1)

(a)When the three thousand Halachos were forgotten during the mourning period of Moshe, Yehoshua did not consult the Urim ve'Tumim, to reinstate them - because of the principle 'Lo ba'Shamayim hi'.

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha includes among the Halachos that were forgotten - whether 'Chatas she'Meisu (or she'Niskapru) Ba'alehah' is Meisah or Ro'ah (which explains why this Sugya is inserted in this Perek).

(c)When they asked Pinchas (or Elazar) to find out the Halachah, using the power of prophecy, he replied with the Pasuk "Eileh ha'Mitzvos ... ", from which Chazal derive that a Navi is nolonger permitted to add Halachos by means of prophecy ('ve'Ein ha'Navi Rashai le'Chadesh Davar me'Atah').

2)

(a)When Moshe offered to clear up any doubts that Yehoshua may have, he replied that this was not feasible, since he had never left Moshe for one minute, as Moshe himself had attested in ki Sisa.

(b)Moshe's reaction to the fact that Yehoshu'a was as great as he was - to feel faint.

3)

(a)As a result, Yehoshua forgot three hundred Halachos - for causing Moshe such anguish.

(b)Simultaneously - seven hundred doubts developed in his mind.

(c)When the people threatened to kill him unless he found the answers, Hash-m, advised him to mobilize the people for war (to divert their attention from carrying out their threats).

(d)He did not divulge the forgotten Halachos - due to the principle that Torah is no longer in Heaven ('Lo ba'Shamayim hi').

4)

(a)According to the Beraisa - seventeen hundred Kal-va'Chomers, Gezeirah-Shavahs and Dikdukei Sofrim were forgotten during the mourning period of Moshe.

(b)'Dikdukei Sofrim' - are the collecting of Halachos into groups (such as 'fifteen women exempt their Tzaros from Yibum', 'five people should not separate Terumah'), to help memorize them.

(c)Rebbi Avahu learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Vayilk'dah Osni'el ben K'naz" (with reference to Kiryas Seifer).

(d)The connotations of "Kiryas Seifer" are - that Osniel ben K'naz reinstated the forgotten Halachos with his Pilpul.

(e)As a reward, Kaleiv gave Osniel (his younger brother) his daughter Achsah as a wife. She was called by that name - because on account of her exceptional beauty, any man saw her, would become angry with his own wife (so to speak) who was ugly by comparison.

5)

(a)When Achsah complained to her father and said ...

1. ... "T'nah li B'rachah, ki Eretz ha'Negev Nesatani" - she meant that he had given her a man who was 'dry' (devoid of material wealth).

2. ... 've'Nasata li Gulos Mayim" - because one cannot live on Torah alone.

(b)When the Pasuk states "va'Yiten lah Kalev es Gulos Iliyos ve'es Gulos Tachtiyos", it means - that he told her that a man to whom all the upper and lower secrets are revealed, does not require financial support, because the Torah will support him (as it is written in 'Eishes Chayil' [with reference to Torah] "Haysah ka'Aniyos Socher").

(c)Kalev's father's real name was 'Chetzron.

(d)And he was called ...

1. ... "Kalev ben Yefuneh" - because he turned away from the plan of the spies.

2. ... the brother of Osniel ben K'naz - because he (Kalev) was his step-brother (the stepson of K'naz, who married his mother after Chetzron died).

(e)We prove that K'naz was Kalev's stepfather and not his father - from the fact that the Pasuk refers to him as "ha'Kenizi", and not 'ben K'naz'.

6)

(a)Osniel was also known as Ya'abetz. According to Rava, his real name was - Yehudah the brother of Shimon.

(b)He was called ...

1. ... Osniel - because Hash-m answered his prayers (as if it was written without a 'Tav' [Oneh Keil]).

2. ... Ya'abetz - because he advised and disseminated ('Ya'atz ve'Rivetz) Torah to many Talmidim (see Divrei ha'Yamim 1 (4:9).

(c)With reference to the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim, when Ya'abetz asked Hash-m for 'B'rachah', he was referring to success in his Torah-learning, 'to increase his borders', he was referring to giving him many Talmidim. When he asked ...

1. ... for the Hand of Hash-m to be with him, he was referring to - not forgetting the Torah that he learned.

2. ... "ve'Asisa Mera'ah" - that he should have good friends.

3. ... that he should not be sad - that the Yeitzer-ha'Ra should not get the better of him.

(d)And if Hash-m would not grant him these requests - then he would go down to the grave in a state of sadness.

7)

(a)Based on on a Pasuk in Mishlei, when a Rebbe ...

1. ... grants his Talmid's request to teach him Torah - Hash-m opens both their eyes and thy grow in Torah.

2. ... refuses to grant him his request - then Hash-m, who created each of them in his capacity, will switch their roles, so that the one who was wise will become stupid and the one who was stupid will become wise.

(b)What the two Pesukim have in common is - that in both cases we see that when someone Davens for wisdom, his request is granted.

(c)The above is the interpretation of Rebbi Nasan. Rebbi explains the Pesukim differently. According to him, when Ya'abetz asked Hash-m for 'B'rachah', he was referring to having children, 'to increase his borders', he was referring to many sons and daughters. When he asked ...

1. ... for the Hand of Hash-m to be with him - he was asking for success in his business ventures.

2. ... "ve'Asisa Mera'ah" - that he should be spared pains in the head, ears and eyes.

3. ... that he should not be sad - that the Yeitzer-ha'Ra should not overcome him.

(d)He equates the above Pasuk with the Pasuk in Mishlei - with regard to a poor man who appeals to the Balabos for financial assistance.

(e)If the Balabos ...

1. ... responds favorably - then all will be good (for both parties).

2. ... declines to help the poor man - then the same G-d who made the one wealthy and the other poor will reverse their roles.

8)

(a)We already discussed the five Chata'os ha'Meisos listed by Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, and why V'lad Chatas, Temuras Chatas and Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah do not apply to a Chatas Tzibur. The Tana explains that we learn Kipru Ba'alehah and Avrah Shenasah by a Chatas Tzibur (Sasum [what is unknown]) - from the other three cases (Meforash [what is known]), in which case, they will not apply by a Chatas Tzibur.

(b)The problem with this is - that since the Sasum is possible whereas the Mefurash is not, we cannot learn what is possible from what is not.

9)

(a)Resh Lakish explains that four of the cases were given from Sinai, only they turned them into five, by which he means - that in reality, only four of the five Chata'os ha'Meisos are actually Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai. However since, during the Aveilus of Moshe, they forgot which one of the five was not included, they extended the ruling to all five cases.

(b)The list of Chata'os ha'Meisos incorporated only four cases, the Din by the fifth case would be - 'Ro'eh'.

(c)Resh Lakish has now proved from there - that the 'Halachah' pertains to Chatas Yachid and not a Chatas Tzibur, since only two of the five cases could possibly apply to a Chatas Tzibur (bearing out the Beraisa's statement 'Yilmad Sasum min ha'Meforash').

(d)Neither can we answer that two of the four pertain to Chatas Yachid, and two, to Chatas Tzibur - because all four Chata'os ha'Meisos were given together in one Halachah, and they either pertain to the one, or to the other.

10)

(a)We do not really need Resh Lakish's to refute the Kashya ('ve'Chi Danin Efshar mi'she'i Efshar') - because, using the same S'vara, the Kashya would certainly be answered (with a 'Kal va'Chomer') if all five had been slated for Misah).

(b)And we cite Resh Lakish - only because in fact, it was four cases of Misah that were handed down at Sinai and not five.

(c)They grappled with these issues already then, after the death of Moshe ...

(d)... and came to the conclusion that a. all five Chata'os had to die, and b. that the Halachah could not have been said with regard to a Chatas Tzibur.

11)

(a)Rebbi Nasan disagrees with Resh Lakish. According to him - the 'Halachah' pertains exclusively to one of the five cases, and during the Aveilus of Moshe, they became uncertain which one.

(b)Bearing in mind that Rebbi Nasan is referring to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, we query why it is necessary to require all five cases to be burned. Assuming that Rebbi Nasan refers to those cases which apply ...

1. ... both to a Chatas Yachid and a Chatas Tzibur - then the Din of Chata'os ha'Meisos can only pertain either to Chatas she'Niskaper Ba'alav or Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah (and they alone should be burned).

2. ... to a Chatas Yachid but not to a Tzibur - then it can only pertain to a V'lad Chatas, a Temuras Chatas or a Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah (and it is them exclusively. that one ought to burn).

(c)And we answer that - in fact, the Chachamim were not only unsure as to which case the 'Halachah' pertained, but also to which group it belonged (consequently, they had no option but to require all five to be burned).

(d)'Yilmad Sasum min ha'Meforash', according to Rebbi Shimon now means - that just as we see from the Meforash that there are not four cases of Re'ayah by Tzibur (against the one of Meisah), in which case, it must be speaking about a Chatas Yachid, so too, the Sasum (including the case of Meisah), must be speaking about a Chatas Yachid.

12)

(a)According to Rebbi Nasan, this is not a case of 'Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' - because since the case of 'Meforash' cannot pertain to Tzibur, 'Yilmod Sasum min ha'Meforash' renders the fact that it is Efshar from I'Efshar irrelevant.

(b)It would be considered 'Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' if there were two independent Halachos, one requiring three of the five cases to go to Re'ayah, and the other, requiring the other two to go to Misah.

(c)In such a case we would say that even though the three le'Re'ayah cannot pertain to a Chatas Tzibur, the two le'Misah may well pertain to it, and both a Chatas Tzibur she'Niskaprah Ba'alehah and a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah must die (because 'Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar').

13)

(a)Our Mishnah lists five areas where Kodshim have the edge over Temurah. The first three are that Kodshim make a Temurah, and pertain to a Tzibur and Shutfin (all of which Temurah do not), the last two, that one can be Makdish but not Meimir - are Ubrin and Evarim.

(b)The author of our Mishnah, that includes Ubrin among the things that one can be Makdish, is Rebbi Yehudah - who learns this from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Beheimah bi'Veheimah".

(c)On the other hand, Temurah is more stringent than Kodshim in one area - in that a Temurah that is a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a that one redeems, remains Asur be'Gizah va'Avodah, whereas a similar Kodshim animal, is permitted.

(d)The same Chumra will apply however - to a Kodshim animal whose blemish preceded the Hekdesh.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds to the latter list - a case of Shogeg, which he considers like Meizid with regard to Temurah, but not with regard to Hekdesh.

(b)We have already discussed Rebbi Elazar's statement 'ha'Kil'ayim, ve'ha'Tereifah, ve'ha'Yotzei Dofen, ve'Tumtum ve'Androginus Lo Kedoshim ve'Lo Makdishin', which according to Shmuel - incorporates Temurah.

(c)Rebbi Elazar mentions it here - because in contrast to the various distinctions between Kodshim and Temurah, here we have a case where they both share the same ruling.