Rav said about anyone who does not say 'Emes ve'Yatziv' by day and 'Emes ve"Emunah' in the night - has not fulfilled his duty.

(b)This is based on the Pasuk in Tehilim - "Lehagid ba'Boker Chasdecha, ve'Emunascha ba'Leilos".

(c)He also said that, when bowing down by the B'rachos of the Amidah - that one bends one's knees by 'Baruch' when saying 'Baruch' and comes up when when saying 'Hashem'.

(d)The Pasuk in Tehilim that Shmuel cited as the basis for the latter ruling is - "Hash-m Zokeif Kefufim".

7)

(a)We ask on Rav from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "Mipnei Sh'mi Nachas Hu" - which implies that when saying the Name of Hash-m, one should act humbly (by remaining in a bowed position).

(b)We answer the Kashya based on the word "Mipnei" - which indicates that the Pasuk is speaking about prior to mentioning Hash-m's Name, not whilst one is actually mentioning it.

(c)The supreme thing that Shmuel told Rebbi Chiya bar Rav that his father had said was - the statement currently under discussion.

(d)He refer to him (Rebbi Chiya bar Rav) as - 'bar Uri'an' (ben Torah [See also Mesores ha'Shas]).

8)

(a)Rav Sheishes would bow down like a stick, and come up - like a snake.

(b)This means - that he bowed down in one quick movement (like a stick), but when he came up, he unfurled himself (like a snake).

(c)Rabah bar Chin'na (or Chanina) the elder said in the name of Rav that although all the year round we say 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh' and 'Melech Oheiv Tzedakah u'Mishpat' - during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah we change it to 'ha'Melech ha'Kadosh and 'ha'Melech ha'Mishpat' respectively.

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar cites the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Vayigbah Hash-m Tzevakos ba'Mishpat - ve'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh Nikdash bi'Tzedakah" to prove that Bedi'eved, one is Yotzei during the Aseres Y'mei Teshuvah even if one says 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh.

(b)Rebbi Elazar proves it from there - since on the one hand it is during that time of year that Hash-m is 'exalted in justice', yet the Pasuk uses the expression "ve'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh" (and not 'ha'Melech ha'Kadosh').

(c)Rav Yosef concurs with Rebbi Elazar that someone who says 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh' or 'Melech Oheiv Tzedakah u'Mishpat' during this period is Yotzei. Rabah says - that he is not ...

(d)... and that is the Halachah.

10)

(a)What did Rabah bar Chin'na (or Chanina) the elder in the name of Rav also said that someone who is able to Daven on behalf of his fellow-Jew, but doesn't - is called a sinner.

(b)He learns this from a Pasuk in Shmuel, who said to K'lal Yisrael in this regard - " ... also I, Heaven forbid that I should sinning against Hash-m by refraining from Davening on your behalf!"

(c)Rava adds that if the sick person is a Talmid-Chacham - then one should become ill (i.e. mourn and feel pained) over his condition.

(d)The Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with Shaul ha'Melech) "ve'Ein Choleh mikem alai ve'Goleh es Oznai!" not an acceptable source for this - since Shaul was a king, and there is no proof that the same would apply to anybody else.

(e)The real source is the Pasuk there "va'Ani ba'Chalosam Levushi Sak (and as for me, when they became ill, I wore sack-cloth)", which David ha'Melech said about Do'eg and Achitofel (despite the fact that they constantly tried to destroy him).

11)

(a)What did Rabah bar Chin'na (or Chanina) the elder in the name of Rav said furthermorethat someone who is ashamed of the sin that he performed - is forgiven for all his sins.

(b)Why is the Pasuk in Yechezkel (in connection with Hash-m vis-a-vis K'lal Yisrael) "Lema'an Tizk'ri va'Vosht ... be'Kapri lach le'Chol asher Asis ... " is not an acceptable source for this - since there is no proof that the same will apply to an individual.

(c)He therefore learns it from Shaul ha'Melech (as we shall now see).

12)

(a)So Rabah bar Chin'na learns the current Limud from the episode of Shaul and the witch of Ein Dor (also in Shmuel). To explain why he had asked the witch to conjure up Shmuel, Shaul told him that he asked Hash-m via prophets and dreams as to whether he would defeat the P'lishtim on the following day, but that Hash-m had not responded.

(b)He deliberately omitted the fact that he had also asked the Urim ve'Tumim, which had not answered him either ...

(c)... because he was ashamed of the sin which he knew was the cause of the Urim ve'Tumim refusal to answer him ...

(d)... namely - the sin of having killed Nov, the city of Kohanim.

(e)Shmuel replied - that on the following day, following his defeat at the hand of the P'lishtim, he would join Shmuel in Olam ha'Ba.

13)

(a)The Rabbanan cite the source as the Pasuk (there) "ve'Hok'anum la'Hashem be'Giv'at Shaul" - with reference to David ha'Melech hanging of the seven descendants of Shaul (by Divine decree).

(b)They were ...

1. ... killed in the first place - at the behest of the Giv'onim, as an act of revenge, because they were wood-choppers and water-drawers for the Kohanim, and when Shaul killed the residents of Nov, they were left without a Parnasah.

2. ... hanged - to create a Kidush Hash-m, by demonstrating to the world that Hash-m even avenges an injustice that was performed to second-rate Geirim.

(c)The two words that the Navi added to the Pasuk which indicate that Shaul was forgiven are - "B'chir Hash-m" (the chosen one of Hash-m), with reference to Shaul.

(d)It was a bas-Kol (a Heavenly Voice) that actually said them.

14)

(a)Rebbi Avahu bar Zutr'si ... informs us that the Chachamim contemplated inserting the Parshah of Balak together with Keri'as Sh'ma. They decided not to - on account of Tircha de'Tzibura.

(b)They did not simply institute the insertion of just the relevant Pasuk - due to the principle that 'We do not split-up any Parshah that Moshe did not split-up'.

(c)We reject the suggestion that their initial intention was based on the fact that Parshas Balak contains the phrase "Keil Motzi'am mi'Mitzrayim" - because then they could just as well have chosen the Parshah of Ribis or of weights and measures, who also contain Mention of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

(d)Rebbi Yossi bar Avin therefore attribute it - to the Pasuk "Kara Shachav ka'Ari u'che'Lavi, Mi Yekimenu", which is similar to "u've'Shochb'cha u've'Kumecha" (in that it implies that Hash-m keeps us safe when we lie down at night and when we rise in the morning [See also Rashi on the Chumash]).

15)

(a)The Parshah containing Yetzi'as Mitzrayim that they ultimately decided to insert in the Sh'ma is - that of Tzitzis.

(b)The reason Rebbi Yehudah bar Chaviva gives to explain why they picked specifically that Parshah is - because it contains five major concepts.

(c)Besides Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, two of the five items are the Mitzvah of Tzitzis and 'Da'as Miynim' - (meaning the opinion of infidels, who interpret Torah in ways that amount to blasphemy.

(d)The last two items - are 'Hirhur Aveirah and Hirhur Avodah-Zarah (lewd and idolatrous thoughts).

(e)The mention of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim and the Mitzvah of Tzitzis are clearly stated in the Parshah. The other three we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sasuru acharei Levavchem ... ". We learn from ...

1. ... "Acharei Levavchem" - 'Da'as Miynim'n' ...

2. ... "ve'Acharei Eineichem" - 'HirhurAveirah', and ...

3. ... "asher Atem Zonim Achareihem" ... 'Hirhur Avodah-Zarah'.

(f)We learn these three from Pesukim (the first from a Pasuk in Tehilim, the third from a Pasuk in Shoftim). We learn that "Eineichem" refers to immoral thoughts - from the Pasuk there, where Shimshon says to his father "Take her for me, for she is good in my eyes!"

16)

(a)The problem with reciting the Parshah of Tzitzis at night-time is - that night-time is not subject to Tzitzis (since the Torah writes "u'Re'isem Oso").

(b)We nevertheless say it - because it contains Yetzi'as Mitzrayim (as we just explained).

(c)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah ultimately substantiated the Halachah that one mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim at night-time - from ben Zoma ...

(d)... who Darshened it from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lema'an Tizkor es Yom Tzeischa me'Eretz Mitzrayim Kol Y'mei Chayecha" - ("Yemei Chayecha", 'ha'Yamim'; "Kol Y'mei Chayecha", 'ha'Leilos').

(e)When Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah ...

1. ... heard ben Zoma's D'rashah, he appeared to be seventy, though

2. ... really he was - eighteen (as we will explain later in the Sugya).

17)

(a)The Chachamim of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learn from the word "Kol" - that the Mitzvah of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim will apply even in the time of Mashi'ach.

(b)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah queried them however, from a Pasuk in Yirmiyah, which states that in the time of Mashi'ach - it will not be the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim that will be remembered, but the miracles that will have taken place at that time.

(c)To answer the Kashya, the Chachamim cited the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Lo Yikarei Shimcha Od Ya'akov ki-im Yisrael ... " - which must really mean, not that the name Ya'akov will be completely negated (as we shall see in the Sugya), but that it will be secondary to Yisrael.

(d)Likewise here - the Pasuk does not mean the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim will no longer be mentioned, but that they will be secondary to the miracles of that time.

(e)We interpret the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Al Tizk'ru Rishonos" with reference to - Shi'bud Malchiyos (our subservience to the nations of the world since the Churban Beis-ha'Mikdash). Based on the previous answer to Rebbi Elazar's Kashya, we interpret the continuation of that Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Kadmoniyos Al Tisbon'nu" - with reference to the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, and ...

2. ... "Hin'ni Oseh Chadashah Atah Titzmach" - to the miracles that will take place during the battle of Gog and Magog, as explained by a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef.