1)

(a)We ask whether Nesachim on their own (without a Korban) require Shirah. This is possible in a case where - the Korbn was brought in its time, and the accompanying Nesachim later.

(b)The side that holds in the affirmative is based on a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan - who cites a Pasuk which indicates that Shirah is only sung over wine (as we learned on the previous Daf [which explains why Shirah might be said on wine on its own]).

(c)On the other hand, it might not - because Shirah requires both food and drink (which generally comprise a meal).

2)

(a)We try to resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa that we just discussed 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Megalgelin ... ve'Chovah le'Yom Chayav', on the assumption that the Shirah that was sung there must have been sung over Nesachim that were brought on their own - since the Korban Tamid was no longer brought and Olos Nidvos Tzibur did not require Shirah, as we just learned.

(b)We conclude however, that the Levi'im cannot even have been singing it over the Nesachim alone either - since the Shirah that they sang was not from that day ...

(c)... and they were singing it in the form of a dirge (as we already explained).

3)

(a)We query Rebbi Yossi from a Pasuk in Yechezkel "be'Esrim ve'Chamesh Shanah le'Galuseinu be'Rosh Hashanah be'Asor la'Chodesh be'Arba-Esrei Shanah Achar asher Huksah ha'Ir" - with reference to Galus Yehoyachin (eleven years before the Churban ha'Bayis) ...

(b)... and the Navi who was exiled at that time was Yechezkel himself (which explains why he refers to it as "the twenty-fifth year of our exile").

(c)When the Pasuk writes "be'Rosh Hashanah be'Asor la'Chodesh", it is referring to Yom Kipur of Yovel, which is like Rosh Hashanah, inasmuch as the Beis-Din blow the Shofar (as a sign that the servants must be freed and purchased fields must be returned to their original owners).

(d)"The fourteenth year" mentioned there clashes with Rebbi Yossi in that, from the first year of the Sh'mitah cycle (in which the Churban took place, according to him) to the Yovel (two cycles later) ought to have been recorded by the Navi as the fifteenth year (and not the fourteenth).

(e)To reconcile the Pasuk with Rebbi Yossi, Ravina therefore explains "the fourteenth year" to mean - not counting the year on which the city was smitten.

4)

(a)We query Ravina from a statement of Mar 'Galu be'Sheva, Galu bi'Shemonah; Galu bi'Shemonah-Esrei, Galu bi'Tesha-Esrei'. Given that the seventh and the eighth refer to the same Galus, and so do eighteenth and nineteenth, Mar is referring to - the Galus of Yehoyachin and that of Tzidkiyah (which coincided with the Churban ha'Bayis), respectively.

(b)And the reason that Mar gives two dates is because ...

1. ... the seventh and the eighteenth refer to - Nevuchadnetzar's defeat of Ninveh and rise to power, whereas ...

2. ... the eighth and the nineteenth refer to - his subjugation of Yehoyakim (whom he defeated in the following year).

(c)Bearing in mind that there are eleven years between the two Galuyos, the problem with the "twenty-fifth year" referred to in the Pasuk in Yechezkel is that - seeing as we are dealing here with eleven plus fifteen years, the Navi ought to have referred to the twenty-*sixth* year.

(d)Based on the mistaken assumption that the nineteenth referred to by Mar was a third Galus, Ravina counters that - even if we include the year of the Galus in the fourteen years, the Navi ought to have referred to the twenty-sixth year?

5)

(a)To accommodate both the questioner and Ravina, we therefore reconcile the twenty-fifth year with Mar - by excluding the actual year of the first Galus.

(b)And we resolve the Kashya on Ravina that, when all's said and done, if the final Churban took place in the nineteenth year, then Yechezkel ought to have referred to the twenty-sixth year (and not the twenty-fifth) - by equating the eighteenth and the nineteenth years (as we explained).

(c)Nevuchadnetzar conquered Yehoyakim in the second year of his reign and subdued him for three years. Yehoyakim's subsequent rebellion lasted - three years.

(d)Despite the fact that Yehoyakim reigned for eleven years, Yehoyachin (who reigned for only three months), surrendered to Nevuchadnetar in the eighth year of the latter's reign - because Nevuchadntzar only ascended the throne in the fourth year of Yehoyakim's reign.

6)

(a)We have a problem with the Beraisa's conclusion 've'Chein bi'Sheniyah'. The second Beis-Hamikdash stood - four hundred and twenty years ...

(b)... in which case, if we deduct the eight Yovlos (of four hundred years), the Churban must have taken place in the twentieth year, which in fact, is the sixth year of the Sh'mitah cycle (and not the first, as the Beraisa states).

(c)We answer by establishing the author as Rebbi Yehudah - in whose opinion the Yovel year is counted as the first year of the next Sh'mitah-cycle.

(d)This solves the problem - inasmuch as, if we now add the eight Yovel years on to the total, the Churban will indeed have taken place one year later, the year after the Sh'mitah.

7)

(a)We query this however, from the Reisha. The first Beis-Hamikdash was built in the four hundred and eightieth year after Yisrael left Egypt - and it stood for four hundred and ten years.

(b)The Beraisa counts - seventeen Yovlos until its destruction.

(c)Assuming that they began counting Sh'mitin and Yovlos as soon as they entered the land, the problem will then be how to explain the fourteen years (after the Churban) mentioned in Yechezkel - since the Churban will have taken place in the Yovel year (and not fourteen years before it, as the Pasuk indicates).

(d)When we ask that the Beis-Hamikdash would then have been destroyed at the beginning of the Yovel, we must mean the actual Yovel Year, and not the first year of the cycle - because in the latter case, when we add on the fourteen years (as we are about to explain), it would mean that the Churban took place in the thirty-*seventh* year of the Yovel, which is the second year of the Sh'mitah, and with regard to fourteen years later, the Pasuk refers to the first year of the Sh'mitah, and not the second.

8)

(a)To resolve the problem - we therefore postpone the commencement of the cycle of Sh'mitah and Yovel until after the seven years that Yisrael captured Ere tz Yisrael and the seven years that they distributed the land.

(b)This does not seem to tally with Rebbi Yehudah however - because if we add on seventeen years (one year for each Yovel), the Churban will have taken place in the third year of the Sh'mitah, and not on Motza'ei Sh'mitah.

(c)And we answer that according to Rebbi Yehudah, they stopped the Sh'mitah and Yovel cycles for a long period - whilst the Ten Tribes were in exile, until Yirmiyah brought them back.

9)

(a)Yirmiyah returned the ten tribes in the eighteenth year of Yoshiyahu's reign - with fourteen years of his reign still to go (as he ruled for thirty-one years).

(b)Yehoyakim and Yehoyachin reigned eleven years between them - as did Tzidkiyahu on his own.

(c)This solves our problem - because it means that the Churban occurred in the thirty-sixth year of the Yovel, as we explained according to the Rabbanan.

10)

(a)Another text refers to the three years that they did not observe Sh'mitah and Yovel - with reference to the three years that they were unable to plow and tend to the fields, due to the siege. It cannot refer to the time between the exile of the Ten Tribes and their return at the hand of Yirmiyah - since there was a gap of ninety years (and not three) between the time that Sancheriv exiled the Ten Tribes in the days of Chizkiyahu and their return during the reign of Yoshiyahu.

(b)The two intrinsic problems with this answer are, 1. that adding three years places the Churban in the forty-ninth year of the Yovel cycle, in the Sh'mitah year (and not on Motza'ei Sh'mitah), and 2. that - the Yovel could not have then fallen fourteen years after the Churban (as the Pasuk in Yechezkel records).

(c)We also have two practical problems with the text; one of them, that if they stopped counting the Yovel for three years, as we explained, then when they were able to continue, they should have begun counting from the beginning, and not just from where they left off. The other that - it is not for just three years that they should have stopped counting the Yovel, but until the Ten Tribes returned, since Yovel does not apply when most of Yisrael are in Galus.

(d)We cannot answer the last Kashya by simply stating that they needed to count Yovlos in order to count Sh'mitin (as we will explain in the last Perek) - because it is only according to the Rabbanan, who do not count the fiftieth year as the first year of the next cycle, that this is necessary, but not according to Rebbi Yehudah, who does, and according to whom therefore, it is possible to count the Sh'mitin without needing to count the Yovlos.

11)

(a)Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa according to the Rabbanan - and 've'Chein bi'Sheniyah' will incorporate Tish'ah be'Av and Motza'ei Shabbos (and not the first year of the Sh'mitah cycle) ...

(b)... just as it cannot incorporate u'Mishmaro shel Yehoyariv Hayah - since the Mishmar of Yehoyariv did not return from Bavel and could therefore not have possibly been serving at the time of the second Churban.

12)

(a)The Beraisa teaches us that the four Mishmaros Yedayah, Charim, Pashchur and Imar - were the only ones out of the twenty-four Mishmaros who returned from Bavel.

(b)They determined which five of the other Mishmaros' turns they would take - by drawing six pieces of paper from a ballot-box, containing twenty-four pieces of paper, each with the name of one Mishmar.

(c)In spite of the fact that in the first Beis-Hamikdash, Yehoyariv was the first Mishmar to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash, if they had opted to return from Bavel at a later stage - the Nevi'im among Yisrael had already decided that Yedayah would remain the leading Mishmar, and Yehoyariv would play a secondary role to them.