NAMES THAT WERE CHANGED
Why does it say that he was the Av of Aram?
Rashi: He was a father to his countrymen. He was from Aram - "El Aram Naharayim El Ir Nachor."
What is the connection of changing his name to becoming Av of the whole world?
Rashi: Avraham hints to "AV HaMon Goyim" (Bereishis 17:4).
Etz Yosef, from Rashi Bereishis 17:5: The Reish that was initially in his name remained, even though now it is not 'needed'. We find that the Yud removed from Sarai complained until it was added to Hoshe'a to make his name Yehoshua!
Maharsha: It says in Nedarim (32b) that when his name was changed to Avraham, his Mazal changed, in order to father a son proper to inherit him. (Note: He fathered Yishmael before his name was changed, but Yishmael was not proper to inherit him. - PF) Bereishis Rabah says that "va'Yotzei Oso ha'Chutzah" changed his Mazal only to father a son (Yishmael, but not a son proper to inherit him). Initially he was father to Aram - also after fathering Yishmael, he was father only to one nation, Bnei Yishmael. After Hash-m changed his Mazal to father a son proper to inherit him (Yitzchak), he became father to a multitude of nations - Yisrael, in which each Shevet is called Goy - "Goy v'Kahal Amim" (Bereishis 35:11).
What is the significance of changing Sarai to Sarah?
Rashi: Sarai is singular - it is like Sarasi (my empress).
Maharsha: Initially Sarai was empress only to her nation and in her lifetime, but after death she would be forgotten if she will not have children, like was her Mazal. Her name and Mazal were changed to have children - she became Sarah for the entire world.
Does Bar Kapara hold that calling Avraham 'Avram' transgresses only an Aseh, but not a Lav, and does R. Eliezer say oppositely? Can each refute the other's verse?
Maharsha: The Yerushalmi (Sof ha'Perek) and Bereishis Rabah (46:8) prove that both agree that he transgresses both.
Rav Elyashiv: Only Magen Avraham brought it (156:2). The others omitted it, for we hold like Chachamim, that Yetzi'as Mitzrayim will not cease, just it will be secondary. Likewise, the name Avram will not cease, just it will be secondary.
Why did. the Poskim and those who count the Mitzvos not bring this?
Iyun Yakov: Do not say that the Poskim omitted it because the Isur was only in his lifetime, for we asked from "Atah Hu Hash-m Elokim Asher Bacharta b'Avram", after his death! I answer based on. Tosfos (Mo'ed Katan 20a DH Mah), that we do not learn from verses before Matan Torah.
Maharatz Chayes: Also the Rambam rules like the Yerushalmi, that we do not learn from before Matan Torah. Mekom Shmuel (23) says that R. Yehudah and Chachamim, who argued about Gid ha'Nasheh, argue about this. Daf Al ha'Daf - Tashbatz (Zohar ha'Raki'a Mitzvah 248) already said so.
Rav Elyashiv: Only Magen Avraham brought it (156:2). The others omitted it, for we hold like Chachamim, that Yetzi'as Mitzrayim will not cease, just it will be secondary. Likewise, the name Avram will not cease, just it will be secondary.
Daf Al ha'Daf: Rosh Yosef was unsure if it is truly a Lav, or an Asmachta. Tzlach brought from Be'er Sheva that since it is only an Asmachta, the Poskim did not bring it. Maharsha said that even if it is only an Asmachta, they should have brought it!
Daf Al ha'Daf citing Teshuvos Maharil Diskin (Kuntres Acharon 5:19): The Isur is only in front of him. After death, this is no worse than cursing him.
Iyun Yakov: This cannot be, for the Gemara asked from "Atah... Bacharta b'Avram" (Nechemyah9:7), which was after his death!
Why was the name Avram changed absolutely, but Yakov's name was not? And why was Sarai's name changed only for Avraham?
Ha'Kosev: The Brachah AV HaMon Goyim hints to the future. I already decreed that he will be Av not only to Aram. This is from when Yitzchak was born. One who calls him Avram casts doubt on fulfillment of Hash-m's promise. The name Yisrael primarily hints to the past, like the angel said "Ki Sarisa Im Elohim..." - the angel and Esav could not strike him. Hash-m heard his Tefilah "Hatzileni Na..." However, even so the Galus told to Avraham "Ki Ger Yihyeh Zar'echa" was said about Yakov. The name Yakov hints to (a) holding Esav's Ekev (heel) at birth, and (b) Esav's words "va'Yakveni..." Both of these occurred in Galus. He held the heels of his enemies, and the head, for he could not overcome them. And, he makes war with strategies, like one who hides to be saved from afflictions of Galus. When he descended to Egypt, the beginning of Galus, Hash-m called "Yakov Yakov" to hint that both of these will be during the Galus. When He changed his name, He said "Shimcha Yakov..." to hint that there will be days (Galus) when his name will be Yakov, but in the future it will be Yisrael, to hint to the final Ge'ulah.
Maharsha: The change to Avraham changed his Mazal to enable him to father a son proper to inherit him. Avram was totally uprooted, lest it diminish the influence of Divine strength to enable him to be father of many nations. Yakov's name was changed only for authority and importance - "Ki Sarisa." There is no adamancy not to use the first name, just the latter name is primary. Also Sarah's name was changed only for authority, like I wrote above. The adamancy not to call her Sarai is only for Avraham, who thought that Hash-m's promise to him would be fulfilled via Yishmael - [when Hash-m told him that he will father a son from Sarah,] he said "Lu Yishmael Yichyeh Lefanecha" (Bereishis 17:18)! To uproot this, He commanded Avraham to call her only Sarah, for from her will come to you authority and importance to the entire world, when she will give birth to Yitzchak.
Note: This seems unlike Maharsha wrote above, that Sarai's name and Mazal were changed to have children! (PF)
Rav Elyashiv: The Yerushalmi says that the names Avram and Yakov were changed, for people chose them; Yitzchak's name did not change, for Hash-m chose it. We can similarly say that Avraham's name totally changed, for a Nochri chose it. Yakov's name was not totally uprooted, for Yitzchak chose it.
Note: The name Avram was 'correct', for he correctly saw in his Mazal that he will not father children, until Hash-m changed his Mazal! Perhaps even so, since a Nochri gave the name, there was no reason not to totally uproot it. (PF)
THE ORDER OF THE PARSHIYOS
Shema precedes v'Hayah Im Shamo'a in the Torah. Why is another reason needed to say it first?
Tosfos 14b DH Lamah: Parashas Tzitzis precedes both of them in the Torah, yet we read it last! This shows that we are not concerned for their order in the Torah. If so, we should first say v'Hayah Im Shamo'a, which is in the plural, to Shma, which is in the singular!
Maharsha: Keri'as Shma with its Brachos is like Tefilah. Therefore, a request for mercy in the plural is better. R. Yehoshua teaches that even so, it is more important to put Ol Malchus Shamayim before Ol Mitzvos.
Why does it say that v'Hayah Im Shamo'a applies during the day and night, whereas va'Yomer applies only during the day?
Rashi: V'Hayah Im Shamo'a discusses learning Torah - "V'Limadtem Osam Es Beneichem" , which always applies. Va'Yomer discusses Tzitzis, which applies only during the day - "u'Re'isim Oso" excludes a night garment (Shabbos 27a).
Why would we think to say va'Yomer before v'Hayah Im Shamo'a?
Maharsha: Both of them discuss Ol Mitzvos; va'Yomer is earlier in the Torah. The three Parshiyos of Shema teach about three principles. (a) Shma (Ol Malchus Shamayim) teaches about Hash-m's existence and unity. (b) V'Hayah Im Shamo'a (Ol Mitzvos) teaches that we must accept that Torah is from Shamayim. (c) Va'Yomer discusses reward and punishment - reward for Yisrael and punishment for Egypt.
Note: V'Hayah Im Shamo'a is all about reward and punishment - if we do the Mitzvos we are blessed. If not, rain is withheld and we are exiled! (PF)
Iyun Yakov: Sifri (Shlach 115) says that "u'Re'isim Oso... Kol Mitzvos Hash-m va'Asisem Osam" refers to Parashas Shma, which has Ol Malchus Shamayim. Therefore, it would be proper for it to follow Parashas Shma. We need reasons to put Shma first and va'Yomer third.
ONE SHOULD PROLONG ECHAD
Below (54b), it lists three matters, that one who prolongs them, his days and years are lengthened. Why is this omitted?
Megadim Chadashim (54b): Here, and also prolonging Amen (47a), it means only that one should not say them too quickly. It is improper to prolong them too much!
Why does one prolong specifically the Dalet?
Rashi: Until he says the Dalet, there is no meaning to 'Echa '.
Daf Al ha'Daf: Beis Yakov (22) says that similarly, in Birkas Kohanim there is no reason to elongate saying "v'Yishmerecha" or "vi'Chuneka" before saying the last letter.
Me'iri: The Dalet completes the word. The Yerushalmi says, if he would extend the Aleph, it would sound like Ein Chad (is not one).
Maharsha: R. Yonah and the Tur hold that he extends the Ches a little, to accept His kingship in Shamayim and Aretz, and extends the Dalet to accept His kingship in the four directions. The Gemara supports Rashi, that both intents are in the Dalet.
Etz Yosef: The hump in the middle of the roof of the Ches (the way it is written in a Sefer Torah) hints to Shamayim and Aretz. SMaK says to intend that He is alone in the seven levels of Shamayim and the land (the Gematriya of Ches is eight).
Daf Al ha'Daf: Magen Avraham says that he prolongs the Dalet twice as long as the Ches. Kerem Shlomo (9:3:46:3) and Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (61:7) say that one cannot elongate the Dalet without changing the pronunciation! Rather, after finishing the word he intends to declare His kingship in these places. The Steipler held that if one began the intent while saying the word, he may finish it afterwards. Terumas ha'Deshen (1:27) says that just like one may say the Yehi Ratzon of Birkas Kohanim while they elongate singing at the end of the Brachah, and it is considered at the time of the Brachah, one may intend after saying "Echad".
Note: Perhaps Magen Avraham holds that he prolongs the Dalet twice as long as the Ches, for while saying Ches, he unifies Hash-m above and below, and while saying Dalet, he unifies Hash-m in the four directions (PF, based on Megadim Chadashim cited below).
Why does he warn not to rush the Ches?
Rashi: He might omit the Patach under the "Ches", and read it like a Chataf, in order to prolong the "Dalet."
Etz Yosef citing Ma'adanei Yom Tov: What Rashi calls Patach, we call Kamatz; what he calls Chataf, we call Shva.
Is there a problem if he extends longer than the time to accept His kingship in these places?
Maharsha: Surely, R. Yirmeyah was thinking about deep intents and secrets in the verse. Even so, this is improper, lest he miss Tefilah with the Tzibur. Above, below and the four directions encompass the entire creation - this suffices!
Megadim Chadashim: R. Yirmeyah held like SMaK, that one intends that He is alone in each of the seven levels of Shamayim, and in the land, while saying the Ches. While saying Dalet, he unifies Hash-m in the four directions. Therefore, he prolonged the Ches more than the Dalet. R. Chiya bar Aba told him, it suffices to unify Hash-m above (in all of Shamayim, at once) and below, and in the four directions, so he extends the Dalet more than the Ches.
ONE MAY NOT RECITE SHEMA LYING DOWN
What is 'Perakdan'?
Rashi: It is lying on his back.
Rambam (Hilchos Keri'as Shma 2:2), Me'iri: It is lying on his back, or face down.
Why did R. Yehoshua ben Levi curse one who sleeps Perakdan?
Rashi: It is prone to cause an erection, and many will see this; this is disgraceful.
Etz Yosef: We do not distinguish, and forbid even when he sleep is in a dark or closed house [and no one will see him].
Me'iri: It brings him to thoughts [of Bi'ah].
Etz Yosef: The Rambam forbids also face down - this is disgraceful for a man, for it is like one who has Bi'ah. Also, it can warm the Ever and cause a seminal emission.
Why is Keri'as Shema forbidden even if he leans to the side?
Rashi: If he leans a little to the side, he accepts Ol Malchus Shamayim haughtily.
Etz Yosef citing the Vilna Gaon: This implies that if he leans totally to the side, it is permitted. Rashi said so, because below (24a) it says that if two sleep in one Talis, each turns his head away to say Keri'as Shema. The Rambam, Tur and Mechaber rule like this. However, the Rema rules like R. Yonah, that on the side is permitted if it is a toil (to sit or stand), like it says about R. Yochanan. Also there, since he removed his clothes, it would be a toil to get dressed and get up.
Rav Elyashiv: One who recited lying down was Yotzei. Beis Hillel say that one leans and recites (11a).
Why was the law different for R. Yochanan, because he was stout?
Etz Yosef citing the Rambam: He could not turn onto his side. Eliyahu Rabah learns from the Kesef Mishneh that if an ill or stout person can sit up, he must.