What is wrong about praying in back of one's Rebbi?

Rashi: This is haughtiness.

Etz Yosef: This is only for the Rebbi from whom he learned most of his Chochmah, and likewise regarding Tosfos' answer.

Tosfos: It looks like he bows to his Rebbi.

What is wrong about giving or returning Shalom to his Rebbi?

Rashi: This is when he addresses him like anyone else - he says 'Shalom Alecha', and not 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi.'

Tosfos: The time for a Talmid to greet his Rebbi is the time to say 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi' (Bava Kama 73b).

Rashi writes that a Talmid should say 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi', but not just 'Shalom Alecha.' In Shabbos (89a), Moshe said [to Hash-m] 'does a slave give Shalom to his Master?!' Indeed, he may not say 'Shalom Alecha', but he may say 'Shalom Alecha Adoni', just like a Talmid may say 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi'!

R. Yonah: One may not initiate any words to his Rebbi, amidst great fear, like it says there 'is a slave Makdim (give first) Shalom to his Master?!' The Yerushalmi (2:1) learns this from "Ra'uni Ne'arim v'Nechba'u" (Iyov 29:8). The Gemara discusses Kedei She'elas Shalom Talmid l'Rav, i.e. he returns Shalom.

Note: Our text in Shabbos says 'does a slave Nosen (give) Shalom to his Master?!' (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: One who greet his Rebbi says 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi'; one who returns Shalom to him says 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi v'Mori' (YD 242:11). Poskim argue about whether the Shi'ur of Kedei She'elas Shalom Talmid l'Rav is three or four words, i.e. is 'v'Mori' included. This depends on our Gemara! Rashi and Tosfos learn simply, that he greets his Rebbi; 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi' suffices. R. Yonah learns that he only answers. One who answers must add, therefore he adds 'v'Mori'.

Rema (YD 242:16): One does not give Shalom to his Rebbi, but he may return Shalom.

Iyun Yakov: Some say that the same applies to someone greater than himself, or to his master.

Maharsha #1: A slave is different - he does not give Shalom at all.

Maharsha #2, and in Shabbos (89a): A Talmid [or slave] may ask Shalom, like a host asks his guest if he had Shalom during his journey and in his hometown. Hash-m answered Moshe, you should have helped (blessed) Me! A Talmid does not give Shalom like a guest blesses his host.

What is considered 'he argues with his Rebbi's Yeshivah'?

Anaf Yosef citing Ramban (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:2): He fixes himself to expound and teach, without his Rebbi's permission, in his Rebbi's lifetime, even if he is in another land.

Indeed, R. Eliezer never said something that he did not hear from his Rebbi (Yoma 66b), but Chachamim often said matters based on reasoning!

Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:9), Tur (YD 242:24): One may not say a teaching that he did not hear from his Rebbi, without mentioning who said it.

Anaf Yosef citing Divrei Chamudos: The Beis Yosef explains, what a Talmid says Stam, people assume that he heard it from his Rebbi. This can lower people's esteem of the Rebbi, if what he says can be challenged.

R. Yonah: One may not say in his Rebbi's name what he did not hear from him.

Maharsha: Something that R. Eliezer did not hear from his Rebbi that does not depend on reasoning, he did not say in the name of his Rebbi.

Pesach Einayim: R. Eliezer was stringent also for matters based on reasoning. He was asked 30 questions, and answered only 12, and said about the rest 'I did not hear', so he did not answer (Sukah 28a), even though most of them depend on reasoning!

Pesach Einayim: A total Talmid may not be Mechadesh laws from reasoning, but a Talmid Chaver or Chacham may! There are conditions to expound in one's Rebbi's lifetime, but after death surely it is permitted! R. Eliezer was stringent for himself.

Note: What is the Havah Amina to say something in the name of his Rebbi if he did not hear it from his Rebbi, whether or not it depends on reasoning? Magen Avraham 156:2 - if one knows that the Halachah follows a teaching, he may say it in the name of a great Chacham who did not say it, in order that others will accept it. So Rabah did in Eruvin (51a)! Here it forbids doing so in the name of one's Rebbi. (PF)

Does R. Yehoshua hold that Ma'ariv is optional?!

Tosfos: It is not optional. Rather, one may omit it in order to fulfill another Mitzvah that cannot be done later.

Who are Ba'alei Trisim?

Rashi: They are great Chachamim who defeat one another in [the 'war' of] Halachah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Nasan Luvart: In Bechoros (36a), Rashi said that they have shields. Tana d'Vei Eliyahu (18) says that if one has only Derech Eretz and Mikra, one angel guards him. If he learned also Mishnah, Midrash, Halachos and Agados and served Chachamim, Hash-m Himself guards him. Ba'alei Trisim have the greatest shield!

Maharsha (Bechoros 36a, citing the Aruch): Kings of Yavan appointed guards with kings of Yisrael and their Nesi'im, to help them and put their fear on people. It says below (28a) 'close the doors, lest R. Gamliel's servants bother us.'

Note: The Chashmona'im overpowered the Yevanim 206 years before Churban Bayis Sheni (Avodah Zarah 9a). This episode was towards the end of Bayis Sheni, when Yisrael were subservient to Edom! Perhaps Aruch explained the first Ba'alei Trisim, and later Edom likewise appointed Ba'alei Trisim. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing R. Yehudah he'Chasid: They are those who are Magen (shield) the generation. The Targum of "Maginei Eretz" (Tehilim 47:10) is Trisei Ar'a. In Kelim 24:1, R. Shimshon and the Bartenura explain that 'Sheloshah Trisim' are Maginim.

Why did the Talmid stand to ask his question?

Anaf Yosef citing Tosfos (Bechoros 36a): The Yerushalmi in Nedarim expounds the prefix Vov in "v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim" to teach that [just like witnesses,] also one who asks Halachos and Agados must stand.

Why did he say 'stand up, and they will testify about you'?

Tosfos (Bechoros 36a): The text should not say 'they will testify about you.' It applies in Sanhedrin 19a, and was mistakenly put here.

Rav Elyashiv: A litigant or witness must stand - "v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim."

Why did he say 'how can I contradict the living'?

Rashi: I am forced to admit that I told you 'Reshus'.

Maharsha: In Bechoros (36a, regarding a different matter), Rashi explains that R. Yehoshua retracted. Tosfos says that we cannot say so here, for the Halachah follows R. Yehoshua!

Rav Elyashiv: Since all were quiet [when R. Gamliel asked if anyone disagrees], R. Yehoshua inferred that all hold that it is Chovah, so he retracted. So Rashi explained in Bechoros (36a). Tosfos says that we cannot say so here, for we hold that Ma'ariv is Reshus, like R. Yehoshua. The Halachah follows later sages - Amora'im argue about this, and we hold that it is Reshus!

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: Due to R. Gamliel's honor, he did not want to contradict him.

Rav Elyashiv: Since I cannot contradict the living, there is no litigant, nor testimony and denial; I retract. I do not know why this is called testimony, this is not a monetary case!

What does the translator do?

Rashi: He says loudly what R. Gamliel expounds, so everyone can hear.

How did he pain him on Rosh Hashanah?

Rashi: He decreed that R. Yehoshua must come in front of him with his staff and coins on what is Yom Kipur according to R. Yehoshua's calculation (Rosh Hashanah 25a).

Me'iri: They were Mekadesh Rosh Hashanah based on witnesses of the new moon, and the next night it was not seen. This proves that the witnesses lied! Even so, the Kidush is valid, even though R. Dosa disagreed.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Doros Rishonim: Also R. Dosa said that the witnesses lied. Why did R. Gamliel decree only that R. Yehoshua come to him on 'his' Yom Kipur? The Av Beis Din declares the new month; the Nasi is not involved in it. R. Yochanan ben Zakai decreed that if the Av Beis Din is not in Mekom ha'Va'ad (where witnesses testify about the moon), the witnesses go only to Mekom ha'Va'ad. Before his decree, they go to the Av Beis Din. Even though R. Yehoshua became Av Beis Din after R. Yochanan ben Zakai died, R. Gamliel (the Nasi) decided the matter. He was adamant only that R. Yehoshua, the Av Beis Din, accept his decision.

Note: If Kidush ha'Chodesh depends only on the Av Beis Din, how did R. Akiva convince R. Yehoshua to accept R. Gamliel's Kidush (Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9)? Since R. Yehoshua disagreed, it was invalid! At the time of Kidush, R. Yehoshua had no objection; his silence was like consent. Only the next night, when the moon was not seen, he realized that the witnesses lied, and considered the Kidush invalid. However, why did R. Akiva say 'if we will doubt the validity of [the Kidush of] R. Gamliel's Beis Din, we must doubt every Beis Din from the time of Moshe...'? The real reason is like he said "Asher Tikre'u Osam" (Vayikra 23:4) - in their times or not in their times, or like he said in the Gemara there (25a) "Atem" - even if [Beis Din] were Mezid or tricked [their Kidush ha'Chodesh is valid]! (PF)

How did he pain him in the episode of Bechoros with R. Tzadok?

Rashi: R. Tzadok had a Bechor; R. Gamliel told him to stand, like here (Bechoros 36a).

Me'iri: A Kohen's Bechor is Kadosh like a Yisrael's. Kohanim are suspected to blemish a Bechor, in order that it will be Chulin. If it became blemished via the Kohen's action, we suspect that he did so intentionally; he must wait for it to get another Mum. R. Yehoshua said, a Chaver is not suspected. R. Gamliel says, he is suspected.

Why does being Ba'al Ma'aseh (the one involved in the argument) preclude appointing R. Yehoshua?

Rashi: This would pain R. Gamliel too much.

Me'iri: One should avoid feuds as much as possible. If one must be deposed from his honor, we do not appoint in place of him the one due to whom he was deposed, even if he is most proper. In order to teach this, Hash-m commanded Elazar to gather the incense pans of Korach's rebellion, and not Aharon himself.

Megadim Chadashim: Even though Korach's Edah already died, there is adamancy to avoid the party that won, due to those who remained.

Note: If Aharon took the pans, the families of those who were burned might feel worse. However, perhaps Me'iri means that even though here it did not apply, Hash-m commanded Elazar to teach about cases when the defeated party will be pained more. (PF)

Maharsha: People should not say that R. Yehoshua argued with R. Gamliel for his own honor, so he will be appointed Nasi.

Iyun Yakov: Ba'al Ma'aseh is one with good deeds. I explained above (12b) that the argument about whether Talmud or action is greater, depends on whether the start of a matter (learning) is primary, or its end (action). The order of Tefilah is Shacharis, Minchah, Ma'ariv. If the start is primary, Ma'ariv is Reshus; if the end is primary, Ma'ariv is Chovah. In Yeshivah, we give priority to the greatest Chacham. At a banquet, first priority is to the oldest. This applies only if he is extremely Chacham or old (Bava Basra 120a); an old person has more experiences (actions). If they are equal [there is not a great difference], there is an argument which has precedence. R. Gamliel held that Ma'ariv is Chovah, for action (the end) is primary. Therefore, he demanded that a Talmid's inside must be like his outside before he may enter. R. Yehoshua and R. Elazar ben Azaryah disagreed. Chachamim wanted to show that Ma'ariv is Reshus. If they would appoint R. Yehoshua, they will say that it is due to his actions (old age), for it is primary. Rather, they appointed R. Elazar, a young Chacham, and let all Talmidim enter, to show that Talmud is primary.

Megadim Chadashim (10b, citing Shevus Yakov Sof Chelek 1, and Iyun Yakov Horayos 10a): Ba'al Ma'aseh is one who does actions via Hash-m's name. In Bechoros 8b, when debating Chachmei Athens, R. Yehoshua suspended himself between Shamayim and the land. Koheles Rabah forbids one who uses His name to benefit from others, lest they refuse to give to him, and he will kill them. See Biurei Agadah for Berachos 10:7:d.

Why was it relevant that R. Elazar ben Azaryah is wealthy? Even if he were not, even one who is appointed Rosh Yeshivah, they make him wealthy, and all the more so the Nasi!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kovetz Kol Torah (56 p.261) #1: He must be wealthy so Chachamim will esteem his words, and also [if he will need to appease] the Kaisar. For the former, it suffices if they make him wealthy after he is appointed; the Talmidim will see his wealth. Regarding the Kaiser, it helps only if he was famous for his wealth.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kovetz Kol Torah #2: Here they wanted to depose R. Gamliel and appoint another in place of him. If the replacement will not be complete in all attributes, it is disgraceful to R. Gamliel. However, the Gemara says that wealth is needed in order to bribe the Kaiser.

Note: If the replacement must be complete in all attributes, they should have rejected R. Akiva because he does not have esteemed lineage, even without concern for punishment! Perhaps they mentioned punishment, for it is a more compelling reason. However, why did they agree to replace him with a youth, who is improper to teach elders? They did not know that his beard will turn white that day! (PF)

Why did they appoint R. Elazar ben Azaryah, and not his Rebbi, R. Eliezer?

Megadim Chadashim citing Sefer Yuchsin: R. Chananel says that R. Eliezer was very old, and we do not appoint a Zaken on the Sanhedrin. I (Sefer Yuchsin) give other reasons. He was in Lud, separate from Chachamim; he was from Beis Shamai; he argued with R. Gamliel, and also due to wealth (he was not wealthy). Megadim Chadashim - I do not understand 'he argued with R. Gamliel.' Also R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Akiva often argued with him! R. Yehoshua was disqualified only because R. Gamliel was deposed due to him. Presumably, Sefer Yuchsin means that he argued with R. Gamliel about the oven of Achnai (Bava Metzi'a 59b). R. Gamliel excommunicated him - 'I did not do so for my honor, or the honor of my father's house...' Also the Rambam (Perush ha'Mishnayos Yadayim 4:3) holds that R. Gamliel was deposed after he expelled R. Eliezer. Also in Chagigah (3b) it says that R. Yosi ben Dormaskis went to be Mekabel Pnei R. Eliezer in Lud, and told him 'today they voted and permitted Amon and Mo'av', which was 'that day' (when R. Elazar ben Azaryah became Nasi). We see that R. Eliezer was not in the Beis Midrash! Why did R. Chananel say that they did not appoint R. Eliezer due to his age? It seems that he holds that he was still in the Beis Midrash! Radal (introduction to Pirkei d'R. Eliezer) supports this, for Eduyos was taught on the day that R. Elazar became Nasi, and R. Eliezer appears often there. He says that Sefer Yuchsin learns from Eduyos (7:7), in which R. Yehoshua and R. Papiyas testified that the oven of Achnai is Tamei; R. Eliezer was Metaher. This implies that they already excommunicated him for this! Radal says that this is not a proof; many matters in Eduyos were before or after 'that day.' I disagree.

Note: I see no proof from Chagigah. We expound "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - go to a good Beis Din, e.g. to R. Eliezer in Lud. Surely he was in Lud before the Niduy! The Rema (YD 334) forbids going to a Menudeh's house. If so, surely there is no Mitzvah to go to be Mekabel Panav! If he was not yet in Niduy, is it improper to appoint him to be Nasi just because he was not with Chachamim at the time? If the Niduy was before 'that day', why was testimony needed about the oven? All Chachamim already opposed R. Eliezer and said that it is Tamei. Also R. Eliezer had a tradition that it is Tahor - he said only what he heard from his Rebbeyim! After the Niduy, R. Eliezer's wife (R. Gamliel's sister) did not let him fall on his face to say Tachanun. Once, she did not stop him, and she told him that he just killed R. Gamliel. If there was a long time in between, presumably he would have asked her why she does not let him fall! (PF)

Why did they ask 'would you like to be Rosh Yeshivah', and not Nasi?

Megadim Chadashim: Also in Zevachim (11b), it says 'on the day he was appointed Rosh Yeshivah.' The Nasi was Rosh Yeshivah. There were times when they were different people - Rebbi commanded 'my son Gamliel will be Nasi [after I die], and Chanina bar Chama will sit at the head (Kesuvos 103b), i.e. Rosh Yeshivah (Rashi). However, usually they were the same person. Rashi says here (DH Me'abrin) and above (12b DH k'Ven) that R. Elazar was made Nasi. A Chacham of our generation disagrees; I do not know why.

If Chachamim counseled to appoint R. Elazar ben Azaryah, why did he consult with his wife?

Anaf Yosef citing Ya'aros Devash (2:11): The Onah (time for intimacy) of a Chacham is on Shabbos night. Avos d'R. Nasan says that for a Nasi, it is once a month, due to Bitul Beis ha'Midrash. One may change to a job with a less frequent Onah only with his wife's consent.

Pischei Teshuvah (EH 76:3): Kerem Shlomo did not find so in Avos d'R. Nasan or any other source. Rav Elyashiv - also, R. Elazar and his wife discussed only whether he is proper to be Nasi, and not the consequences for Onah.

Note: Perhaps R. Elazar asked her only due to decreasing Onah. She pardoned this, but raised other reasons why he should decline. Alternatively, she objected to his elevation due to decrease of Onah; to conceal this, she sought other excuses why he should decline! Tziporah said 'woe to the wives of these, if they will become Nevi'im...' (Rashi Bamidbar 12:1, from Sifri 99)! However, she thought that they will totally separate from their wives. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Magid Ta'alumah: He said 'I will consult with my household', and did not say 'my wife', for modesty, for it pertained to Onah.

What is the significance of using a precious crystal for a day, even if it will break?

Rashi: It is good to be honored for a day, even if it will not last.

Maharsha: Rashi said that the text does not say 'we ascend in Kodesh and do not descend', for they deposed R. Gamliel! His text also omits 'perhaps he will punish you', for he is a 10th generation descendant of Ezra - merit of his ancestors will protect him. Both of these are in old texts; there is no need to delete them. His wife was not concerned lest Chachamim improperly depose R. Elazar. Rather, perhaps R. Gamliel will appease Chachamim, and they will reinstate him and demote you, and it will be embarrassing for you. Indeed, they did not totally demote R. Elazar due to 'we ascend in Kodesh...'! She did not rely on his Zechus Avos to shield from punishment, like we say 'lest sin cause [Bitul of promises].'

Anaf Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim: Rashi deleted the text, for it implies that it is worth being Nasi for a day, even if afterwards he will be broken (be punished and die). This would not convince his wife to agree! In Rashi's text, afterwards his Nesi'us will be broken. His wife could accept this, for she does not lose from it.

Why are white hairs needed to be Nasi?

Rashi: A white beard is proper for one who will expound.

Since she thought that he is not proper for Nasi due to his youth, she should have raised this objection first, before concern for demotion!

Ben Yehoyada: Since Chachamim thought that he is proper, she does not disagree with them. However, she was concerned for demotion, and he answered 'we ascend in Kodesh, and do not descend' - even if they will return R. Gamliel, also I will be Nasi. To this, she said that since he is old and you are young, everyone will follow him, and your Nesi'us will be Batel.