Does he recite verses from the Sefer Torah?

Tosfos: It is forbidden whether he reads from the Sefer or by heart.

Rav Elyashiv: One may carry Tefilin in his hand; only wearing Tefilin is forbidden.

Etz Yosef: The text of the Rif and Rosh is 'he reads in it.' Really, even reading by heart is forbidden. R. Yonah can explain that the Beraisa teaches a normal case, for one may not recite verses by heart. However, the Rosh forbids only when he is Motzi someone else. If so, why does the Beraisa mention holding a Sefer, if the Isur is only to read from it?!

Note: Also Ma'adanei Yom Tov (60) on the Rosh asked this. If the Rosh merely cited the Rif, as he often does, even though the Rosh's text did not say 'in it', he should have mentioned this, for it affects the Halachah! (PF)

Is there a permitted way to put bones or a Sefer on a donkey while riding on it?

Tosfos: If they are in back of him on the donkey, it is permitted. And even if you will say that it is forbidden for a Sefer Torah, it is permitted for Seforim of Nevi'im and Kesuvim, since the Beraisa discusses only a Sefer Torah. Do not say that it discusses a Sefer Torah for the Heter regarding Nochrim and bandits - obviously it is permitted. Why should it be forbidden?! Also, the Yerushalmi explicitly permits a sack full of Seforim or bones in back of him.

Me'iri: It is permitted in back of him, for it is extremely difficult in any other way [without sitting on them, which is a great disgrace].

Ha'Boneh: Since the body was the Kli for actions of the Nefesh when they were together in life, it is proper to conduct honor with it also after it separated from it.

Rav Elyashiv: It is disgraceful to sit on bones; we permit, for if he leaves them in front of the Nochrim or bandits, there will be a greater disgrace. (Note: We find that R. Eliezer forbids to overtly be Metamei Terumah, even if this will cause a great loss, but Yehoshua permits (Pesachim 20b). - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Divrei Chayim (2 YD 137) says that if a Sefer Torah fell, we decree a fast, and all the more so for disgrace to a Mes. Dovev Meisharim asks, here we find that Kevod Sefer Torah is greater than the honor of bones! The Ga'on of Tshavin answers, honor of a whole Mes is greater than that of a Sefer Torah, but honor of bones is less than a Sefer Torah. He supports himself from Teshuvas ha'Rema (34); even other Seforim, one may not have Bi'ah in the same room, unless they are covered in two Kelim. We are not so stringent about bones.

Me'iri: The Rambam says that one must hold a Sefer Torah in front of him, unless there is danger. Some forbid riding on a Sefer Torah, even if there is danger.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rif forbids sitting on it, even if there is danger. R. Yochanan always permits sitting on a bed with a Sefer Torah; Rav Huna forbids. We must say that in danger, R. Yochanan permits even sitting on it. What is the source that Rav Huna disagrees?!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. B. Zolty: The Rambam holds like he wrote in Hilchos Parah 10:4, that one who transports water for Mei Chatas may not put it in back of himself, for this is like Hesech Da'as; it is not "Mishmeres ". One must show great honor to a Sefer Torah (Hilchos Sefer Torah 10:2), therefore one may not put it in back of himself.

Is this only when the Mes is being taken to burial?

R. Yonah: It is even if it is not being taken to burial, and he does not accompany it at least four Amos.

Etz Yosef citing Ma'adanei Yom Tov: He says so, for when it is taken to burial, one who does not accompany it is Chayav Niduy.

Rav Elyashiv: Pischei Teshuvos (YD 361:2) says that four Amos suffice only if there are enough others accompanying it; the Rema there says that a Stam Yisrael learned Mikra and Mishnah, so 600,000 people are needed. The custom is like ha'Emek She'elah, that one must accompany it four Amos when there are not the proper amount for the Mes.

If one does not accompany a Mes, why is this "Lo'eg la'Rash [Cheref Osehu]"?

Maharsha: Chesed done for a Mes is called Chesed v'Emes, for the Mes will not return the Chesed, like one who does Chesed for an Oni does not expect the Oni to return it. [One who refrains, he] shows that the Mes is like an Oni who cannot repay.

Iyun Yakov: He does not accompany him, for he holds that a live dog is better than a dead lion, for there is no hope for a Mes. He denies Techiyas ha'Mesim - Cheref Osehu.

Anaf Yosef: The primary attribute of the Mitzvah of Levayah is for his belief that the Nefesh persists, for it is Shamayim's portion. It endures, and does not perish. Therefore, he accompanies it, unlike those who deny the eternity of the Nefesh, and think that Hash-m's portion perishes - man is like animal. They belittle honor of the dead. Cheref Osehu - he reviles the Maker via his belief!

What do we learn from "Malveh Hash-m Chonen Dal"?

Rashi: We read "Malveh" like Melaveh. One who is Chonen Dal (gracious to the poor) - a Mes is the ultimate Oni! - and accompanies him, it is as if he accompanies Hash-m.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): How does one accompany Hash-m? Also, this does not explain what is his reward! Perhaps going after a Sefer Torah is accompanying Hash-m - "Acharei Hash-m Yelechu" (Hoshe'a 11:10). He accompanies the Nefesh, which is Hash-m's lamp, and Atzulah (emanates) from above, from the house to the grave. This is like going after a Sefer Torah (light) - "v'Sorah Or" (Mishlei 6:23).

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: He accompanies and honors Hash-m [via affirming eternity of the Nefesh].

Rif (on the Ein Yakov), citing Rashi: One who accompanies the Mes, Hash-m Chonen (He is gracious to him).

Maharsha: The verse ends "u'Gemulo Yeshalem Lo" - Hash-m repays His 'loan' on behalf of the Mes. Me'iri - one who accompanies, others will accompany him; one who eulogizes, he will be eulogized (Mo'ed Katan 28b).

Iyun Yakov: The question was about his reward in the world to come. His reward in this world is known - one who accompanies, others will accompany him (Mo'ed Katan 28b). Accompanying a Mes is Chesed, for which one eats the Peros in this world, and the principal is intact for the world to come (Pe'ah 1:1). We answer that Hash-m considers it as if He borrowed from him, for He loves the poor, and "v'Eved Loveh l'Ish Malveh" (Mishlei 22:7; Bava Basra 10a).

How could R. Yonason walk in a cemetery? He was a Kohen (Bava Metzi'a 90b)!

Megadim Chadashim: Seder ha'Doros citing Sefer Yuchsin, and Matzpas Eisan, say that there were different R. Yonasons. The one here, in the days of R. Chiya, often argues with R. Yoshiyah; he was not a Kohen.

Megadim Chadashim citing Yefe Einayim: The Yerushalmi (Brachos 2:3) says that this was at the Levayah of R. Shimon ben Yosi ben Lekuniya. When a Chacham dies, Kohanim may become Tamei mid'Rabanan, e.g. to pass over coffins that have a Tefach over the Mes.

Why is wearing Tzitzis near the dead a mockery? We put Tzitzis on a Mes' Talis (Menachos 41a)!

Tosfos: It mocks them, for the living are commanded, and the dead are not commanded. One who is commanded is greater than one who is not commanded. Nowadays, the custom is to remove Tzitzis from shrouds! R. Tam explains, people used to wear Tzitzis the entire day. It would be a mockery if those who engage in the Mes have Tzitzis, and the Mes does not. Nowadays, we do not wear Tzitzis the entire day. If we would put Tzitzis on a Mes, this would mock him [for he did not always wear them in his lifetime]!

Rav Elyashiv: The Rosh (Mo'ed Katan 3:80) says that during the Levayah, we have Tzitzis on the Mes' shrouds, for those who carry him wear Tzitzis. Aba Sha'ul said to remove Tzitzis at the time of burial, for he holds that Mitzvos will be Batel in the future (the Mes will not need them even when he is revived).

Etz Yosef: The Gematriya of Tzitzis (when we add the number of strings and knots) is 613. Dragging them on a grave hints that he fulfills all the Mitzvos, and the Mes is free of all Mitzvos! The Mesim say, 'tomorrow they will come to us', i.e. our state of exemption from Mitzvos.

Ha'Kosev: The Neshamah of the Mes is in Gan Eden. Only the body is in the grave. R. Chiya holds that the Neshamah knows what happens in this world near the body. It is insulted if Tzitzis drag on the grave, for the body is exempt from the Mitzvah.

Megadim Chadashim: Tosfos Yom Tov (Avos 2:7) says that worms hurt a Mes like a needle hurts live flesh, i.e. the Nefesh is pained over the body's disgrace. Regarding the living, it says Besar; regarding a Mes, it does not say Besar ha'Mes, for the Mes itself (the Nefesh) is pained. Also the Rashba (Teshuvah 369), Sefer Chasidim (1169), Kolbo (Evel 2) and Lechem Shamayim say so. Rashi said that the Mes feels pain of its body, e.g. worms biting. This implies that the body feels the pain! Shabbos 13b implies like this. It said that dead flesh does not feel the knife, and challenged this from here! Yismach Moshe (Emor 26a) and Chochmas ha'Nefesh (11a) explicitly say that the body still feels pain, and so implies Ohr ha'Chayim (Vayikra 26:11). Radvaz (484) says that Hash-m caused that the Mes feels pain only from worms; Hash-m decreed so, to punish it. The Gemara in Shabbos could have answered so; it gave a different answer. The Targum of "Ach Besaro Alav Yich'av" (Iyov 14:22) says that worms pain the Mes' flesh. However, another version adds 'until the Golel is sealed' (but after this, it does not feel).

Note: A Bas Kol stopped Yonason from translating Kesuvim (Megilah 3a). Tosfos ha'Rosh there says that this was after he translated Tehilim, Mishlei and Iyov. Alternatively, a Tana after Yonason translated Iyov, and so says the Rashba there. (PF)

One may not wear Tefilin near a Mes. Why is it enough to lift Tzitzis (without removing the garment)?

Me'iri: Tefilin is not a garment. It is unreasonable to obligate someone to remove his garment. Also, perhaps all his garments have Tzitzis! When the Tzitzis drag on a grave, he should lift them and conceal them. The Isur is only within four Amos of a Mes.

Iyun Yakov: Magen Avraham (21:3) infers that there is no Isur if Tzitzis drag on the ground; only on a grave is forbidden. The Agur forbids, and applies "v'Teiteisiha b'Matatei ha'Shmad" (Yeshayah 14:23)! He answers with difficulty (the graves were above the ground, so there was no disgrace to the Mitzvah, only to the dead). I answer based on R. Yonah, who says that in their days, all their garments had four corners. One could not remove all his garments when going to a cemetery. We wear Tzitzis only for the sake of the Mitzvah, not for the sake of a garment, therefore it is forbidden due to Lo'eg la'Rash. The Agur discusses nowadays, that we wear Tzitzis only for the Mitzvah, so it is disgraceful if it drags. When people wore it for the sake of the garment, it was not disgraceful; it was forbidden only near a Mes. This also answers what people ask [against the Agur] from Ben Tzitzis ha'Keses (the fringes of his Talis dragged on pillows and blankets - Gitin 56a).

Megadim Chadashim: Magen Avraham did not see Shirei Keneses ha'Gedolah, who forbids Tzitzis dragging even on something above the ground.

Rav Elyashiv: The Gemara permits unless the Tzitziyos drag on the grave. Nowadays that we wear Tzitzis only for the Mitzvah, one must cover them. Eshel Avraham (23:2) forbids a Talis even if he covers the Tzitziyos, for it is special for Tefilah. Mishnah Berurah (23:3) says that if a Talis Katan is covered, the Tzitzis may be visible. This is a Chidush; the custom is to cover the Tzitziyos.

Rav Elyashiv: Some say that if the Mes was a woman or child who was exempt from the Mitzvah, "Lo'eg la'Rash" does not apply; some disagree. The Poskim conclude that it applies to a minor who would later be obligated, but not to a woman who would always be exempt. There is no Isur by Me'aras ha'Machpelah or Kever Rachel, for before Matan Torah, the Avos and Imahos were not obligated in Mitzvos, so they are like a woman who is exempt.

Note: Even though they were obligated in the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach, Lo'eg la'Rash applies only to Mitzvos Aseh; of the seven, the only Aseh is to establish Batei Din; it does not apply near a Mes. (PF)

Eliyahu Rabah (45:1, partially cited in Etz Yosef): The head Tefilin are exposed. One may enter wearing the hand Tefilin, which is covered. Also the straps should be covered.

Note: Likewise, one may wear Tzitzis as long as they are covered. (PF)

What is the meaning of 'you did not repeat a second time'?

Rashi: You did not review it a second time to contemplate it.

Ha'Kosev: There are 70 facets of Torah. Also Shlomo, in his Chochmah, included many meanings in one saying; all of them are true. One must learn them and repeat them, and each time he will find a new meaning.

What do we learn from 'and if you repeated a third time, they did not explain it well to you!'?

Ha'Kosev: If you learned it again and did not find a new meaning, go to Chachamim - they will reveal to you what is hidden from your eyes.

Iyun Yakov: One who reviews his learning three times does not forget it quickly. And so we say, do not read "v'Shinantam", rather, v'Shilashtam (Kidushin 30a).

Note: The Gemara explains v'Shilashtam to mean dividing his learning in three parts (Mikra, Mishnah and Talmud). I did not find anyone else explain it to mean reviewing three times. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim: It is proper to learn four times (Eruvin 54b). He does not know it properly until then (Rashi there). If you repeated a third time, they did not explain it to you a fourth time, so you will understand.

What is the Chidush "Ki ha'Chayim Yod'im she'Yamusu"?

Rashi: This refers to Tzadikim. They put to their hearts the day of death, and refrain from Aveirah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If this discusses dead Tzadikim, why does it say it "Yod'im she'Yamusu"? They already died! If it discusses live Tzadikim, why did the Gemara need to say that Tzadikim are called Chayim even after death? It must refer to Tzadikim, for Resha'im are called dead even in their lifetimes! We find below that a Mes knew who will die soon (she requested to send combs with a certain woman who will die tomorrow). Also Tzadikim, who are called Chayim even after death, know this. Resha'im do not know anything, even in their lifetimes.

Why are Tzadikim called Chayim even after death?

Iyun Yakov: The primary life is in the world to come, not the temporary life of this world. Since they know that they will die "veha'Chai Yiten El Libo" (Koheles 7:2), they serve Hash-m with all their hearts, and they have eternal life. Resha'im do not desire eternal life, only temporary life. They do not put their end to their hearts. They are called dead even in their lifetimes, for one who is destined to die, it is as if he is dead.

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: Man lives in this world to do good deeds. There are no deeds in the world to come - one who toiled on Erev Shabbos, he will eat on Shabbos (Avodah Zarah 3a). However, Tzadikim who spread Torah and perfect the souls of others, they serve Hash-m eternally. What others fulfill due to the Tzadik's instruction, it is as if the Tzadik fulfilled it. Death is not written about them, for they do not cease from Torah and good deeds. Resha'im are called dead even in this world - they do not engage in Torah and Mitzvos.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. S. Shvadron: This is not a mere metaphor. The Yerushalmi (Avodah Zarah 3:1) says that they retain all their senses, except for speech!

What is the question 'are other people children of the dead?!' Perhaps "Ben Ish Chai" teaches that his father was alive at the time!

Tosfos: Precise texts say 'it is written Chai, and we pronounce it Chayil.' (Surely it is written Chai for a Drashah!)

How does "Rav Pe'alim mi'Kavtze'el" teach that he gathered many workers for Torah?

Maharsha: Tosfos (4a) said that he headed the Sanhedrin - "u'Venayah ben Yehoyada Al ha'Kreisi v'al ha'Pleisi"; we assume that his son succeeded him as Av Beis Din. It should have given his origin (mi'Kavtze'el) before "Rav Pe'alim"! Also, "Hu Hikah Es Shnei Ari'el... v'Hu Yarad v'Hikah Es ha'Ari" are one act. Why does it say "Pe'alim" (plural)? Rather, we expound that he gathered many workers for Torah. Also, we do not find in Tanach Ari'el like the Targum (great officers), rather, it refers to the two Mikdashos - "Hoy Ari'el" (Yeshayah 29:1), like it says in Midos (Sof Perek 4).

What do we learn from "Hu Hikah Es Shnei Ari'el Mo'av"?

Rashi: He lowered the years of the generations before him - there was no one like himself in either Ari'el (Mikdash Rishon or Sheni). It is called Mo'av, for David, who comes from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, built it.

Rav Elyashiv: It is considered that David built it, for he bought the land for it and was Makdish it for the Mikdash.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Tosfos disagrees, for "Mo'av", even if it refers to David, has no connection to the second Ari'el (Mikdash)!

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: Shlomo actually built it, and also he comes from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah! Rashi preferred to say David, for he was Makdish the place also for Bayis Sheni; Shlomo has no connection to Bayis Sheni.

Tosfos: David and Shlomo, who come from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, built the Ari'el.

Maharsha: What is the relevance of "[v'Hikah Es ha'Ari] b'Yom ha'Shaleg"? Rather, it is for a Drashah. Also "Hu Hikah Es Shnei Ari'el" is for a Drashah!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since 'Shnei' refers to two men, what is the source that there was no one like him in Mikdash Rishon or Sheni?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He lowered the honor of two (David and Shlomo), who come from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, who built the Ari'el. After it was destroyed, there was a replacement (Bayis Sheni) like it. There was no one like Benayahu in either Mikdash.

Note: Bayis Sheni was not like Bayis Rishon! Even though "Gadol Yihyeh Kevod ha'Bayis ha'Acharon Min ha'Rishon" (Chagai 2:9), in height and years (Bava Basra 3a), Bayis Sheni lacked Shechinah and five of the miracles of Bayis Rishon. The crying of the elders who saw Bayis Rishon drowned out the joyous Teru'ah of the other present at the founding of Bayis Sheni (Ezra 3:12-13)! (PF)

Why do we expound "v'Hikah Es ha'Ari b'Yom ha'Shaleg" to discuss immersing or learning Toras Kohanim?

Rashi: He broke the ice to immerse from Tum'as Keri, in order to learn Torah.

Maharatz Chayos: This requires investigation, for Ezra, who was long after Benayahu, enacted that a Ba'al Keri must immerse before learning! Tosfos (Bava Kama 82b) - he immersed in order to eat Chulin in Taharah. Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Chida (Ya'ir Ozen Tes:7) - Benayahu was stringent to immerse before learning. Alternatively, he decreed, and Yisrael did not accept until Ezra decreed. Mishneh Halachos (10:144) - even in Egypt, they did Tevilas Ezra for Kedushah, just it was not obligatory until Ezra.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though this was before Takanas Ezra, he was Moser Nefesh to engage in Torah in Taharah. This is why he was able to learn Toras Kohanim in one short day! The two Perushim complement each other. This is like Rashi said in Yevamos (117a DH Divrei Torah) "k'Mayim Panim El Panim Ken Lev ha'Adam la'Adam" (Mishlei 27:19) - according to the face and heart that you give to Torah, it will help you to remember it.

Tosfos: "Ha'Ari" hints to the hardest Sefer; "b'Soch ha'Bor" - Vayikra is the middle Chumash. Be'er is Torah - 'va'Yimtze'u Sham Be'er Mayim Chayim" (Bereishis 26:19). (Note: Even though we read "b'Soch ha'Bor", it is written ha'Be'er. - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This explains why Yehoyada lived after death, for the workers that he gathered, when they learn, his lips move in the grave, and it is as if he is alive.

Note: "U'Venayah ven Yehoyada Ben Ish Chai" implies that Yehoyada is called "Ish Chai." Rif explains that also the next words "Rav Pe'alim" refer to him. He agrees that "Hu Hikah" refers to Benayahu. The other Meforshim explain that all the attributes other than "Ish Chai" apply only to Benayahu. Surely Rif means that when the Talmidim say teachings in his name, his lips move, like we expound from "Dovev Sifsei Yeshenim" (Shir ha'Shirim 7:10; Yevamos 97a). (PF)

Maharsha We learn from "ha'Ari"; all laws of Vayikra pertain to the Mikdash, which is called Ari'el.

We say that "veha'Mesim Einam Yod'im Me'umah" refers to Resha'im. Do they not know anything?

Rashi: They act as if they do not know, and sin.

Ha'Kosev: We can also explain simply, that it refers to the dead - they cannot fix anything, for they are in the world of reward, not in the world of fixing.

How do we learn from - "v'Atah Chalal Rasha Nesi Yisrael"?

Rashi: The verse refers to Tzidkiyah. He was alive when Yechezkel said this verse, and he is called a Chalal (corpse).

Maharsha: Even though it says that Tzidkiyah was a Tzadik, but his generation was evil (Erchin 17a), he is called a Rasha because he transgressed his Shevu'ah to Nebuchadnetzar. Megadim Chadashim - Rashi in Mo'ed Katan 16b says that he was a total Tzadik. In Divrei ha'Yamim II, 36:12, Rashi said that he sinned in only two matters - he did not submit to what Yirmeyahu said in the name of Hash-m, and he rebelled against Nebuchadnetzar after he swore to him in the name of Hash-m. Parashas Derachim says that he was a Tzadik; he is called a Rasha due to his generation, for he could have protested. Midrash Tadshe (20) counts him among 10 evil kings of Yisrael. Sukah 52b counts him among eight Nesichei Adam; the text of Ein Yakov there says Chizkiyah in place of Tzidkiyah. Perhaps the two texts argue about whether or not he is considered a Tzadik.

Note: Surely, Midrash Tadshe means the 10 evil kings of Yehudah. There were more than 10 kings of the 10 tribes, and all were Resha'im! (PF)

Why did R. Chiya's sons go to Karyaisa?

Rashi: It was to engage in working their inheritance.

Megadim Chadashim citing Magid Ta'alumah: They were great Tzadikim - Eliyahu said that they and their father can bring the Ge'ulah prematurely! Why did they abandon eternal life to engage in temporary life? Therefore, Rashi explained that they inherited [land], and the Torah obligates overseeing one's property. Megadim Chadashim - we find that they went to Karyaisa also in their father's lifetime (Beitzah 9b), so we cannot give that answer there! (Note: With difficulty, we could say that their mother died, and afterwards her father died, and they inherited their grandfather in R. Chiya's lifetime. - PF)

Did R. Chiya's sons not know what he taught, that the dead know what happens here?

Ha'Kosev: They argued about whether this is limited to matters that pertain to him (e.g. if Tzitzis drag on his grave), or even to matters of his sons.

Here it says that worms hurt a Mes like a needle hurts live flesh. In Shabbos (13b), we say that dead flesh does not feel the knife [that cuts it]!

Iyun Yakov: The Gemara there retracted to say that dead flesh of a live person does not feel the knife [but flesh of a Mes feels it]!

Sefer Chasidim 1169: The Mes does not feel physical pain. The Neshamah is pained over the disgrace to the body.

Iyun Yakov: It seems that the Rashba (Teshuvah 369) agrees, and therefore he permits to put lime on a Mes to consume the flesh. However, if so, what forced the Gemara to retract and say that dead flesh of a Chai does not feel? In Shevus Yakov (2:94) I resolved the Rashba.

Rav Elyashiv: The Mes is pained only via worms, for so Hash-m decreed to afflict him. Radvaz says that Shabbos 13b could have answered this. Since it was discussing dead flesh of a Chai, it gave that answer.

We find that R. Mani ben R. Yonah prostrated on his father's grave and complained about people who were paining this. When those people passed by his grave, their horses got stuck in the mud, and could not move until they accepted not to pain him. Why did our Sugya not bring this?

Megadim Chadashim: Maharsha there left this difficult. Tosfos (Sotah 34b DH Avosai) says that Mesim are told what people prayed; we go to the cemetery, so the dead will request mercy for us (Ta'anis 16a).

Every 'episode with a Chasid' is R. Yehudah ben Bava or R. Yehudah ben Ilai (Bava Kama 103b). Would such a Chasid spend the night alone in a cemetery, a place of Tum'ah, on Rosh Hashanah?!

Ha'Kosev: We cannot understand this and the coming episodes simply. One must be Metaher himself on the Regel - would such a Chasid be Metamei himself?! Also, this is like "Doresh El ha'Mesim"! And would he repeat this the following two years?! Indeed, Ruchos of Mesim hear in back of the curtain - but this is in Gan Eden below or above, but not where they are buried! Would Tzadikim seek to communicate with the dead? This is forbidden! Rather, it was all through dreams.) The Ritva (Bava Basra 73a) explains that the episodes of giant sea creatures there were not seen with the eye. Rather, when Chachamim see wonders at sea, and contemplate them, they see wonders in dreams that teach about them. Also Ge'onim said so. A Chacham wrote that the episode in which miracles supported R. Eliezer's opinion (Bava Metzi'a 59b) was a Chacham's dream. Also the episodes here were in dreams. The Chasid's wife was angry that he gave his only Dinar for Tzedakah, and did not leave anything to feed his family. At night, a dream aroused him for thinking during the day that 'my death is better than my life.' He should have trusted that Hash-m can save! That night, he dreamed the entire episode, but he did not tell others until after his crops succeeded for two years. Then he told Chachamim, to inform the reward of Tzedakah, and to chastise women not to argue with their husbands. How can we challenge [R. Yonason] from a dream? Since the Chasid's dream was fulfilled (only his crops succeeded), and Chachamim established it in a Beraisa, this shows that it is Emes (the dead know what happens here).

Maharsha: Dreams of Rosh Hashanah are more truthful, for it is Yom ha'Din. Therefore, one who has a [scary] dream on Rosh Hashanah fasts on Rosh Hashanah his entire life. We find that R. Yochanan Ben Zakai dreamed on Rosh Hashanah that his nephews would lose 700 Dinarim in the year [and it was fulfilled - Bava Basra 10a]. He pressed them to give Tzedakah, and induced them to give all but 17 of the 700. On the night before Yom Kipur, officers of the Kaiser came. (Note: - They took only the remaining 17 Dinarim.) I heard that also in latter generations, they used Ba'al ha'Chalomos via imposing oaths with names of Hash-m.

Anaf Yosef: Ri Ibn Shu'iv (Drashah l'Rosh Hashanah DH uv'Hagadas) brings an opinion that the Chasid went to the cemetery and dreamed the entire episode in one night, for after 12 months the Neshamah ascends and does not descend again. However, the Ramban explains simply, that he was awake the entire time. (Note: Maharsha cites the Ritva to say that this episode was in a dream. The Ritva said so only about the episodes in Bava Basra. Ri Ibn Shu'iv, a colleague of the Ritva, cites some who say so about this episode, but he disagrees. Dreams can come from a Shed, or from an angel (55b). - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Rashi said in Shabbos (127b) that '... a Chasid' is R. Yehudah ben Bava or R. Yehudah ben Ilai, but he did not say so here. Rav Nisim Ga'on said so below (32b), but not here. Perhaps they hold that this must be an exception - such a Chasid would not lodge in a cemetery! The Beis Yosef (YD 179) brought from Yere'im ha'Shalem that "Doresh El ha'Mesim" does not apply, for he did not do any act to bring Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah on himself, e.g. starving himself. Rather, he heard the Ruchos talking. Also Maharsha (Nidah 17a) says so.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: This world is like a corridor in front of the world to come. The grave is truly the corridor! A Chasid always thinks about and requests for the world to come. Now, due to his wife's anger and his poverty (he was very poor, and after he gave the Dinar, nothing remained for him), and he was concerned for income - this world (the corridor). This is called going to the cemetery (the true corridor). Via these thoughts, Shamayim showed to him a dream of the Ruchos.

Ohr Yisrael (26): The Chasid was upset via his wife's censure; he stumbled in the Midah of humility. He wanted to atone for this, and acquire humility. 'Havi Shefal Ru'ach she'Tikvas Enosh Rimah' (Avos 4:4) - thinking about man's end, that the body will be worms, to distance from pride. So writes Mesilas Yesharim in Perek 23. All his grandeur will be food for worms. Since it was Erev Rosh Hashanah, he wanted to do Teshuvah quickly, so he lodged in the cemetery.

Rav Elyashiv: We must say that the episode with Shmuel was a dream, for he was a Kohen (Megilah 22a), who may not enter a cemetery! Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (YD 338) learned from the Chasid that one may benefit from a cemetery (he spent the night there). This is unlike those who say that it was a dream! Chazon Ish (YD 209:15, b'Sof) - Chasam Sofer equates a cemetery to a Beis ha'Keneses. One may not eat, drink or sleep there; a Chacham is permitted, just like in a Beis Midrash. Pischei Teshuvah rejected this. A Chacham is permitted in a Beis Midrash for the sake of learning. In a cemetery, he is like anyone else!

Megadim Chadashim: Beis Yosef (YD 179) says that perhaps Shmuel used [Kodesh] names to impose Shevu'os and speak with the Mes while awake. "Doresh El ha'Mesim" does not apply to this. We can say that he was near the cemetery. Megadim Chadashim - we find that Shmuel spoke with others, and saw Levi...!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Do not answer according to the opinion that graves of Tzadikim have no Tum'ah. Many in the cemetery were named Aba bar Aba - you cannot say that everyone there was a [great] Tzadik! Hagahos Maharsham (YD 373:7) and Merafsin Igri (p. 259) say that Shmuel went near the cemetery.

Megadim Chadashim: Maharsha said that dreams of Rosh Hashanah are more truthful, like the case of R. Yochanan Ben Zakai's nephews. Sefas Emes (Likutim Parashas Miketz) says that Pharaoh's dream agitated him so much, for it was on Rosh Hashanah (on that day, Yosef left jail - Rosh Hashanah 10b). Iyun Yakov there says that Pharaoh dreamed on Rosh Hashanah, for that is when satiation or hunger is decreed. However, in Bava Basra (10a) he said that even though all nations are judged on Rosh Hashanah, this is not for income, which depends on Mazal. In Bava Basra 10a, Rashi and Maharsha said that R. Yochanan ben Zakai's dream was on Motza'ei Yom Kipur! The Bach changes the text to Motza'ei Rosh Hashanah, like Rashi in Ein Yakov there.

Note: We find that also Goyim counted the months from Rosh Chodesh, e.g. Haman's lottery. Perhaps they knew that Rosh Chodesh Tishrei is a time of judgment, for its Mazal is Moznayim (a scale). (PF)

Iyun Yakov: He feared to stay in his house, lest he quarrel with his wife. He did not want to go to another's house, lest this besmirch his wife's reputation among her neighbors. Rather, he went to the cemetery, so no one would know. Due to his Tzedakah, and his wife's anger, he profited in the end - "Yesh Mefazer v'Nosaf" (Mishlei 11:24); one blesses on bad tidings like on the good (below, 54a).

How could Ruchos talk? The only difference between live Tzadikim and dead Tzadikim is speech (Midrash Tehilim 30:3)!

Megadim Chadashim citing Me'il Tzedakah (1120): Sefer Shem Tov (p. 29b) says that there is informing and understanding between Mesim. Their speech is not via the lips and tongue. Me'il Tzedakah (436) says that it was a miracle that he heard them talking, for their voice is very faint.

What is the significance of Ruchos flying and hearing behind the curtain?

Maharsha: Man has Nefesh, Ru'ach and Neshamah. The Nefesh is substance, the Neshamah is form, and the Ru'ach is in the middle and connects them in his lifetime. After death, they separate - the body goes to the earth, the Neshamah goes above, and sometimes the Ru'ach is by the body, and sometimes it flies to the Neshamah's place, behind the curtain. Also the following year, the Chasid used dreams to know to guard himself from punishments. Also Ze'iri and Shmuel used dreams to find out where the coins were.

Rashi (Shemos 26:31) - Pargod is something that divides between the king and the nation. Tosfos (Chagigah 15a DH Shuvu) - 'behind the Pargod' always means in back of Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Maharil (602:10), Ma'avar Yabok (2:10) and Agra d'Pirka (264) say that the reason we do not bury a Rasha near a Tzadik (Sanhedrin 47a) is because secrets decreed in back of the curtain are revealed to a Tzadik, but not if a Rasha nearby will hear them. Pri ha'Sadeh (3:29) says that it is lest the Tzadik be pained when he hears the Rasha's punishments.

Note: Our Gemara implies that a Stam Mes may go in back of the curtain to hear decrees! It seems that the Ruchos were not Tzadikim. They died young (Rashi), and they wanted to hear punishments decreed. (PF)

What is the significance of being buried in a mat of reeds?

Shitah Mekubetzes: She was ashamed due to the other Ruchos. Even though the body does not leave its place, the Neshamah appears like the body is covered.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Chedvas Yakov (2:99) discussed whether Aniyim may make shrouds of paper if they cannot afford linen or hemp. He questioned Shitah Mekubetzes - if so, why did the Ru'ach ask her friend also the next year?

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: The Nefesh cannot separate from the body until the body rots. The Mitzvah is to bury in the earth, so it will rot quickly (Sanhedrin 46b). Normally shrouds are of linen, which rots quickly. Her mother was poor, and could not afford this, so she wrapped her in a mat of reeds. She had not decayed, her Ru'ach could not fly. Her friend thought that after another year, she had rotted; she answered that she still had not rotted, and could not go.

How could decrees be made on the night of Rosh Hashanah? The Beis Din above does not judge until the Beis Din below were Mekadesh the month (Rosh Hashanah 8b). Beis Din is not Mekadesh until morning!

Rav Elyashiv: Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 16a) asked that grain is decreed on Pesach, and not on Rosh Hashanah. He answered that indeed, on Rosh Hashanah they merely announce what was decreed on Pesach.

Note: This is unlike Shitah Mekubetzes, who establishes our Sugya like the opinion (Rosh Hashanah 16a) that all judgments (even grain, Peros and water) are on Rosh Hashanah. (PF)

Note: Tosfos (Sanhedrin 10b DH she'Kevar) says that the Beis Din above waits on the 30th, lest the Beis Din below will not be Mekadesh that day. Daf Al ha'Daf brings from the Gra that the episode was on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. If so, they need not wait, for the day is surely Rosh Chodesh. He gave a Dinar on Erev Rosh Hashanah, and heard the decree that night! Perhaps the 30th is called 'Erev Rosh Hashanah', for they were Mekadesh the 31st. How could the Chasid give a coin? It is Muktzah; perhaps Beis Din will be Mekadesh the 30th! Perhaps he knew that Beis Din will not do so, for then Yom Kipur would fall on Erev Shabbos or Motza'ei Shabbos. Or, this was after Minchah (they decreed not to accept Edus ha'Chodesh after Minchah), before R. Yochanan ben Zakai canceled this (Rosh Hashanah 4:4). (PF)

What is "Chatzermaves"?

Rashi: It is a cemetery.

How does the episode with the innkeeper imply that the dead know what happens here?

Rashi: She knew that the woman was Goses and about to die.

Why does it say 'perhaps Dumah announced to them'?

Rashi: Perhaps the dead do not know most things that happen here, just the angel appointed over Neshamos announced that that woman will die.

How could Shmuel say 'I need Aba'? One may not call his father by his name!

Megadim Chadashim: Shem ha'Gedolim (Erech Aba) says that if one's name is Aba, his son may not call him Aba. Hafla'ah sheb'Erchin holds that surely it is permitted. They did not cite our Sugya!

Rav Elyashiv: We find that Aba is a title of respect. We do not call slaves "Aba Ploni" (16b).

Who told Shmuel 'there are many here called Aba'?

Rashi: He saw Mesim out of their graves, sitting in a circle.

How does the episode with Shmuel imply that the dead know what happens here?

Rashi: His father knew who is esteemed among the living.

Maharsha: Tosfos rejected this, for 'esteemed in this world' means in Shamayim, like 'I am esteemed in Shamayim' (Pesachim 112b).

Tosfos: He knew that Shmuel will die soon. Here we could not reject that Dumah announced, for Dumah himself does not know so far in advance.

R E.M. Horowitz: We could not say that Dumah announced, for Dumah is not appointed over Tzadikim (Shabbos 152b)! Megadim Chadashim - even so, he announces about Tzadikim, like the Zohar says.

What is the significance of where his father put the coins?

Rambam (Hilchos De'os 6:3): One must be careful about his colleague's money like his own, and be more concerned for money of orphans and widows than his own money.

Megadim Chadashim: Yad Eisan on the Rambam says that he learns from our Sugya. I say that it is not clear whether this is letter of the law, or Midas Chasidus. The Rosh (Kesuvos 100b) says that one should consult with Beis Din about guarding orphans' money. It is not enough to guard it like his own.

Here Shmuel relied on what his father told him about which coins are of the orphans. We say that we do not rely on dreams (Sanhedrin 30a, CM 255:9)!

Rav Elyashiv: Tashbatz answered that here we discuss a dream via an angel. Some dreams are from Shedim, and others from angels.

Note: Perhaps all knew how much the orphans deposited, but Shmuel could not return it, for he did not know where the coins are, and did not have enough money of his own. Once he found the coins, the only relevance of following the dream was to give to them specifically the coins in the middle. (PF)

How could Moshe tell the Avos that Hash-m fulfilled His oath? Yisrael did not yet conquer the land!

Maharsha: They already conquered Eretz Sichon and Og, which is part of Eretz Yisrael, and Hash-m showed the entire land to Moshe, so it is considered as if it was conquered.

What is the question 'if the dead do not know what happens here, so what if Moshe tells them?!'

Rashi: If they understand only their own pain, they will not understand!

What is the proof that R. Yonason retracted? Above, we said 'perhaps the dead do not know; someone died and told Plonisah.' Also here, the Avos did not know, and Moshe will tell them!

Maharsha: Above, we answered one of R. Chiya's sons, who said that the dead do not know; he learned from "Yichbedu Vanav v'Lo Yeda." He can agree that if someone tells a Mes, he knows. R. Yonason learns from "veha'Mesim Einam Yod'im Me'umah", which implies that even if someone tells him, he does not know.

Megadim Chadashim: Since R. Yonason retracted, and does not learn from the verse, he holds that they know even if no one tells them. Also Maharsha (Chagigah 4b) says so.