Here it says that that a Mes is not pained by what people say about it. Above (18b), R. Yitzchak himself said that a Mes feels its own pain!

Megadim Chadashim (18b): This is why Rashi explained, it feels pain of its body.

What is the law of one who speaks badly about a Chacham in his lifetime?

Me'iri #1: Also this is lowly, but it is not as bad as doing so after his death.

Iyun Yakov: After death is worse, for even if the Chacham transgressed the greatest Aveiros, surely he repented, and death with Teshuvah atoned (Yoma 86a)!

Me'iri #2, Rav Elyashiv citing the Rambam: Some say that this is worse than doing so after his death, for it pains him.

Iyun Yakov: Obviously if one quarrels with a live Chacham, he falls to Gehinom, like Korach and his congregation who spoke against Moshe! The Chidush is even after the Chacham died.

Why does Hash-m demand the honor of Chachamim?

Iyun Yakov: A Chacham's honor is equated to Hash-m's honor - "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" (Devarim 10:20) includes Chachamim. Just like Hash-m's honor is forever, so a Chacham's, even after death. They are called alive in death! This is why one must honor his father also after death, for his honor is equated to Hash-m's. One may not hear disgrace of a Chacham. Therefore, [the one who spoke badly about Shmuel] was punished immediately.

Rav Elyashiv: The Chacham's honor is honor of the Torah, therefore he may not pardon (Rivash 220, based on the Rambam), i.e. if the disgrace was in public and the sinner apologizes covertly.

Why does it say anyone who speaks Acher Mitasan of Chachamim falls to Gehinom?

Iyun Yakov: This is even if he speaks Emes, that the Chacham transgressed. Surely he repented, and death with Teshuvah atoned. 'Falls to Gehinom' implies for a short time, for Avraham promptly lifts him (Eruvin 19a). This is like something that falls to the floor; one lifts it immediately.

Megadim Chadashim: 'Anyone who gets haughty falls to Gehinom' (Bava Basra 10b) applies also to Nochrim. Avraham does not lift them from Gehinom! Ben Yehoyada in Chulin 133a says that 'falls' is for a short time, but he is not judged there. However, in Avodah Zarah (18b) he says that 'falls' is a harsher punishment. In Bava Basra (79a), Iyun Yakov said that 'falls' means that he goes to the deepest part of Gehinom. Toras Chayim (Eruvin 19a) says that the deepest part is the hottest. Shemiras ha'Lashon (Sha'ar ha'Tevunah 13, Hagahah) explains 'anyone who scoffs falls to Gehinom (Avodah Zarah 18b)' - the present tense teaches that Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah dwells on him immediately, for scoffing is a great Aveirah. He overlooked that Chazal said 'falls to Gehinom' so in many places.

NOTE: There is Gehinom for any Aveirah for which one did not repent. Why did Chazal say 'falls to Gehinom' about certain Aveiros? Perhaps for every such sin, there is a reason why Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah dwells on him immediately! (PF)

Why does it say 'speaks Acher ha'Mes', and regarding Chachamim it says 'speaks Acher Mitasan of Chachamim'?

Maharsha: It is improper to say 'Acher ha'Mes' about Chachamim, for Tzadikim are called alive even in their death, like we said above (18a). Therefore, it says Mitasan, as if they are alive on their beds.h

Shlah (Sha'ar ha'Osiyos 9, citing the Zohar): If you saw a Chacham sin during the day, do not suspect him at night. "Lo Salin Nivlaso Al ha'Etz" (Devarim 21:23) - do not leave overnight the foul matter that he did, on Eitz ha'Chayim; surely he repented! 'Acher Mitasan' refers to after death, but also hints to after he slept. Surely he repented before he slept!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Also Tana d'Vei Eliyahu Rabah 3 brings like Shlah's text. Kometz ha'Minchah (Parashas Korach) explains, Moshe said "Boker v'Yoda Hash-m" (Bamidbar 16:5) - when they will go sleep, they will repent.

Who are "ha'Matim Akalkalosam", and what is the source that this discusses one who speaks bad about a dead Chacham?

Rashi: They make their liability greater than their merits.

Maharsha: They speak Akalkalos (crookedness) about Chachamim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The previous verse says "Heitivah Hash-m la'Tovim." For ha'Matim Akalkalosam, i.e. when people do something crooked, they do not judge them favorably, rather, for liability. Hash-m will bring them with Resha'im to Gehinom. This is not only if they judge a Chacham unfavorably in his lifetime, rather, even in their death.

Where are the Resha'im [with whom Hash-m leads him]?

Rashi: They are in Gehinom

When is there "Shalom Al Yisrael"?

Tosfos: It is when the one spoken about cannot quarrel with the speaker, for the former is dead.

Maharsha: When Tzadikim die, angels go in front of them to tell them Shalom, like it says in Kesuvos (104a). Sinners go to Gehinom, and angels go in front of them to tell them "Ein Shalom Amar Hash-m la'Resha'im."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Angels say to a Tzadik "Yavo Shalom Yanuchu Al Mishkevosam." Perhaps "ha'Matim" hints to Mitasan of the straight. One who speaks crooked about them, even when there is Shalom Al Yisrael, i.e. on Shabbos, when Nefashos rest in Gan Eden, he will be taken to Gehinom, and not rest.

Megadim Chadashim: In the Zohar, R. Yosi and R. Yehudah argue about whether or not Nochrim in Gehinom rest on Shabbos, but all agree that Jews who guarded Shabbos rest on Shabbos!

NOTE: Perhaps 'Afilu' teaches that this is an exception to the rule! (PF)

Etz Yosef: After Tzadikim die, there is Shalom on Yisrael, for their death atones for Yisrael.

What is the significance of seeing a Chacham sin at night, and suspecting him the next day?

Iyun Yakov: 'At night' means that he transgressed covertly, like at night, when people do not see, just this person happened to see him. Even if you did not see him repent during the day, i.e. openly, surely he repented at night (covertly). However, if he transgressed during the day (openly), there was Chilul Hash-m - his Teshuvah must be during the day (open), so all will see that he repented.

Why do we change the text from 'perhaps he repented'? Also, it should say 'rather, say surely he repented'!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It means, do not suspect him the next day, and think perhaps he repented, perhaps not. (Do not be in doubt!) Rather, certainly he repented.

Rav Elyashiv: One must fear a Chacham - "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" includes Chachamim. One who suspects him, he annuls fear of him. Seeing him transgress does not annul the Chiyuv to fear him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo (2:8 p.36): Surely he did the Aveirah in order to fulfill the Mitzvas Aseh of Teshuvah. Imrei Da'as (Vayeshev) explains that Eshes Potifar told Yosef to sin, in order that he can do the Aseh of Teshuvah. He said "v'Eich E'eseh ha'Ra'ah ha'Gedolah ha'Zos v'Chatasi lEi'lokim" (Bereishis 39:9) - (a) I need not do such a big Aveirah, and (b) I already sinned to Hash-m, and repented! Ohr Pnei Moshe says that only one who knows that he never sinned from his youth may do so - who can be sure about himself?!

NOTE: If one may sin in order to do Teshuvah, also if he is unsure if he sinned, he may sin Vadai in order to repent! (PF)

Why do we not say that certainly a Chacham repented also from monetary sins?

Me'iri: In matters Bein Adam l'Chavero, we suspect a Chacham until it is publicized that the other party is appeased.

Rav Elyashiv #1: Until he returns it, he is considered a Rasha.

Daf Al ha'Daf: If a Rasha was Mekadesh 'on condition that I am a Tzadik', she is Safek Mekudeshes - perhaps he repented in his heart (Kidushin 49b). R. Yerucham brings an opinion that this is even if he did not return the theft yet. This shows that intent suffices to be considered a Tzadik! Sefer ha'Yashar (Chidushim 140) and Atzei Arazim (EH 38:67) asked this. Tov Ayin (Sof 6) says that since he said 'on condition that I am a Tzadik', we assume that he intends to return it. We do not say so about a Chacham who stole and did not return it. Lechem Mishneh (Hilchos Ishus 8:5) says similarly; one who is Mekadesh in front of witnesses Pasul mid'Oraisa [due to an Aveirah], we are not concerned for the Kidushin. We are not concerned lest they repented in their hearts. (NOTE: Kovetz Shitos Kamai (Kesuvos 22b) brings two opinions about whether we are concerned for one was Mekadesh in front of a Kosher witness and a Pasul witness. Perhaps the stringent opinion is concerned lest one witness repented, but not lest both repented, for this is a Sefek-Sefeka! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: If there are constant rumors about a man that he stole, the Bach (Teshuvah 102) wanted to be allow him to be a witness on a Get, for one does not lose his Chazakah via rumors. Also, we make the witnesses repent in their hearts, and then they are Tzadikim. Beis Shlomo (EH 80, Hagahah 8) disagrees, for he is not Kosher until he returns the theft! We can say that the Bach holds like Tov Ayin; our Gemara is different, for we need to see him return the theft.

Rav Elyashiv #2: Since he did not yet return it, it is not certain that he repented.

When do Beis Din excommunicate for the honor of Chachamim?

Rashi: It is when people do not honor their Rebbeyim.

Rav Elyashiv: Rivash (500) says that Beis Din excommunicates. We cannot say that an individual does so, for Akavya was the greatest of his generation (a smaller Chacham may not excommunicate him)!

What is the significance of 24 cases in which we excommunicate for the honor of Chachamim?

Iyun Yakov: A Chacham must be adorned with the 24 ornaments of a Kalah, i.e. he must be fluent in the 24 Seforim of Tanach, like a Midrash says (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 4:11, cited in Rashi Shemos 31:18).

Why does it say 'he went out and found'?

Megadim Chadashim citing Midrash Shmuel (Avos 2:11, 34b) #1: Even before they permitted to write oral Torah, a Chacham could write Mishnayos and Beraisos for himself (Rashi Shabbos 6b, regarding hidden scrolls). It was forbidden to read them in the Beis Midrash, so he went outside to read them. Megadim Chadashim - we cannot say so in Yevamos (63a), for there he found a verse! Ben Yehoyada there says, he went out of Eretz Yisrael to Bavel.

Megadim Chadashim citing Midrash Shmuel (ibid.) #2: He isolated himself in thought and was meticulous in investigation, and left physical thoughts until he found his desire. Tosfos Yom Tov (Avos 2:9) explains 'go out and see' like 'he went out and found' - the intellect goes out to contemplate. Megadim Chadashim - it is hard to explain so in other places where it says 'he went out and found.'

Why does Akavya hold that we do not give Sotah water to a convert or freed slave?

Rashi: "Bnei Yisrael" excludes them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: That refers to the man - the Mishnah discusses a female convert! She'eris Nasan (p.116) - Rashi (Bava Kama 49a) says that normally, a Giyores marries a Ger.

Why did he say 'they gave Dugma to drink'?

Rashi: They gave to her to drink because they were like her; they descended from [converts,] from Sancheriv, like it says in Gitin (57b). Tosfos - the Yerushalmi in Mo'ed Katan 3:1 implies like this.

Tosfos citing the Aruch: They did not erase Hash-m's name. They gave to her imitation Sotah water, to scare her [into admitting].

Etz Yosef: According to Rashi, they excommunicated him for belittling the honor of Shemayah and Avtalyon. According to Tosfos, it was because he suspected them of doing improperly. Perhaps people will say that Sotah water does not check women!

NOTE: How would people know that it did not check her? The water is only if there are no witnesses of Tum'ah! And even when her Zenus is clear (her husband was away for a year; he returned and made her drink, and within a month of his return she is visibly pregnant), perhaps it did not test her because he is not clean from sin (of Arayos)! Do not say that later, the water tested her co-wife (a Yisraelis), so surely he is clean from sin. Etz Yosef brings from the Yerushalmi that they argue about a Ger married to a Giyores, but all agree that the water does not test a Yisraelis married to a Ger! Rather, perhaps people will malign the water amidst circumstantial evidence that she was Mezanah, or a Chazakah that her husband is clean from sin. (PF)

Ra'avad (Eduyos 5:6): They wrote something else (not Megilas Sotah), erased it [into water] and gave to her to drink, to induce her to admit.

Rav Elyashiv: He said that Shemayah and Avtalyon did not mean [that we give to a convert to drink].

When would they lock the Azarah?

Rashi: They lock it at the time of Shechitas Pesachim; there are three groups for Shechitah.

What is the meaning of 'Chas v'Shalom'?

Rashi (Bereishis 44:7): "Chalilah [la'Avadecha]" is an expression of Chulin, a reproach. The Targum is 'Chas'. Chas from Hash-m that we should not do so. The Gemara often says 'Chas v'Shalom.' Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh - the Targum is unlike Rashi's first (own) Perush. Rather, it is an expression of mercy. We will have mercy and Shalom from Hash-m, and not come to this.

What does R. Yehudah hold about the episode with Akavya?

Me'iri: If not for his great level, it would have been proper to excommunicate him.

Tosfos Yom Tov (Eduyos 5:6): According to Tosfos, they merely showed her water to induce her to admit, like Shlomo ordered to cut the baby in two. R. Yehudah holds that since Akavya was so great, surely he did not accuse them of doing something improper. The first Tana disagrees.

How did Elazar ben Chanoch question Netilas Yadayim?

Rashi: He belittled it. This annuls the honor of the Chachamim who decreed it.

Anaf Yosef: The Ramban (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh Sheni) asks why they did not kill him [for being Zaken Mamrei]. He was at the time of the Sanhedrin! Really, 'Pikpek' means only that he questioned it and was lenient for himself. He did not rule for others (so Zaken Mamrei does not apply).

Rav Elyashiv: Even though Zaken Mamrei applies only to something that pertains to Kares, if he says that Netilas Yadayim is not needed, one who touched Terumah without washing did not disqualify it. If one was Mekadesh a woman with it, it takes effect, and we ignore Kidushin that she accepts afterwards. Really, the Terumah is Tamei and worthless, and her second Kidushin is valid - Elazar permits an Isur Kares!

What is the significance of putting a big rock on Elazar's coffin?

Megadim Chadashim: Shitah l'Talmid ha'Ri of Paris (Mo'ed Katan 15a) explains, it is when they carry the coffin to burial; this is like stoning. Do not say that they put the rock on the grave - that is not a Heker at all! Sidrei Taharos (Ohalos p.244a) explains the Yerushalmi (Mo'ed Katan 1:2) 'if they found one rock marked, even though we do not leave it...' that this is done only for a Menudah.

NOTE: Korban ha'Edah explains there that normally they leave two marked rocks, and the body is in between; if one is found, the entire body is underneath it. Megadim Chadashim did not explain why there is no Heker to leave a rock on the grave. If the custom to leave stones on a grave (after visiting it) was from the days of the Gemara, this is understood. (PF)

What is the meaning of 'if you were not Choni'?

Rashi: If not that you are famous for grandeur and importance.

Why was Choni worthy of Niduy?

Rashi: He imposed on Hash-m about rain. Several times he said 'I did not ask [for rain] like this.' Honor of Hash-m is honor of the Rebbi!

Me'iri: He prayed to Hash-m like a child whining to his father, for he considered himself to be a total Chasid, guaranteed that his Tefilah will be answered. He did not pray with great fear!

Why did he say both 'you are worthy of Niduy' and 'if you were not Choni, I would excommunicate you!'?

Megadim Chadashim: Sifsei Chachamim explains, you should excommunicate yourself; we find that a Chacham may do so (Mo'ed Katan 17a). If you were not Choni, I would excommunicate you! Also Minchas Yehudah explains so in the name of R. Chayim of Volozhin.

What is 'Mischatei'?

Rashi: You whine. Your heart finds it easy to whine and impose on Hash-m to do your desire.

What do we learn from "Yismach Avicha v'Imecha v'Sagel Yoladtecha"?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: Avicha v'Imecha are Yoladtecha! Rather, Avicha is Hash-m, and Imecha is Keneses Yisrael - "v'Al Titosh Toras Imecha" (Mishlei 1:8).

What is 'Mekulas', and why did he deserve Niduy for this?

Rashi: It is roasted whole. They hang the lower knees, ankles and innards around the goat on a spit. Mekulas is an expression of armed. The Targum of "v'Chova Nechoshes Al Rosho" (Shmuel I, 17:5) is v'Kulas di'Nchash. They did so to recall Pesach, which is roasted whole - "Al Kera'av v'Al Kirbo" (Shemos 12:9). This can cause people to eat Kodshim outside the Mikdash. One who sees it, he thinks that the owner was Makdish it for Pesach!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov in Pesachim 53a): Tudus held like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, that the feet and innards are roasted inside Korban Pesach. If they are outside the animal, this is unlike Pesach, so there is no concern. Chachamim hold like R. Akiva, who says that they are on the spit outside the animal, so there is concern.

Rav Elyashiv: He did not excommunicate him, for there is a need to make a commemoration of the Mikdash, like R. Yochanan ben Zakai enacted to take the Lulav all seven days. Even though the Mikdash stood in the days of Tudus, Pesach should not be forgotten in Chutz la'Aretz. If not that you are Tudus, and you intended l'Shem Shamayim, you would be Chayav Niduy.

What is the oven of Achnai?

Rashi: It is made like a Kli; it is movable. It is made from mud and fired in a kiln like pots; if it becomes Tamei, the Torah said that it must be dismantled (a Mikveh is not Metaher it). If one cut it into rings, and reassembled it, R. Eliezer is Metaher, for it was not fired in a kiln; Chachamim are Metamei.

How does R. Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolate?

Rashi: Wherever he finds an individual made a big argument against the Rabim, or a Chacham spoke harshly against a bigger Chacham, he says that he is worthy of Niduy.

Who slip away one at a time to say Shema?

Rav Elyashiv: It is those who hear the eulogy. This does not disturb the eulogy. Surely the eulogizer does not go away, for he is engaged in a Mitzvah! Surely those who bury a Mes are exempt. A Chasan is different - he can read. Here they cannot - perhaps they will be needed to carry the Mes!

What is 'opening one's mouth to the Satan'?

Ha'Kosev: It is giving to him a way to prosecute, and say 'his admission [that he deserves punishment] is like 100 witnesses', and then no room remains for Midas ha'Rachamim to delay anger. Even though we confess and say 'we sinned, and You are justified in everything that comes upon us', this is only to justify what already came. We do not say that we were not paid [for all our sins], i.e. pay! Therefore, the Poskim wrote to say only 'You, Hash-m, are justified in everything that comes upon me. May it be Your will to fence my breaches and those of all Your nation Yisrael with mercy.'

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps this is only when Midas ha'Din is stretched over him; the Satan prosecutes at a time of danger. E.g. during the seven days of Aveilus, Midas ha'Din is over him and his household. One should not say 'many will drink [the cup of punishments]; Kesuvos 8b learned this from our verse. Also here, "Kim'at ki'Sedom Hayinu" was said at a time of affliction for Yisrael.

Megadim Chadashim (60a): It seems that also Magen Avraham (Sof 239) agrees that it is only at a time of danger. He says that one should not say the Viduy of a Shechiv Mera (someone about to die) before going to sleep, for night and sleep are times of danger. Rashash (60a) asked why a Shechiv Mera says 'if I will die, my death should atone for my sins.' I say that it is proper - if he will not say so now, when will he?!

Why is "Kim'at ki'Sedom Hayinu" called Pose'ach Piv l'Satan? Yisrael said, if not for Hash-m's mercy, we would be like Sedom, without a remnant!

Etz Yosef: Even though they intended for Hash-m's praise, they should have said it differently, e.g. 'had Hash-m not left a remnant for us, we all would have died.' One should never open his mouth to the Satan, even in such a case, that he comes to praise Hash-m.

Is this even for Sha'atnez mid'Rabanan?

Me'iri: It is only for Sha'atnez mid'Oraisa. One need not remove Kil'ayim mid'Rabanan until he reaches his house.

Rav Elyashiv: Kevod ha'Beriyos overrides an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Since we discuss one who finds Sha'atnez in his garment, what is the relevance to honoring a Rav?

Rav Elyashiv: Due to this, the Beis Yosef (YD 303) says that the text does not say 'in his garment.' The Rambam (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:29) says that if one finds Torah Kil'ayim in another's garment, even in he was going in the market, he jumps and tears it off, even if it is his Rebbi who taught to him Torah.

Megadim Chadashim and Daf Al ha'Daf (20a): The Beis Yosef (YD 303) and Radvaz say that the Rambam learns from the episode (20a) in which Rav Ada bar Ahavah saw a woman wearing Karbalta and tore it off of her; it was of Kil'ayim. Sefer Yuchsin brings so from Rav Tzemach Ga'on, and Otzar ha'Ge'onim brings so from Teshuvas Ge'onim Kadmonim (101). Yad David (Mahadura Basra) asks how Rav Ada could be sure that it is Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa. If it is a Safek mid'Oraisa, the Rambam holds that the Torah permits such Sefekos! He says that the Rambam must hold that he tore it due to lewdness. He did not see Beis Yosef and Radvaz.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rosh (Nidah Perek 9, Hilchos Kil'ai Begadim 6) says that if one finds Torah Kil'ayim in his own garment, he must remove it immediately. If he sees in another's garment, he does not tell him until he gets home. Due to Kevod ha'Beriyos, he is quiet and does not separate him from Isur. Kevod ha'Rav applies to a Chacham who finds Kil'ayim in his garment. Even though a Chacham must act honorably due to the honor of his Torah, he must remove the garment.

Rav Elyashiv: We find that when R. Yeimar testified, Mar Zutra seated him (Shevu'os 30b). Even though it says "v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim", Kevod ha'Torah overrides. Granted, Mar Zutra must honor him. How could R. Yeimar sit? It is because also he must conduct according to the honor of his Torah.

How do we understand "Ein Chochmah... l'Neged Hash-m"?

Rashi: Chochmah is not important opposite Hash-m (we do not tolerate Chilul Hash-m amidst concern for a Chacham's honor).

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: Seemingly, the verse teaches that Chochmah, Tevunah and Etzah cannot give a strategy that will help against Hash-m. Rather, "Chochmah" is extra - since there is no Tevunah Neged Hash-m, all the more so there is no Chochmah! Therefore, we expound like Rashi said.

What is the Chilul Hash-m?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Noda bi'Yhudah (1 OC 35): An Aveirah is called Chilul Hash-m, even if no one else knows. Below, the Gemara asks from one who sees an Aveidah and does not return it, even though others do not know that he saw it! We ask also from a Mes Mitzvah, which is when there is no one else to bury him.

Tosfos Yom Tov (Avos 4:4): Our Mishnah discusses covert Chilul Hash-m. The Bartenura (Yoma 8:8) explained that Chilul Hash-m is one who sins and causes others to sin. i.e. others see him; so he wrote below (5:9). Here, 'covertly' means that not many know about it. Alternatively, there were 10 Chachamim together, and one stole or entered a harlot's house; it is not known which one. Midrash Shmuel cites R. Yonah that the Chilul Hash-m is idolatry (he denies Hash-m's Elokus) or swearing falsely - "v'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shmi la'Sheker v'Chilalta Es Shem Hash-m Elokecha" (Vayikra 19:12).