1)

(a)It is incorrect to say that the north-wind did not blow throughout the forty years that Yisrael traveled in the desert - because it blew every night at midnight (see also Tosfos DH 'Lo Nashvah').

(b)The Pasuk "Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah va'Hashem Hikah Kol Bechor" teaches us that midnight is a time of goodwill (for Yisrael) - and that explains why the north-wind always blows then, even when Hash-m is cross with us (as happened in the desert).

2)

(a)Rav Huna ascribes the prohibition of a Mashuch (who pulled back his foreskin to cover over the location of the Milah) eating Terumah - because he looks like an Arel.

(b)'Mashuch Tzarich she'Yimol' implies - that the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan (otherwise the Tana would have said 'Mashuch Harei Hu Arel').

(c)The questioner thought that the Tana meant mid'Oraisa - because, in the Seifa, the Chachamim quote a Pasuk in this regard, suggesting that it is d'Oraisa.

(d)To prove that it is obligatory for a Mashuch to repeat the Bris Milah - the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah quote the Pasuk "Himol Yimol" ('Afilu Me'ah Pe'amim').

(e)According to Rav Huna, they cited the Pasuk - as an Asmachta (but not as an actual source).

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah - a Mashuch should not circumcise, because it is dangerous.

(b)The Rabanan countered that, based on what happened in the days of ben Kuziba - when many people repeated the Milah (after the Romans had forcibly pulled over their foreskins), proving that it is not dangerous.

(c)ben Kuziba is a pseudonym for bar Kochba. He overpowered the Romans in the final revolt and ruled for two and a half years in Beitar.

(d)The Rabanan found it necessary to add the Derashah of "es Brisi Heifar" - in case one uses the Pasuk of "Himol Yimol" to obligate the removal of the strands that invalidate the Milah.

4)

(a)We now query Rav Huna from another Beraisa, which discusses the Din of a Tumtum, a Nolad Mahul and an Androginus.

1. A Tumtum is forbidden to eat Terumah and Kodshim - because he is a Safek Arel.

2. An Androginus (who circumcised) is permitted to eat Terumah, but not Kodshim - because 'Kodshim' here, refers to Kodshei Kodashim, which can only be eaten by male Kohanim, and an Androginus is a Safek male, Safek female.

(b)The wife of a Tumtum is permitted to eat Terumah - because her husband is like someone whose mouth is hurting and which can be rectified.

(c)The Tana of this Beraisa rules - that a Mashuch and a baby who is born already circumcised, may eat Terumah (a proof that Rav Huna, who forbids a Mashuch to eat Terumah mi'de'Rabanan, is wrong.

5)

(a)The problem with the fact that the Beraisa that we just quoted permits the wife of a Tumtum to eat Terumah - how it is possible for a Tumtum to have a wife, seeing as he/she is not permitted to get married?

(b)If a Tumtum betrothed a woman or was betrothed by a man - the Kidushin is valid b'Di'eved.

(c)Nevertheless, we cannot simply establish the Beraisa when that is what happened - because even though his Kidushin is valid b'Di'eved, that is only l'Chumra (to require a Get or to become Asur to each other's relatives), but certainly not l'Kula (to allow the woman he betrothed to eat Terumah).

6)

(a)Abaye establishes the Beraisa when it is only the Tumtum's Milah that is covered, but his Beitzim are on the outside (in which case there can be no doubts that he is a male). Rava answers that 'Nashav' really mean his mother - whom we might otherwise have thought cannot eat Terumah on his account, because (perhaps) it is only someone who can have children who feeds Terumah, but not someone who cannot.

(b)The Seifa of the Beraisa rules that a Tumtum is not permitted to eat Terumah, posing a Kashya on Rava, why the Tana finds it necessary to teach us the Din of a Tumtum twice. This is not a Kashya on Abaye - because the Reisha speaks about a Vaday Arel (whose Beitzim are exposed), and the Seifa adds that even a Safek Arel is Asur.

(c)Rava answers - that when the Seifa mentions Tumtum, the Tana really means Arel, and it is coming to teach us that the reason that a Tumtum is forbidden to eat Terumah is because he is a Safek Arel.

7)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa lists a Mashuch, a Katan after the eighth day and others who need to be circumcised - to teach us that all of these can only be circumcised during the day.

(b)'Others who need to be circumcised' - comes to include someone who has two Orlos.

(c)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules that any Milah that is performed after its prescribed time may be performed by night. We try to establish their Machlokes with (regard to a Mashuch) - by whether the obligation to circumcise a Mashuch is d'Oraisa (the Tana Kama), or only mid'Rabanan (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

(d)We reject this interpretation - on the grounds that they also incorporate a Katan after eight days in their Machlokes, and his obligation to circumcise is certainly min ha'Torah.

8)

(a)We therefore conclude that the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is - whether to give she'Lo bi'Zmano the same Din as bi'Zmano (the Tana Kama), or not (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who therefore permits she'Lo bi'Zmano even by night).

(b)The Tana Kama learns his opinion from the 'Vav' in the Pasuk in Tazri'a "u'va'Yom ha'Shemini, Yimol ... " (which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does Darshen).

(c)Mashuch in fact - is only d'Rabanan, even according to the Rabanan, only they give it the same Din as a Katan she'Avar Zmano, because of the principle 'Kol d'Tikun, k'Ein d'Oraisa Tikun' (the Rabanan generally institute their laws along the same lines as those of the Torah).

9)

(a)Nosar bi'Zmano (on the day that it became Nosar) must be burned by day, because the Torah writes in Tzav "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi". Rebbi Yochanan ruled that Nosar she'Lo bi'Zmano may be burned at night, but Rebbi Elazar queried him from a Beraisa - which learns from "u'va'Yom" that even a baby that is circumcised on the ninth, tenth, eleventh or twelfth days must be circumcised by day, so the same should apply to Nosar she'Lo bi'Zmano, where the Torah also writes "v'ha'Nosar" (with an extra 'Vav' and 'Hey').

(b)We cannot answer that Rebbi Yochanan issued his ruling according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who does not Darshen the 'Vav' of "u'va'Yom ha'Shmini Yimol" - because even those Tana'im who do not Darshen an extra 'Vav', will Darshen an extra 'Vav' and 'Hey'.

(c)The ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth days that the Tana mentions with regard to Milah - refers to a baby that is born during Bein ha'Shemashos (dusk) of a weekday, during Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos, during Erev Shabbos when Yom Tov falls on Motzei Shabbos and Bein ha'Shemashos of Shabbos which is followed by two days of Rosh ha'Shanah (respectively).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan's reaction to Rebbi Elazar's query was - silence.

10)

(a)When, after Rebbi Elazar had departed, Rebbi Yochanan expressed admiration for Rebbi Elazar's Derashah - Resh Lakish pointed out that he had not expressed his own opinion, but that of a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan heard that it was a Toras Kohanim (that was compiled by Rav), he learned it for three days - and studied it for three months.

(c)Rebbi Elazar derives that the Haza'ah of an Arel is Kasher, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Tevul Yom, because - if a Tevul Yom, who is Asur to touch Terumah, is permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, then an Arel who is permitted to touch Terumah, should certainly be permitted to do so.

(d)We refute the Kashya on Rebbi Elazar's 'Kal va'Chomer' (that a Tevul Yom is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni, whereas an Arel is not) - on the grounds that our Sugya is not concerned with eating, but only with touching.

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the Kidush (i.e. mixing the ashes of the Parah Adumah with the water) of a Tumtum is invalid - because he is a Safek Arel, and an Arel is not permitted to perform the Kidush.

(b)The Kidush of an Androginus (who circumcised) on the other hand - is valid (despite the fact that he is a Safek Ishah, because a woman is permitted to perform it.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Kidush of a woman. Consequently - that of an Androginus is invalid too.

(d)Rav Yosef reconciles Rebbi Elazar (who validates the Haza'ah of an Arel) with this Beraisa - by establishing its author as Rebbi Akiva, who considers an Arel, Tamei (as we learned above on 70a.), whereas Rebbi Elazar follows the opinion of the Rabanan.

12)

(a)When Rava asked why no Tana mentioned Arel and Tamei in Rebbi Akiva's name - he meant that if Rebbi Akiva really considers an Arel Tamei, in all regards (and not just with regard to Terumah - where it is written), then why did no Tana ever place Arel and Tamei together in a Mishnah that speaks about Tum'ah in Rebbi Akiva's name, to teach us that fact?

(b)The Mishnah in Chagigah 'ha'Arel v'ha'Tamei Peturim min ha'Re'iyah' do not fit the bill - because, who the reason there may well be (not because of Tum'ah, but) because it is considered disgusting for them to appear in the Azarah.

(c)In another Beraisa, the Rabanan learn from Pesukim that anyone but an Arel, a Tamei and a Katan is eligible to gather the ashes of the Parah Adumah - whoever is eligible to gather the ashes is also eligible to perform the Kidush, and that those who are Pasul by the former are also Pasul by the latter.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Lakchu la'Tamei ... " - that a Katan is eligible to perform the Kidush too.

2. ... "v'Nasan Alav" - "v'Nasan", 'v'Lo v'Nasnah' (that the Kidush of a woman is invalid).

13)

(a)According to the Chachamim, the Torah specifically writes "v'Lakchu la'Tamei" (in the plural) and "v'Nasan Alav" (in the singular) - because had it written "v'Lakach ... v'Nasan" we would have thought that one person must take the ashes (and not two) and one must pour the water; and had it written "v'Lakchu ... v'Nasnu" we would have thought that two people must take the ashes and two must pour the water. So the Torah "v'Lakchu ... v'Nasan" to teach us - that if two people take the ashes and one person pours the water, the Kidush is also valid.

(b)Had the Torah written "v'Hizah al ha'Tamei" it would have been obvious that someone who is Tamei is not permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah - because the Torah refers to it as 'a Chatas'.

(c)The Torah writes "v'Hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" - to teach us that a Tevul-Yom is eligible to prepare the Parah Adumah.

(d)We learn it from there, since "ha'Tahor" implies a person who is Tamei in some areas of Halachah, but Tahor in others, fitting the description of a Tevul Yom, who is Tahor regarding Ma'aser Sheni, but Tamei regarding Terumah and Kodshim).