Question #12 (Mar Zutra - Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If a woman miscarried on Or of the 81st day after giving birth to a girl, she is exempt [from bringing a second Korban Yoledes, one Korban suffices for the birth and miscarriage];

Beis Hillel obligate a separate Korban for it.

Beis Hillel: [You agree that if she miscarried during the daytime on day 81, she must bring a separate Korban -] why should Or of day 81 be different than the day? Since they are the same regarding Tum'ah (see note 3 in Appendix), they should be the same regarding Korban!

This shows that Or is night.

Question #13 (Beraisa) Suggestion: We should say that meat [of Kodshim eaten for two days] may be eaten Or of the third day!

Regarding Kodshim eaten for one day, the night follows the day (the following night is permitted just like the day) - the same should apply to Kodshim eaten for two days!

Rejection: "B'Yom Zivchachem Ye'achel umi'Macharas veha'Nosar Ad Yom ha'Shelishi Yisaref" - it may be eaten while it is still day, not on Or of the third day.

Suggestion: We should say that it is burned immediately (once it may not be eaten)!

We learn from Kodshim eaten for one day, which are burned right after they are forbidden to eat [at dawn]!

Rejection: "Ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ba'Esh Yisaref" - we burn Kodshim by day, not at night.

Since it suggested that it may be eaten Or of the third day [and the reason given only applies to night], this shows that Or is night.

Question #14 (Beraisa): On Or of Yom Kipur, one says seven Berachos [in lieu of 'Shemoneh Esre'] and says Viduy (confession); the same applies to Shacharis, Musaf, and Minchah (some texts - and Ne'ilah);

On Motza'ei Yom Kipur, one may say seven Berachos that encompass the 18 (the middle Berachos of Shemoneh Esre are condensed into one - 'Havinenu...');

R. Chanina ben Gamliel, citing his ancestors, says that one must say all 18 Berachos, for one must say Havdalah in [the Berachah] Chonen ha'Da'as.

This shows that Or is night.

Question #15 (d'Vei Shmuel's Beraisa): On the night of the 14th we check for Chametz by light of a Ner.

This shows that [in our Mishnah] Or is night.

Retraction: All agree that we check at night; they do not argue - each speaks like people in his region do - in Rav Huna's area, they call night 'Naghi'; in Rav Yehudah's area, they call it Laylah.

Question: Why didn't our Tana say 'Leilei'? (The Tana'im usually refer to night like this.)

Answer: 'Or' sounds nicer (Chidushei ha'Ran - 'Leilei' is not derogatory - however, it is better to beginning the tractate with Or):

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One should not speak in a derogatory way - the Torah used eight extra letters to avoid a derogatory word:

"...U'Min ha'Behemah Asher Einenah Tehorah" (in the Torah these three words have 12 letters - it could have said 'Teme'ah', which has only four).

(Rav Papa): Elsewhere it uses nine extra [essential] letters for this reason - "...Ish Asher Lo Yihyeh Tahor" (if Tahor is written without a Vov [the Sefer Torah is Kosher, and] these words have 12 letters; 'Tamei' has only three letters).

(Ravina): It uses 10 extra letters - [l'Chatchilah] Tahor must be written with a Vov.

(Rav Acha bar Yakov): A verse [in Nevi'im] uses 16 extra letters - "Mikreh Hu Bilti Tahor Hu Ki Lo Tahor" [in place of 'Mikreh Tamei Hu'].

(Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): One should always express things in a clean way - regarding [Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav of] a male [Zav] it says "Merkav" (alluding to riding with the legs spread), and regarding females (Zavos) we learn from "Moshav" (sitting with the legs together);

Also, it says "V'Sivchar Lashon Arumim," and it says "V'Da'as Sefasai Barur Milelu."

Question: Why are the other verses needed?

Answer - part 1: One might have thought that the Torah is concerned for this, but teachings of Chachamim need not be - "V'Sivchar Lashon Arumim" teaches that this is not so;

Answer - part 2: One might have thought that "V'Sivchar" exhorts Chachamim to be concerned for this in teachings, but there is no concern regarding mundane matters - "V'Da'as Sefasai Barur Milelu" teaches that this is not so.

Question: It does say "Merkav" regarding women - "Va'Takam Rivkah v'Na'aroseha va'Tirkavnah Al ha'Gemalim!"

Answer: It is normal [even for women] to ride on camels [with their legs apart, rather than sitting with both legs to one side], because [camels are tall, so] one fears falling off [and needs to hold on well - it would be misleading to say that they were 'Yoshev'].

Question: "Va'Yikach Moshe Es Ishto v'Es Banav va'Yarkivem Al ha'Chamor" (donkeys are not tall)!

Answer: It says "va'Yarkivem" on account of his sons [who normally ride with their legs apart - Rashi; R. E.M. Horowitz - it was normal for her to ride with legs apart, lest the children fall (in particular, Eliezer was only eight days old)]!

Question: [Regarding Avigayil it says] "Hi Rocheves Al ha'Chamor!"

Answer #1: That was normal - people are afraid at night.

Answer #2: She was not afraid of the night, rather, of David [who was about to kill Naval's entire household].

Answer #3: She was not afraid of David, rather, she needed to hold tightly because of the mountain.

Question: It often says 'Tamei' in the Torah!

Answer: Whenever there is a clean way to express something that is no longer than the derogatory way, one must use the clean way; if the clean way is longer, one uses the shorter way (it is easier to remember. After the Torah used the clean, longer way once, to teach the importance of clean speech, it uses the shorter way. See note 4 in Appendix.)

(Rav Huna): One should always teach to Talmidim in a concise way.

Question: Sometimes the Torah does not use the more honorable way, even though it is no longer than the derogatory way - it says "Rocheves," this is as long as "Yosheves!"

Answer: "Rocheves" is written lacking a Vov, so it is shorter (we always expound missing letters - here it teaches that the shorter way is better, even if it is less clean. Had it written 'Yosheves' Chaser, we would not know what to expound!)

Two Talmidim were in front of Rav; one of them said 'we exerted over this teaching [to the point of becoming] like a tired pig'; the other said 'we exerted over it like a tired goat' (Rashi; R. Chananel - we are satiated by it like a fat pig/goat). Rav did not speak with the first Talmid (one should not teach an improper Talmid - Makos 10A).

R. Yochanan ben Zakai and another Talmid were in front of Hillel; alternatively, R. Yochanan and another Talmid were in front of Rebbi. One asked 'why must we harvest grapes in Taharah (i.e. with Tahor Kelim), but we need not harvest olives in Taharah?' The other asked 'why must we harvest grapes in Taharah, but we may harvest olives in Tum'ah?'

The Rebbi said about the former (R. Chananel; Ran - the latter, for he was more precise - we need not harvest olives in Tum'ah) 'I am sure he will give Halachic rulings in Yisrael' - this was fulfilled shortly afterwards.

Three Kohanim were discussing how much Lechem ha'Panim they received. One said 'I received the size of a bean'; another said 'I received k'Zayis'; the third said 'I received the size of a lizard's tail'. They checked into the third's lineage, and found a Pesul (he descended from a Chalal, i.e. someone disqualified from Kehunah because his mother was forbidden to Kohanim).

Question (Mishnah): We need not check the lineage of someone who served on the Mizbe'ach (the Great Sanhedrin checked thoroughly before letting anyone serve! The Gemara does not say that this Kohen served - this supports the Rambam (Bi'as Mikdash 6:12) who says that we do not give Kodshim to a Kohen to eat until his lineage is checked - Or Gadol (Kidushin 4:5).)

Answer #1 - Correction: Rather, they found that he was not fit to serve (Rashi - he was haughty and disgraced Kodshim; R. Chananel - he had served idolatry).

Answer #2: Here we checked because the Kohen's vulgar speech indicated that his lineage was tainted (the previous Bedikah missed something).

A Nochri boasted - even though it says "Kol Ben Nechar Lo Yochal Bo" and "V'Chol Arel Lo Yochal Bo," I [go to Yerushalayim and] eat from the choicest part of the Pesach!

R. Yehudah ben Beseira asked him if they give him the tail [of a lamb] to eat; he said that they do not. R. Yehudah suggested that he ask for the tail. (Maharshal - he said that surely they recognize you and therefore do not give you the choicest part, for only that is forbidden to Nochrim - but surely, he did not pretend to help the Nochri fool the Yisraelim, the Nochri would realize that it is a trap.)

When he asked for the tail, he was told that it is offered to Hash-m. He said that R. Yehudah ben Beseira told him to ask for it - this aroused their suspicion. They investigated, found that he was a Nochri, and killed him; they told R. Yehudah ben Beseira that his trap succeeded (see note 5 in Appendix).

Rav Kahana fell sick; Rabanan sent R. Yehoshua brei d'Rav Idi to investigate - he found that he had died. He tore his clothing and folded it back [so it would not be so evident]. He was crying when he returned; they asked him if Rav Kahana died.

R. Yehoshua: I did not say so [even though it is true] - "U'Motzi Dibah Hu Chesil!"

Yochanan Chakuka'ah went to the villages to investigate the grain crop. When he returned, they asked him if the wheat was doing well.

Yochanan: The barley grew well!

The others: Go tell the horses and donkeys (normally, people do not eat barley) - "Veha'Se'orim veha'Teven la'Susim vela'Rachesh!"

Question: What should Yochanan have said (it is improper to say that the wheat grew poorly)!

Answer: He should have said that the wheat grew well last year, or that lentils grew well.