1)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, who argue whether Navi she'Meisis receives Sekilah (the Rabbanan) or Chenek (Rebbi Shimon), is confined to a Navi who comes to negate the Isur of Avodah-Zarah (to which the Pasuk we are about to quote refers), incorporating either - where he negates the Isur pertaining to the entire spectrum of Mitzvos connected with Avodah-Zarah or just some of them.

(b)They both learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei ...

1. ... "Neilchah ve'Na'avdah" - that a Navi is Chayav for the former.

2. ... "Lehadichacha min ha'Derech" - that he is Chayav for the latter.

(c)Even the Rabbanan agree however, that if a Navi entices people to commit other sins, he will not receive Sekilah. We know that a Navi she'Meisis (regarding other sins) is Chayav - from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ach ha'Navi asher Yazid Ledaber Davar bi'Shemi ... ".

(d)According to Rav Chisda, for attempting ...

1. ... to completely negate one of the other Mitzvos - the Navi will (unanimously) receive Chenek.

2. ... to partially negate it - he will be Patur.

2)

(a)Rav Hamnuna queries Rav Chisda from a Beraisa - which establishes "Laleches" (written in the above-mentioned Pasuk) with regard to Mitzvos Asei, and "Bah", to Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh.

(b)When he asked Rav Chisda which Mitzvas Asei pertains to Avodah-Zarah, the latter replied - the Mitzvah of "ve'Nitatztem ... " (to destroy their Mizb'chos, Matzeivos, Asheros and carved images).

(c)Rav Hamnuna disagrees with this - because, in his opinion, the words "Lehadichacha min ha'Derech" (which precede "Laleches bah"), cannot incorporate the Mitzvah of "ve'Nitatztem", which is written earlier in the Parshah ...

(d)... in which case the 'Asei' and the 'Lo Sa'aseh' to which the Pasuk refers can only pertain to other Mitzvos.

3)

(a)Rav Hamnuna extrapolates from the word "Davar" (in the Pasuk there "Ledaber Davar bi'Shemi") that a Navi she'Meisis who negates part of other Mitzvos is Patur - because "Ledaber "Davar" implies a complete thing ("Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar'), conforming to Rav Chisda's ruling.

(b)He argues with him - regarding the Navi negating another Mitzvah completely, where, in his opinion, the Rabbanan will sentence him to Sekilah, (just like Avodah-Zarah).

4)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa 'ha'Misnabei La'akor Davar min ha'Torah, Chayav. Lekayem Miktzas u'Levatel Miktzas, Rebbi Shimon Poter'. Abaye holds like Rav Chisda; Rava, like Rav Hamnuna. Both Abaye and Rava establish 'ha'Misnabei La'akor Davar min ha'Torah, Chayav', according to everyone, only ...

1. ... Abaye establishes it - by other Mitzvos, and 'Chayav' means Chenek, whereas ...

2. ... Rava establishes it by Avodah-Zarah as well - and 'Chayav' means Sekilah according to the Rabbanan, and Chenek, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)Both will explain ...

1. ... 'Lekayem Miktzas u'Levatel Miktzas, Rebbi Shimon Poter' (which speaks by other Mitzvos, even according to Rav Hamnuna) - and the Rabbanan agree in this case.

2. ... the continuation of the Beraisa 'u'va'Avodas-Kochavim, Afilu Omer ha'Yom Ivduhah u'le'Machar Bitluhah, Divrei ha'Kol Chayav' to mean - Sekilah according to the Rabbanan, and Chenek, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(c)Despite the fact that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon in the Reisha of the Beraisa, the Tana says 'Rebbi Shimon Poter', according to ...

1. ... Rav Chisda - to indicate that the opening ruling 'Chayav', means Chenek (like the 'Patur' of Rebbi Shimon) even according to the Rabbanan.

2. ... Rav Hamnuna - for the Chidush aspect (to say that he is even Patur from Chenek, and certainly from Sekilah, according to the Rabbanan).

5)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if a Navi orders someone (in the Name of Hash-m) to perform a sin - he must obey him, with the sole exception of Avodah-Zarah, which can never be permitted.

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa, adds that this applies even if he stops the sun in the middle of the sky. Rebbi Akiva comments on this - that Chas ve'Shalom, Hash-m would never perform a miracle on behalf of sinners ...

(c)... and when the Torah talk about a Navi ha'Meisis performing a miracle, it is referring to - a Navi Emes who (such as Chananyah ben Eizor, who performed a miracle in his time, but who) later became a Meisis, pointing to the miracle that he originally performed as proof of his legitimacy.

(d)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" that - the Eidim Zom'min of a bas Kohen receive Chenek (like the Bo'el) and not Sereifah (like the bas Kohen), as we already learned in the seventh Perek.

6)

(a)Rebbi placed this Perek after 'Eilu Hein ha'Nechenakin' - because, after discussing the four deaths (which are meant to serve as an atonement, and an entree into Olam ha'Ba), it is appropriate to discuss those who will not merit going there.

(b)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Amech Kulam Tzadikim, Le'olam Yirshu Aretz" - that (initially at least) all Yisrael have a portion in Olam ha'Ba ...

(c)... which is synonymous with Techi'as ha'Meisim (as is evident from the entire Sugya).

(d)The Tana rules that someone who believes in Techi'as ha'Meisim but maintains that it is not hinted in the Torah - will not receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba ...

(e)... because if it is not hinted in the Torah, his belief is meaningless.

7)

(a)The other two categories of sinners listed by the Tana who forfeit their portion in Olam ha'Ba are - those who deny the Divinity of Torah and Apikorsim (which will be explained later).

(b)Rebbi Akiva adds someone who reads 'Sefarim ha'Chitzonim' (which will be explained later), and 'ha'Lochesh al ha'Makeh' - which means that he whispers over a wound (to cure it) the Pasuk in Beshalach "Kol ha'Machalah Asher Samti be'Mitzrayim Lo Asim Alecha ki Ani Hash-m Rof'echa" (this too, will be explained later).

(c)Aba Shaul adds to the list - someone who pronounces the Name of Hash-m (Havayah) the way it is spelt.

8)

(a)The Tana Kama lists three kings who have forfeited their portion in Olam ha'Ba - Yeravam, Achav and Menasheh.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah - removes Menasheh from the list.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah learns his opinion from the Pasuk "va'Yispalel Eilav, va'Yishma Techinaso va'Yeshivehu Yerushalayim le'Malchuso". The Rabbanan however, counter-claim that - the Pasuk only mentions his return to his throne; nothing is said about going to Olam ha'Ba.

(d)The four Hedyotos (non-kings) who forfeited their portions in Olam ha'Ba are - Bilam, Do'eg and Achitofel (heads of the Sanhedrin in the days of Shaul and David, respectively) and Geichazi, servant of Elisha.

9)

(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the incident with Elisha and the king's officer - that Hash-m always punishes 'Midah ke'Neged Midah'.

(b)The latter was trampled underfoot when the starving people ran to buy food - because, on the previous day, he refused to accept Elisha's prediction that food would be available (let alone at a ridiculously cheap price).

(c)On the previous day ...

1. ... Elisha had said - that the next day, a Sa'ah of wheat would go for a Shekel (two Dinrim), at the gates of Shomron, and so would two Sa'ah of barley, on which ...

2. ... the officer commented - that if Hash-m were to build skylights in the heavens, this would never happen, to which ...

3. ... Elisha commented - that as a result of his cynicism, he would see this taking place, but he would not benefit from it.

(d)We suggest that his death was due to Elisha's curse, since Rav Yehudah Amar Rav stated - that a Chacham's curse always comes true, even if there is a condition attached (and even if the condition is met).

(e)Based on the word "ba'Sha'ar" (in the Pasuk in Melachim ''va'Yirmesuhu oso ha'Am "ba'Sha'ar", va'Yamos"), which is otherwise superfluous, we conclude that - he was killed on account of the price fixture mentioned by Elisha (to which the word 'Sha'ar' sometimes applies, and on which he declined to believe).

10)

(a)We prove from the Pasuk in Korach "u'Nesatem mimenu es T'rumas Hash-m le'Aharon ha'Kohen" that - Techi'as ha'Meisim is min-ha'Torah, since otherwise, seeing as Aharon died before Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, how could they have given Aharon their T'rumos?

(b)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk to mean that - one should only give Terumah to a Kohen who is a Talmid-Chacham, a 'Chaver' (like Aharon ha'Kohen), who is careful about Tum'ah, and not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz.

(c)When Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolates from the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim "Vayomer ... Laseis M'nas ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im Lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hash-m", he too, means that - only a Kohen who upholds Torah (a Talmid-Chacham) deserves to receive Terumah.

(d)When Rav Acha bar Ada Amar Rav Yehudah compares giving one's Terumah to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz to placing it in front of a lion he means that - like one does not know when a lion takes a sheep from the flock whether he intends to kill it and eat it now or whether he means to store it in his lair and eat it only after it has begun to smell (alternatively, we do not know whether the lion will kill it whilst treading on it in the dust, and eat it when it is disgustingly dirty, or whether it will take it to its lair and eat it later, when it is relatively clean); so too, do we not know whether, when one gives Terumah to an Am ha'Aretz, he will be careful to eat it be'Taharah or whether he will eat it be'Tum'ah.

(e)Based on the Pasuk in Emor ...

1. ... "u'Meisu bo ki Yechaleluhu" Rebbi Yochanan adds that - besides denigrating the Terumah, one also causes the Am ha'Aretz to become Chayav Misah (for eating Terumah when he is Tamei).

2. ... "ve'Hisi'u osam Avon Ashmah, be'Ochlam es Kodsheihem", de'bei Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov adds that - one causes the Am ha'Aretz to perform many sins by giving him one's Terumah.

11)

(a)Rebbi Simai learns from the word "Lahem" (in the Pasuk in Va'eira written in connection with the Avos, who were no loner alive) "ve'Gam Hakimosi es B'risi itam Laseis Lahem es Eretz Cana'an" that - Techi'as ha'Meisim is min ha'Torah.

(b)When the heretics asked Rabban Gamliel for a source for Techi'as ha'Meisim - he initially cited three sources, one from the Torah, one from Nevi'im and one from Kesuvim (which we will now discuss).

(c)They queried his proof from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Vayeilech "Vayomer Hash-m el Moshe Hincha Shochev im Avosecha ve'Kam" on the grounds that - the word "ve'Kam" may just as well refer to the phrase that follows "ve'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh ve'Zanah acharei Elohim Acherim".

2. ... Yeshayah "Yichyu Meisecha ... Hakitzu ve'Ranenu Shochnei Afar" on the grounds that - this Pasuk was said by Yeshayah, and might well pertain to the dead which Yechezkel (who came after him) brought back to life (and not to the ultimate Techi'as ha'Meisim).

3. ... Shir Hashirim "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Levanon ... Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" on the grounds that - it has nothing to do with Techi'as ha'Meisim at all, but pertains to a statement of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, who says ...

(d)... that -he lips of someone whose rulings are quoted after his death move in his grave.

12)

(a)Rabban Gamliel finally proved Techi'as ha'Meisim - from the word "Lahem" (in the Pasuk in the second Parshah of the Sh'ma "al ha'Adamah asher Nishba Hash-m la'Avoseichem Laseis Lahem" (seeing as the Avos were no longer alive).

(b)According to others, he quoted them the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "ve'Atem ha'Deveikim ba'Hashem Elokeichem Chayim Kulchem Hayom" - which he explained to mean "ka'Yom", just as they were all alive on that day, so would they all be alive in Olam ha'Ba.

(c)The Romans, like the heretics, queried Rebbi Yehoshua's proof from the Pasuk "Hincha Shochev im Avosecha ve'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh ve'Zanah", though they did accept his proof from there for their second She'eilah - whether there is a Pasuk which proves that Hash-m knows the future.

13)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi disproved the heretics' assertion that there is no proof from the Torah for Techi'as ha'Meisim, from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-L'cha "Hikareis Tikareis ha'Nefesh ha'Hi, Avonah bah" (in connection with Avodah-Zarah), inasmuch as - if "Hikareis Tikareis" refers to Olam ha'Zeh, then "Avonah bah" must refer to Olam ha'Ba.

(b)He did not prove it from the double Lashon "Hikareis Tikareis" - because he knew that the heretics would explain it with the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam'.

(c)Rebbi Akiva, in a Beraisa, actually learns Techi'as ha'Meisim from "Hikareis Tikareis". The problem Rebbi Yishmael has with that from the Pasuk "es Hash-m hu Megadef ve'Nichr'sash" is that - based on the fact that he interprets that Pasuk by Avodah-Zarah, we already know Kareis by Avodah-Zarah in this world from there, and Kareis in Olam ha'Ba from "Hikareis". In that case, what will we learn from "Tikareis" (seeing as there are only two worlds and not three)?

(d)Rebbi Akiva declines to learn like Rebbi Yishmael - because in his opinion, "es Hash-m hu Megadef" refers (not to Avodah-Zarah, but) to Mevarech Hash-m, for which we do not as yet have a Pasuk regarding Kareis.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns - nothing from the double Lashon "Hikareis Tikareis", because he applies the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei-Adam'.

(b)Both Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva learn from "Avonah bah" that - one is only Chayav Kareis as long as the sin remains with him, but not once he does Teshuvah.

(c)Queen Cleopatra learned Techi'as ha'Meisim from the Pasuk in Tehilim "va'Yatzitzu me'Ir ke'Eisev ha'Aretz". She asked Rebbi Meir - whether the dead will arise clothed or naked.

(d)He answered her - with a 'Kal va'Chomer from a grain of wheat, which is planted without any covering at all, but which grows with many coverings (the husks, the chaff, the stubble). In that case, the dead, who are buried with their clothes, should certainly reappear clothed.