1)

(a)The third comparison of Adam to fish in the sea that pertains to the whole of mankind is that - like fish in the sea (where the big fish swallow the little ones) - people would swallow each other alive ...

(b)... were it not for their fear of the ruling power. Hence Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim says in Pirkei Avos that - 'One should Daven for the welfare of the ruling power, because were it not for one's inherent fear of it, one man would swallow the other alive'.

(c)To reconcile the Pasuk in Iyov "Shakai, Lo Metzanuhu Sagi Ko'ach" with the Pesukim in Tehilim "Gadol Adoneinu ve'Rav Ko'ach" and in the Shirah "Yemincha Hash-m Ne'dari ba'Ko'ach" - Rav Chanina bar Papa establishes the former with regard to Hash-m sitting in judgment, and the latter, with regard to war.

(d)And Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina reconciles the Pasuk in Yeshayah which states that Hash-m does not become angry, with the Pasuk in Nachum which describes Him as a G-d of vengeance and fury - by establishing the former with regard to Yisrael, and the second, with regard to the other nations.

(e)Rav Chin'na bar Papa reconciles the two Pesukim even assuming that both refer to Yisrael - by explaining that although Hash-m is prone to become angry, He does not, because He swore that He would not. And when He said 'Mi Yitneni she'Lo Nishba'ti', He meant that - He (sometimes) wishes that He had not made that oath.

2)

(a)Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation conforms with that of Rebbi Alexandri (see Tosfos DH 've'Haynu'), who interprets the Pasuk in Zecharyah "be'Yom ha'Hu Avakesh Leshashmid es Kol ha'Goyim" to mean that - Hash-m wants to find out whether the Nochrim have any merits or not, before making His decision.

(b)The result of His inquiry will be that - if they do not, He will destroy them.

(c)Yisrael however, He treats like a Pid shel Tarnegoles, like Rava explains - that Hash-m punishes them little by little (like a hen pecks around for its food).

(d)The Pasuk in Iyov "Im be'Fido lahen Shu'a" therefore means that - by punishing Yisrael little by little, Hash-m saves them for the World to Come.

3)

(a)If in the same Pasuk in Iyov "be'Fido" refers, not to punishments, but to Mitzvos, then it will mean that - even if Yisrael have performed just a few Mitzvos (like a hen pecking in a trash-heap), Hash-m will add them up to make up a large total.

(b)Alternatively, "Shu'a" might be referring to the merit of - Tefilah (like we say in Ashrei "ve'es (Shav'asam Yishma ... "), which saves them from total annihilation.

(c)According to Rebbi Aba, Hash-m wanted to save Yisrael from total annihilation by punishing them monetarily. According to Rav Papi in the name of Rava, it refers to - striking them bodily (see Agados Maharsha).

(d)Either way, Yisrael reacted to this act of kindness - by accusing Hash-m of punishing them unjustly (and not in order to reward them later).

4)

(a)Rebbi Avahu told a certain Miyn (heretic) that - Rav Safra was a great man.

(b)Rav Safra benefited from Rebbi Avahu's praise - by being released from taxes for thirteen years.

(c)Based on the Pasuk "Rak Eschem Yada'ti mi'Kol Mishpechos ha'Adamah, al-kein Efkod aleichem es Kol Avanoseichem", the Minim asked Rav Safra - why, if Hash-m loves Yisrael, would He choose to punish them?

(d)When they said 'Ma'an de'Is leih Sisya (or Susya), be'Rachmeih Masik leih', they meant to ask - whether it was the normal procedure to vent one's anger on one's best friend (or to give him one's wild horse to ride).

5)

(a)When Rav Safra was unable to answer - the Minim placed a Sudar (the head-gear of a Talmid-Chacham) around his neck and began to torment him.

(b)Rebbi Avahu ...

1. ... reconciled his praise of Rav Safra with the latter's inability to answer their question - by confining Rav Safra's area of excellence to Torah she'be'Al Peh, but not so much to Torah she'bi'Kesav.

2. ... ascribed the fact that he (Rebbi Avahu) was able to answer their questions, whereas Rav Safra was not to the fact that - he had to deal with them (the Miynim) on an ongoing basis, and had therefore to be constantly on his toes, whereas Rav Safra was not accustomed to dealing with them.

3. ... Rebbi Avahu solved their problem - with an analogy to a man who borrows money from two people, one of whom he likes, whilst the other, he doesn't. The former, he pays little by little, until he has paid off the debt; the latter, he only pays when the expiry date arrives, in one go Similarly, Hash-m punishes Yisrael for their sins little by little in this world, so that their slate remains clean, to receive reward in the World to Come for all their good deeds; whereas He allows the sins of the Nochrim to accumulate, so that He can later deny them entry in the World to Come.

6)

(a)Rav Aba bar Kahana interprets the word "Chalilah" in the Pasuk in Vayeira (in connection with Avraham's Tefilah for S'dom) "Chalilah L'cha me'Asos ka'Davar ha'Zeh Lehamis Tzadik im Rasha" to mean that - it is Chulin (profane) for Hash-m to do such a thing.

(b)We reconcile this with the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'hichrati mi'Mecha Tzadik ve'Rasha" - by establishing the former by a complete Tzadik, and the latter, by a partial one.

2. ... "u'mi'Mikdashai (which the Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef translates as "mi'Mekudashai) Tacheilu" (that Hash-m instructed the angel to first punish the Tzadikim) - because they had the ability to rebuke the people but failed to do so (in which case they were not considered complete Tzadikim).

(c)Rav Yosef describes these Tzadikim as - people who kept the Torah from 'Alef' until 'Tav'.

(d)Rav Papa reconciles the Pasuk in Tehilim "Keil Zo'em be'Chol Yom" with the Pasuk in Nachum "Lifnei Za'amo Mi Ya'amod" - by establishing the former with regard to the community (who are able to survive Hash-m's anger), and the latter, with regard to individuals (who are not).

7)

(a)When the Beraisa gives the time duration of Hash-m's anger as one 53,848 (or 8,888) of an hour each day - it is referring to Hash-m's anger.

(b)The only person who knew exactly when that moment was - was Bil'am.

(c)We learn this from the Pasuk "Ve'yode'a Da'as Elyon", which we cannot interpret literally - because if he could not even fathom the mind of his ass, as we will soon see, how could he possibly fathom the mind of Hash-m?

8)

(a)Bil'am's ass asserted, when Bilam explained to Balak's messengers that ...

1. ... he was riding her only because he had left his horse in the meadow - that she was his ass.

2. ... usually, he only used her to carry loads - that he used her for riding on too.

3. ... he only rode on her occasionally - that he rode on her regularly ...

(b)... and what's more, she said - if that is what he used her for by day, by night, he used her for more intimate purposes (as is hinted in the words "ha'Hashkein Hiskanti ... ", which we find in Shmuel, in connection with Avishag ha'Shunamis, by whom the Pasuk writes "Vat'hi lo Sochenes" ('and she became his [David's] warmer').

(c)Even though Bil'am knew the exact moment that Hash-m was angry each day, he was unable to use that knowledge to curse Yisrael - because throughout that period, Hash-m, in His kindness, simply quashed His anger, as the Pasuk in Michah hints when it writes "Lema'an Da'as Tzidkos Hash-m".

(d)If Hash-m had not done so - then not a Jew would have remained, by the time Bilam had finished with them.

9)

(a)Hash-m's intervention reflects in Bilam's words to Balak - when he said "Mah Kaboh Lo Kaboh Keil, u'Mah Ez'am, Lo Ez'am Hash-m" (meaning that Bil'am could not evoke Hash-m's anger when Hash-m was not angry).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Ki Rega be'Apo, Chayim bi'Retzono" (or from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Chavi Kim'at Rega ad Ya'avor Za'am") that - Hash-m's anger each day lasts only a split second ( as we explained earlier).

(c)Hash-m's anger occurs - during the first three hours of the day ...

(d)... when the rooster's comb turns white.

(e)The problem with this statement the way it stands is that - the rooster's comb turns white regularly. What the Tana therefore means is - that on those other occasions, the white is dotted with red specks, and it is only at that specific moment that it turns completely white.

10)

(a)When a certain Miyn persisted in tormenting him - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi placed a rooster between the legs of his bed, intending to curse him when he saw the comb turn white.

(b)His plan failed however - when at the crucial moment he dozed off.

(c)He took this as a sign from Heaven that - it is not correct for a Tzadik to use Hash-m in this way. Besides the Pasuk in Mishlei "Gam Anush la'Tzadik Lo Tov", he quoted the Pasuk in 'Ashrei' "ve'Rachamav al Kol Ma'asav" (that Hash-m has mercy on all His creations, even on Resha'im!

(d)Based on Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the cause of Hash-m's anger each morning is - the fact that at around the time in question, the kings of the world place their crowns on their heads and bow down to the rising sun.

11)

(a)Rav Yosef advises an individual not to Daven Musaf during the first three hours of the first day of Rosh Hashanah - because, since everyone is judged on that day, by Davening at that time, he attracts Hash-m's attention, so to speak, and is judged then, and it is during those three hours that Hash-m is angry (as we just explained).

(b)The same does not pertain to ...

1. ... a community - because the merits of the community are great.

2. ... Davenning Shachris at that time on one's own - because the community Davens Shachris at that time, in which case the individual will get by together with them.

(c)This applies specifically to Musaf of Rosh Hashanah - when we say Malchuyos, Zichronos and Shofros, and not to Musaf the whole year round, which is merely praises of Hash-m and a description of the Korbanos brought on that day.

12)

(a)The problem with this is that - as we learned earlier, during the first quarter of the day, Hash-m does not judge, but studies Torah.

(b)Initially, we answer 'Eipuch' - switching the order of the first two time-periods of Hash-m's time-table, in which case Hash-m does indeed judge during the first three hours of the day. Alternatively, we leave the Beraisa remains intact and one should nevertheless avoid Davenning Musaf during the first period, and not during the second - because, since the Torah is referred to as 'Emes', Hash-m will not go 'li'Fenim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law [to deal with him leniently]); 'Din' on the other hand, allows Hash-m to judge as He sees fit, even to go beyond the letter of the law should the need arise.

(c)This does not clash with the Pasuk in Tehilim "Mishp'tei Hash-m Emes" - which is referring (not to Midas ha'Din [the court judgment of which we are speaking], but) to the category of Mitzvos called 'Mishpatim'.

(d)In the Pasuk in Mishlei "Emes Keneih ve'Al Timkor", the meaning of ...

1. ... "Emes Keneih" is that - one should be prepared to spend money in order to study Torah.

2. ... "ve'Al Timkor" is that - one should teach it free of charge.

13)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the Pasuk in Yeshayah ...

1. ... "Yitnu Eidehen Ve'yitzdaku" to mean that - all the Mitzvos that Yisrael have performed will come and testify on their behalf.

2. ... "Yishme'u Ve'yomru Lach" that - the Nochrim will come and support that testimony.

(b)And he extrapolates from the words "le'Einei ha'Amim" (in the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Ki hi Chochmaschem u'Vinaschem le'Einei ha'Amim") that - those Mitzvos will tap the Nochrim on the face (see Agados Maharsha), to show them up for declining to accept the Torah when it was offered to them.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolates from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan (said by Hash-m at Har Sinai) "Mi Yiten Ve'hayah Levavam Zeh lahem Le'yir'ah Osi Kol ha'Yamim" - that Yisrael's level of Yir'as Shamayim at that time did not warrant the sin of the Golden Calf, and that consequently, it must have been orchestrated by Hash-m, to teach us that the Teshuvah of a Tzibur is accepted.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai said the same thing. He also extrapolated from the Pasuk in Tehilim "ve'Libi Chalal be'Kirbi" - that, by the same token, David's heart was devoid of sin, and he was therefore unlikely to have sinned with Bas-Sheva if Hash-m had not orchestrated it, to teach us that the Teshuvah of a Yachid is acceptable, too.

(c)Had the Torah taught us the Chidush of Teshuvah only in the case of ...

1. ... a Yachid, we would not have automatically known that the same applies to a Tzibur - whose sin is more widely known, and which therefore constitutes Chilul Hash-m.

2. ... a Tzibur, we would not have automatically known that the same applies to a Yachid - whose collective merits are infinitely less than those of a Tzibur.

(d)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan interprets the Pasuk in Shmuel "Ne'um David ... u'Ne'um ha'Gever Hukam Ol" to mean that - David was the one to establish the yoke of Teshuvah, bearing out the previous statement of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.