Why do we expound Vanai and U'Vnosai like this? Perhaps they are simply sons and daughters!

Maharsha: If so, why did the verse divide them? Surely they are in one place!

Why do sons have settled minds, and daughters have unsettled minds?

Iyun Yakov: We say that women 'Daitan Kalos' (they are not so focused). However, they are settled enough to pray. One whose mind is not settled, he should not pray (Eruvin 65). Women are obligated to pray (OC 106).

Ben Yehoyada: A young girl has many worries, e.g. if her father will be able to give a proper dowry, if she will find a husband, if she will bear children... Young men (before they need to feed families) have less distractions.

Why is Bavel unlike other lands?

Rashi: The yoke of the kingdom is not felt there like in other kingdoms.

Maharal #1: Hash-m decreed that Yisrael be exiled there, for it is the place of their mothers (Pesachim 87b). Avraham was from Eretz Kasdim, so it is considered their land. It says about other lands "uva'Goyim ha'Hem Lo Sargi'a v'Lo Simtza Mano'ach l'Chaf Raglecha." Something not in its place is not at rest. This is why Yisrael were expelled and relocated in these lands, for it was not decreed that Yisrael be exiled in these places.

Maharal #2: Bavel is close to Eretz Yisrael. Its language resembles Leshon ha'Kodesh (it has the same letters, both are written right to left, and many words are very similar), which pertains to Eretz Yisrael, and people of Bavel have more intellect. Even though they were not at the level of Eretz Yisrael, they had more Chochmah, close to the level of Eretz Yisrael.

Maharsha: Ha'Cheresh veha'Masger (great Chachamim) were exiled to Bavel (11 years before the Churban, so there were teachers for the exiles - Gitin 88a).

What is the significance of recognizing Yisrael?

Rashi: They recognize the former honor of Yisrael, and do not impose on them a harsh yoke.

Maharal: They understand that Yisrael are His chosen nation.

Maharsha: It mentions Yisrael before Hash-m, for via Yisrael, Hash-m's Divinity and ability are publicized in the world, and that He is Elokei Yisrael, and oversees the land - their Father in Heaven. West of Tzur and east of Kartigni, since they do not recognize Yisrael they do not recognize their Father in Heaven, that He oversefs the lower world.

Iyun Yakov: Since they recognize Yisrael, this shows that they recognize their Father in Heaven. Rashi on Chumash explained "Mesan'echa" are those who hate Yisrael - they hate the Creator. And one who loves Yisrael, he loves the Creator.

What is the significance of recognizing their Father in Heaven?

Rashi: They invigorate themselves in Hash-m, and not in serving idolatry.

Maharal: They recognize that Hash-m is the cause, and Yisrael are the result. Those in the far east and far west, far from settled areas, do not recognize either of these, which are in the middle. Eretz Yisrael is in the middle of the world.

What was the question from "mi'Mizrach Shemesh v'Ad Mevo'o Gadol Shmi ba'Goyim"?

Maharal: The Makshan understood that that everywhere people know that Hash-m is the cause.

Why did Rav say 'are you Simi?'

Rashi #1: You are a great Chacham, yet you ask a poor question!

Rashi #2: Rav did not lift his eyes; they were down, for modesty. (NOTE: Therefore, he did not see him. Why did Rav not recognize his voice? Perhaps Rav Simi did not often speak to Rav. - PF)

What was the answer 'they call Hash-m the G-d of gods'?

Drashos ha'Ran (9, cited in Etz Yosef): West of Tzur and east of Kartigni, they think that other powers emanated from Him.

Maharal: They do not know that He is the cause [of everything].

Maharsha: They do not recognize that He runs the world. They think that He gave power and authority to others to do this.

Why does the verse discuss Maktir and Megish?

Maharsha: These are the primary Avodos - burning Emurim of all animals to Shamayim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said 'Muktar u'Mugash u'Minchah Tehorah Lishmi'! Rather, it says "Muktar Mugash Lishmi", to expound Lishmi to be the Torah, which is names of Hash-m. Those who engage in it, it is as if they are Maktir...

Iyun Yakov: Ketores makes one rich. Also one who engages in Torah, his property prospers.

Why does it say "uv'Chol Makom Muktar Mugash Lishmi"?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Chasam Sofer (Gitin 44a) says that one cannot properly fulfill Mitzvos in Chutz la'Aretz, for anyone who lives there, it is as if he has no G-d. Even reciting Shma there is unlike reciting in Eretz Yisrael, for he was expelled from Nachalas Hash-m. However, Chachamim who engage in Torah, "uv'Chol Makom Muktar Mugash Lishmi u'Minchah Tehorah." In his Derashos (p.4, DH v'Hinei), he says that just like we are obligated in Mitzvos even in Chutz la'Aretz, we are Bnei Yisrael, whenever we are exiled.

What is the significance that Chachamim engage in Torah at night?

Maharal: During the day, one engages in his affairs. At night, he deposits his Ru'ach and Nefesh with Hash-m. When he engages in Torah at night, he brings his Nefesh close to Hash-m via Torah, which is clinging to Hash-m. Therefore, it is as if he was Makriv his Nefesh to Hash-m. "Yomam Yetzaveh Hash-m Chasdo uva'Laylah Shiro Imi" - anyone who engages in Torah at night, a string of Chesed is stretched over him (Chagigah 12b). Torah at night is called Shirah - the result yearns for its cause, to cling to Him.

Maharsha: Even though the simple meaning discusses Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash, we expound it to discuss Chachamim, for the primary Avodah is during the day (Rif (on the Ein Yakov) - it says "b'Yom Tzavoso Es Bnei Yisrael"); it teaches that their Torah is like Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash. During the day, people engage in their affairs (income). At night, they are free to learn - one may borrower during the day (learn less than his normal quota) and repay at night (Eruvin 65a).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We said above that one who engages in Torah at night does not get reward like one who is Maktir. One who engages in Torah at night, he is not rewarded like one who is Maktir [then]. Just the contrary, one may not offer then! The verse teaches that Chachamim who learn at night, it is as if they engage in Avodah done at night, e.g. burning limbs and chv. Their Mitzvah is until dawn. After "Avdei Hash-m ha'Omdim b'Veis Hash-m ba'Laylos", it says "Se'u Yedeichem Kodesh", i.e. Avodah which is Kodesh. It is as if your hands bear Emurim, which are Kodesh, to offer them on the Mizbe'ach.

Here it says that one learns Torah in Taharah after getting married. In Kidushin (29b), an opinion says to do oppositely (learn before marrying)!

Tosfos: We say that one is for us (in Bavel), and one is for them (in Eretz Yisrael).

Maharal: Torah must be with Tahor thoughts. If one has thoughts of sin, he is Metamei his thoughts (Torah), and it is not a Tahor Minchah.

What was difficult about "Avdei Hash-m ha'Omdim b'Veis Hash-m ba'Laylos"?

Maharsha: Avodah is primarily during the day!

What Korbanos does Micha'el offer?

Tosfos: One Midrash says that he offers Neshamos of Tzadikim. Another says that he offers lambs of fire. In Shemoneh Esre, in Retzei, we say 'v'Ishei Yisrael u'Sfilasam Meherah b'Ahavah Sekabel b'Ratzon' (accept Yisrael's Korbanos and Tefilos). Others say that v'Ishei Yisrael refers to the previous words v'Hashev Es ha'Avodah li'Dvir Beisecha (return Avodah, and Tzadikei Yisrael offered for Korbanos, to Your abode).

Maharsha: "[L'Olam Zos] Al Yisrael" supports the first Midrash.

Eliyahu Rabah 120:1: Mateh Moshe says that if he offers Neshamos of Tzadikim, the text should not say 'Meherah'. We do not want Tzadikim to die soon! It seems that it was in Tosfos' text. I explain that there is a limit how many Neshamos he offers every day. We properly request that they be accepted speedily [but not that more will die]. Why does Birkas Retzei discuss this? Mor u'Ketzi'ah (ibid.) explains that the Neshamos offered are those who died for Kidush Hash-m. That is the ultimate Avodah!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Taz (120:1) asked, if v'Ishei Yisrael refers to v'Hashev Es ha'Avodah, it should be before li'Dvir Beisecha! Tur (ibid.) brings a third Perush - even though now there is no Avodah, we pray that Ishei Yisrael - Tefilas Shemoneh Esre, which was enacted corresponding to the Tamid - and their [other] Tefilos be accepted. Sidurim have a comma after li'Dvir Beisecha, v'Ishei Yisrael and u'Sfilasam, to enable all three of the explanations.

Maharal: Micha'el is the cause of the connection of the world to its Cause. The influence of this world came from Hash-m, and it returns to Him. Micha'el is the intermediary via which it returns to its Cause. Therefore, it says that he offers Neshamos of Tzadikim on the Mizbe'ach (Chagigah 13b). Tzadikim are first (closer) to Hash-m than all others. Therefore, they are called Korban; this is a Kaparah for Yisrael. Death of Tzadikim is a Kaparah for Yisrael . This is Hakravah of the Neshamos. Every ascent to Hash-m is Kaparah and removal of sin. Sin distances Yisrael from Hash-m.

Chachamim who engage in laws of Avodah, why is it as if the Mikdash was built in their days?

Maharal: Engaging in Torah is intellectual. Avodah brings people Karov (close) to Hash-m. This is the root of 'Korban'. Only Torah makes one cling to Hash-m. At night, it is as if man does not exist. When he engages in Torah, he clings to Hash-m. It is as if he removes himself [from the world] to Hash-m. Avodah and Beis ha'Mikdash are Divine Kedushah - "ha'Kol mi'Yad Hash-m Alai Hiskil Kol Tavnis ha'Bayis." The entire matter of the Bayis is intellectual; the physical sticks and stones are not primary. It was not a physical house like other houses.

Why is one who engages in Torah like one who offered Olah, Minchah, Chatas and Asham?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing introduction of Beis Efrayim OC: One cannot offer if he does not know the Halachos. After one learned, the only reason he cannot offer is due to the Churban. This is like Ones, so it is considered as if he offered - if one intended to do a Mitzvah, but could not do it due to Ones, it is considered as if he did it (Shabbos 63a). When one is judged [after death], he is asked 'were your business dealings honest? Did you fix times for Torah?... Did you delve deeply into Chachmah?' (ibid. 31a).' Surely one is judged about every Mitzvah - "Ki Es Kol Ma'ase ha'Elokim Yavi ba'Mishpat." Since one cannot fulfill if he did not learn the laws, he will be asked about every Mitzvah if he learned its laws. Why do they ask 'did you fix times for Torah? Did you delve deeply into Chochmah?' These pertain to Mitzvos that do not apply nowadays. 'Chochmah' refers to Seder Kodshim, like it says there.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the introduction to Tzon Kodoshim: Why does Maseches Zevachim begin with Lo Lishmah, which applies to all Avodos? It should begin with 'Eizehu Mekoman', which discusses Shechitah, the first Avodah! It teaches about Lo Lishmah, for one should always engage in Torah even Lo Lishmah, for amidst Lo Lishmah, he comes to Lishmah (Pesachim 50b). Kodshim is unlike other parts of Torah. Even if Shechitah of [almost all] Kodshim was Lo Lishmah, they are Kosher, just the owner did not fulfill his objection. Since learning corresponds to offering, one who learned Kodshim Lo Lishmah, he did not fulfill his objection.

How does "l'Olam Zos Al Yisrael" hint to Micha'el offering on the Mizbe'ach?

Rashi: The verses discuss Korbanos. Are they l'Olam (even after the Churban)? Yes, for Micha'el offers Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach in Shamayim.

Maharsha: In Chagigah 12b it lists the seven levels of Shamayim. Yerushalayim and the Mikdash above are in Zevul.

Why does R. Yochanan say that "l'Olam Zos Al Yisrael" refers to Chachamim, who engage in laws of Avodah?

Maharsha: "L'Olam" hints that they engage in the laws even after the Churban. It says "Al Yisrael", for all of Yisrael engage in Torah, unlike Avodah, which is only for Kohanim.

What was difficult about "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah la'Minchah vela'Chatas ve`la'Asham"?

Rashi: Why does it say Torah, and not Chukah? (NOTE: Korbanos are a Chok! - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It says also "Zos Torah ha'Olah Hi ha'Olah..." and "v'Zos Toras ha'Asham", and we did not ask why it does not say Chukah!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said Zos Toras. Why does it say "Zos ha'Torah l'Olah la'Minchah..."?

If one engages in Torah, why it is considered as if he offered Olah...?

Maharal: Via a Korban, man leaves the level of physicality. Also Torah does this!

what is the difference between between 'Olah u'Minchah' and "la'Olah la'Minchah"?

Rashi: The latter implies that Torah is in place of Olah and Minchah.

Why does one who learns Torah not need Olah, Minchah, Chatas and Asham?

Maharal: Rava holds that engaging in Torah is if Hash-m clings to him, without distance; he need not be brought close. A Korban is to draw man close to Hash-m after he was far. Had [Reish Lakish] said only 'it is considered as if he offered Olah', it would imply only Olah, and only for a while. One who engages in Torah does not need Olah or Chatas [or any Korban].

What does Rava add via saying that he does not need Olah...?

Maharsha: "Zos ha'Torah" implies that he engages in the entire Torah. "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" implies only the Torah of that Korban. Rava says, it is not only as if he offered it after he was obligated in it. Rather, it is as if he offered it without being obligated in it - Torah protects him from sinning (Sotah 21a).

Iyun Yakov: The first opinion holds that he is like one who offered, but not totally like; one who offers is better. Rava holds that Torah is better; there is no need for Korbanos. This is like he said in Yevamos (105a), that the sin of Beis Eli will never be atoned with animal or flour offerings, but it can be atoned through Torah. Even though Tosfos says that the text there says 'Rabah', also Rava holds like this.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing introduction to Tzon Kodoshim: [Improper] intent in Korbanos disqualifies. Reish Lakish holds that if there is a bad intent in his learning, e.g. Lo Lishmah, it does not atone. Rava said, if so, it should have said 'Zos ha'Torah Olah', to teach that Torah is truly like an Olah. Rather, Torah is in place of an Olah, and a higher level; intent does not disqualify. We find that Divrei Torah do not receive Tum'ah! Rava agree that Lishmah is better, just he holds that even Lo Lishmah atones.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Chafetz Chaim (Asifas Zekenim): When we say that an act is in place of act Ploni, Ploni is primary, just the other act is as if he did Ploni. E.g. anyone who gets angry, it is as if he served idolatry, or anyone who fill the throats of Chachamim with wine, it is as if he offered wine on the Mizbe'ach (Yoma 71a). Offering is primary. Rava teaches that here, learning fixes more than offering an Olah.

Why is one who engages in the laws of Chatas (or Olah...) as if he offered that Korban?

Maharal: This is more than engaging in other parts of Torah. Each Korban has a spl Devekus. Chatas has a Devekus of Kaparah. Shelamim has a Devekus of Shalom. It says about a Korban "Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach", and Torah is Esh, and it is pleasant to Hash-m.

Maharsha: R. Yitzchak discusses one who engages in a particular Korban. It shields [from punishment], but does not save [from sinning; only the entire Torah saves]. Therefore, he mentioned only Chatas and Asham, but not Olah and Minchah, which may be brought for Nedavah. Surely one who engages in them, it is as if he offered them! One might have thought that engaging in Chatas and Asham is not as if he offered them. He teaches that it is as if he sinned and offered them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Kli Chemdah (Tazri'a) asked, is this only for men, who are obligated to learn Torah, or even for women? If she recites Parshas Korban Yoledes, is it as if she offered it? Eretz Tzvi (on the Pesach Hagadah, p. 52) said that women may learn laws that apply to them (YD 247). Taz there says that they may learn the basic laws for all Mitzvos. We say (Chagigah 3) that women come to hear [the Torah at Hakhel]. Kli Chemdah answered, Toras Moshe (Tzav) says that it is as if he offered only if he learns with investigation. Hash-m made a Bris with Yisrael only for oral Torah. R. Bechayei (Tzav) says that via contemplation of Parshas Olah (or Chatas...), he will understand wonders, and strive more to fulfill Torah and Mitzvos, therefore, his sins are pardoned. Rashi (Vayikra 12:8, from Zevachim 90a) says that Olas Yoledes is before her Chatas only for Mikra'ah (recital). Chasam Sofer explains, for other Korbanos, engaging in the Parshah is like offering, so Chatas comes first. A Chacham cannot be obligated Korban Yoledes, so this does not apply; ii mere recital. Therefore, ii proper that Olah come first, for it is more esteemed (NOTE: it is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach . This is like Kli Chemdah. Teshuvas Maharil (Chadashos, 44) says that women bless Birkas ha'Torah, for Chachamim enacted to say Parshas ha'Tamid corresponding to the Tamid. Also women are obligated to say the Parshah, and perhaps also the Mishnayos Eizehu Mekoman. Even if they do not understand, also some men do not understand! Magen Avraham (50:2) says that it is as if one offered only if he understands.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Tur (OC 1) says, after saying Parshas Olah (or Minchah, Shelamim or Asham), one says 'may it be Your will that this be considered as if I offered an Olah (or Minchah...). He does not say so after Parshas Chatas, which may not be brought voluntarily. Maharshal said, he stipulates 'if I was Chayav Chatas, it should be considered as if I offered a Chatas.' The Taz asked, since recital is like offering, how can he say that if he is not obligated, it is like a Nedavah? Har Tzvi (Tzav) said, what is his question? He stipulates, if I am not obligated, I am like one who recites Torah! Perhaps he holds that since one cannot make a Shali'ach to recite Torah, he cannot stipulate about it, like some say about Keri'as Shma (see R. Akiva Eiger OC 47).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Merafsin Igra (Tzav): Chiyuv Chatas is only if he found that he sinned. How can one stipulate 'if I am Chayav Chatas'? The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua, who says that one must know which Aveirah he did! Every sin has intent to sin, and the action. Offering a Korban atones for the action, and Viduy atones for the intent. Without knowledge of the sin, he cannot repent fully. Viduy a Teshuvah are Me'akev the Korban. Saying the Parshah fulfills offering as much as we can. Alternatively, saying the Parshah is not in place of offering; rather, it is like Teshuvah. He says 'as if I offered', i.e. it should atone as if I offered. Alternatively, he found out his sin and forgot it; the Rambam (Hilchos Shegagah 2:7) rules that he may bring a Chatas for whatever sin it was.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Derech Pikudecha (introduction 5:8): Even though Chatas atones only for Shogeg, saying the Parshah atones even for Mezid. We say (Megilah 31b) that Avraham asked Hash-m, if my children will sin... Hash-m hinted that (Korbanos can atone for them. Avraham asked, what will be when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash? Hash-m said, whenever they recite Seder Korbanos, I consider it as if they offered them, and I will pardon all their sins.'

Chachamim forbade reading by a lamp on Shabbos, lest he tilt it. R. Yishmael ben Elisha transgressed this; he was sure that he will not tilt. R. Nasan says, he tilted, and wrote on his ledger 'when the Mikdash is rebuilt, I will bring a fat Chatas!' (Shabbos 12b). Did he not engage in Parshas Chatas?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pardes Yosef he'Chadash, Beha'alosecha: Rav Nasan Adler says that he wanted to bring a fat Chatas, to atone also for transgressing Chachamim's fence. Yeshu'os Yakov (OC 1) said that reciting the Parshah help for Shamayim's portion, but not for 'Kohanim eat, and the owner gets Kaparah' (Pesachim 29a). Therefore, he wanted to bring a fat Chatas, so there will be much for Kohanim to eat. The Chida (Shiyurei Berachah ha'Melukat 1:6) brings an opinion that reading the Parshah exempts from offering a Chatas. How can he explain the Yerushalmi, which says that he wrote that he will bring a Chatas (it did not specify fat)? Toras Moshe (Tzav) says that Moshe told the Teme'im 'engage in Torah, and you need not offer Korban Pesach.' They wanted to offer like all of Yisrael, and not merely to learn about the Korban.

One who wants to offer wine on the Mizbe'ach, he should fill the throats of Chachamim with wine (Yoma 71a). Why does it not suffice to recite the Parshah?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Imrei Emes #1: We say so only for what is in the verse "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah la'Minchah vela'Chatas vela'Asham vela'Milu'im ul'Zevach ha'Shelamim." R. Meir Erik (who asked the question) added, this is why it says one who wants to offer wine..., for there is no other way; saying the Parshah does not help.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Imrei Emes #2: The Gemara gives a solution also for one who does not know how to learn.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing citing Merafsin Igra (Tzav) #1: Filling the throats of Chachamim with wine is better, for it is an action, which is greater than speech. Daf Al ha'Daf - reciting the Parshah is as if he offered. Here it says 'one who wants to offer' - it is truly as if he offered.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing citing Merafsin Igra (Tzav) #2: Filling the throats of Chachamim with wine is better, for it costs money; reciting the Parshah has no monetary loss.

Do we say also for other Mitzvos that one cannot fulfill, that reciting the Parshah is like fulfilling them?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The SHLaH says so. If one has afflictions, and does not know why they came, he should attribute them to Bitul Torah (Berachos 5a). Beis Elokim (Sha'ar ha'Teshuvah 9) explains, when one learns, it is as if he fulfills Mitzvos and refrains from sins. Rashi (Reish Vayishlach) explains that Yakov guarded all 613 Mitzvos in Beis Lavan. How could he fulfill Mitzvos that depend on the Beis ha'Mikdash, or Kohanim, Parah Adumah, Yibum...? R. Avraham Amigo answered, via engaging in their Halachos, it is as if he fulfilled them. Also Ohr ha'Chayim says so. Yismach Moshe says that via learning and yearning to be able to fulfill, and he fulfills whatever he can, it is as if he fulfilled all the Mitzvos. The SHLaH (Pesachim, Matzah Ashirah) contradicted himself, and said that this is only for Korbanos! It seems that for Korbanos, recital is enough; for other Mitzvos, he must learn with intent to fulfill. However, Rashi (Bava Metzi'a 114b) says that Rabah bar Avuha learned only four Sedorim of the Mitzvah - Mo'ed, Nashim and Nezikin apply even nowadays, and Kodshim, for learning the laws of Korbanos is like offering them. This implies that for other Mitzvos, e.g. Zera'im (Mitzvos about matters that grow from the ground), learning is not like fulfilling! Perhaps this is because nowadays, Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel, so they cannot be fulfilled, so also their Torah is not like fulfilling. Perhaps he holds like the Rambam and others who say that Kedushas ha'Mikdash and Yerushalayim were not Batel. Hakravah applies nowadays, just we cannot do it for other reasons. Toras Moshe (Sof Nitzavim) - in Chutz la'Aretz, we can fulfill Mitzvos that depend on the land via learning the laws.

What is the significance of Olas Behemah, Olas ha'Of, and Minchah?

Maharsha: These are the Korbanos of an Ashir, Oni and extreme Oni, respectively.

What is the meaning of 'whether one does much or little'?

Rashi: This refers to bringing Korbanos.

Does 'it does not matter whether one does much or little' apply even if he could afford a bigger Korban?

Tzon Kodoshim: Yes, as long as he intends l'Shem Shamayim.

Maharal: If he does not intend l'Shem Shamayim, then more is better.

Etz Yosef citing Tosfos Yom Tov, Avos Sof Perek 2: No. If an Ashir could bring much, but brings little, it is not as if he brought much. If an Oni brings more than a Minchah, he gets a greater reward.

Why did R. Zeira need a verse? Is it not enough that it says "Ishe Re'ach Nicho'ach" regarding all these Korbanos?

Iyun Yakov: One might have thought that each has its particular attribute.

What do we learn from "Mesukah Shenas ha'Oved Im Me'at v'Im Harbe Yochal"?

Maharsha: One who serves and brings Korbanos for Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash, whether much or a little, he eats Kodshim. Consumption of the Mizbe'ach and of the Kohanim, both of them are sweet if he intends l'Shem Shamayim. [The verse ends] "veha'Sova le'Ashir"- he keeps his wealth, and does not offer even Korban Oni - "Einenu Meni'ach Lo Lishon" (he cannot sleep).

Iyun Yakov: All Korbanos are equal.

What do we learn from "bi'Rvos ha'Tovah Rabu Ochleha u'Mah Kisharon li'V'aleha (Ki Im Re'os Einav)"?

Maharsha: Kohanim get more to eat from a bigger Korban, but this is only what the eye sees. Really, [one who offers much and one who offers little] are the same; it depends only on the intent to Shamayim.

Had it said in Parshas Korbanos 'Kel' or 'Elokim', what claim could polytheists make?

Rashi: Had different names of Hash-m been used, they could have said [e.g.] Hash-m commanded to offer bulls, and another G-d Elokim commanded to bring a Minchah...

Maharal: A Korban shows that Hash-m is one. All of existence returns to Him; this shows that He is one. Only His special name (Yud Kei Vov Kei) is used. Had another name been used, they could have said that since Avodah is not only for the special name, we may choose also other gods.

Maharsha: Most Korbanos are to appease Midas ha'Din for man's sin. Why does it say "[Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach] la'Shem" (Midas ha'Rachamim)? Had it said 'Kel' or 'Elokim', idolaters could claim that it refers to idols, which are called so - "Lo Sishtachaveh l'El Acher", "Elohim Acherim." This is like we said above, they call Him the great God, that He gave authority to lower gods and commanded to serve them. We support this from 'it says "Ishe Re'ach Nicho'ach" regarding a bull, and regarding birds... as long as he intends l'Shem Shamayim.' i.e. he intends l'Shem Hash-m; surely other gods prefer a bigger Korban to eat.

Iyun Yakov #1: Midrash ha'Nelam says that Kel and Elokim are shared names. They are used also for angels, judges and great people.

Iyun Yakov #2: Do not say that only big Korbanos like a bull change Midas ha'Din to Midas ha'Rachamim. Rather, for all Korbanos it says Hash-m - all cause this change, if he intends for Shamayim.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Meshech Chochmah (Devarim 16:21): The early idolaters thought that via benefiting the stars and Mazalos, they will draw good influence from them, and their Mazal will improve. Korbanos are utterly unlike this! Hash-m has no need for or benefit from Korbanos. They are merely a pleasant spirit that His will was done. Shem Havayah shows that Hash-m causes all to exist; obviously He does not need His creations!

What do we learn from 'it does not matter whether one does much or little, as long as he intends l'Shem Shamayim'?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Kutzker Rav: Also one who does much must intend.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Rav C. Kanievsky "V'Zavachta Alav... Es Tzonecha v'Es Bekarecha" - even though Bekar (cattle) is bigger, and should be offered before Tzon, it says Tzon first [to teach that one may offer it first] because it does not matter whether one does much or little, as long as he intends l'Shem Shamayim ().

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rav C. Shteinberg said, perhaps this is only in the Mishkan or Mikdash, but not on a Bamah, for there it does not say Rei'ach Nicho'ach. Offering on a Bamah, when permitted, is not a Mitzvah; it is merely a Heter (Ya'avetz 75b). Meshech Chochmah (introduction to Vayikra) says that Korbanos Bamah are to distance idolatry from the hearts of Yisrael. Therefore, 'whether one does much or little' does not apply to them. (NOTE: Ya'avetz was unsure if there is a Mitzvah on a Bamah. He discussed a Minchah; surely the same applies to Zevachim. If there is no Mitzvah, surely it does not matter what one does first! - PF) It seems that the Rambam disagrees. He holds that there is a Mitzvah to build the Mikdash and its Kelim, and not just a Mizbe'ach, so he explains (Sefer ha'Mitzvos Ase 20) "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li" to refer to a Bamah, when it is permitted.

What was the Havah Amina 'I commanded you to bring Korbanos for My desires, so that I will do your will in return'?

Rashi: Hash-m needs Korbanos; they are like a bribe.

Why does it say "li'Rtzonchem Tizbachuhu"?

Rashi: I do not burden you to offer for My pleasure. Rather, it is for your needs, to atone for you.

Why does saying one Perek each morning and evening fulfill "Lo Yamush"?

Maharal: Part of a day is like the entire day. Part of a year is like the entire year. This is not regarding time; it is regarding the form of the day, and the form of the night. If Torah was under time, we could not say so.

Iyun Yakov: We learn from Lechem ha'Panim, for it hints to Torah, like I explained above (29. It had two faces, to hint to "Panim El Panim Diber Hash-m Imachem." It is arranged on Shabbos, for all agree that the Torah was given on Shabbos. To show Yisrael's dearness, it was hot [when taken off the Shulchan] like it was when placed on it, to show that we are stil1 dear to Hash-m like the day of Kabalas ha'Torah.)

Etz Yosef: Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav says that if one already learned written and oral Torah, and they are fluent in his mouth, just even so there is a Mitzvah to meditate on them constantly, he is Yotzei via a Perek or Keri'as Shma. If not, he is obligated to learn and know them! An Am ha'Aretz who cannot learn them, he is Yotzei via Keri'as Shma.

What is the Chidush that even via Keri'as Shma, he fulfils "Lo Yamush"?

Maharsha: Even though without Talmud Torah, he fulfills Mitzvas Keri'as Shma, even so, he fulfills also "Lo Yamush."

Iyun Yakov: Here, R. Shimon is lenient to say that Keri'as Shma suffices, and R. Yishmael requires "Lo Yamush" simply. In Berachos 35b, they hold oppositely - R. Yishmael says, conduct Divrei Torah with engaging in income, and R. Shimon says [learn constantly, and] others will do your work!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing v'Im Tomar: Bava Kama (82a) expounds "v'Yelechu Sheloshes Yamim ba'Midbar v'Lo Matz'u Mayim" - Mayim is Torah. Because they went three days without learning Torah, Nevi'im enacted to read Torah on Monday and Thursday and Shabbos. Why was this needed? We read Keri'as Shma every day. This is considered Torah, so there are not three days without Torah! (NOTE: The verse is in Beshalach, before Matan Torah. Perhaps they did not yet say Keri'as Shma every day! - PF)

Why did R. Yochanan say not to tell an ignoramus [that he is Yotzei via Keri'as Shma]?

Rashi: He will think that this suffices, and not train his son to learn more than this.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Lev Simchah: R. Yochanan means that one who recites Shma with intent, this will bring him to learn day and night and fulfill Mitzvas Talmud Torah. One may not tell an Am ha'Aretz, lest he understand simply that Keri'as Shma suffices. (NOTE: How does this match R. Yochanan's words 'even if one said only Keri'as Shma morning and evening, he fulfilled "Lo Yamush"?' - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Gaon from Lublin: The Am ha'Aretz will think that Keri'as Shma suffices. Indeed,, he fulfills the Mitzvah of Limud, but he lacks knowledge of Torah, and will remain an Am ha'Aretz. We do not mention Bitul Torah in 'Al Chet', for Teshuvah is not enough to fix it; he must learn corresponding to what he neglected to learn. (NOTE: Why is this unlike 'Gazalnu"? Also this, Teshuvah is not enough, until he returns the theft! - PF)

Why did Rava say that it is a Mitzvah to tell this to an ignoramus?

Rashi #1: He will realize that if even Keri'as Shma has a great reward, all the more so learning all day!

Rashi #2: He will understand that if Rabanan learn all day even though they could exempt themselves with only Keri'as Shma, there must be a great reward for learning.

Maharsha: This will inspire him to zealously fulfill the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shma, in order to fulfill also "Lo Yamush."

What is learning the entire Torah?

Anaf Yosef: He learned all the Mitzvos and their reasons.

What is Chachmas Yevanis, and why did Ben Dama think that perhaps he may learn it?

See Bi'urei Agadah Menachos 64a:1.

If he needs Chachmas Yevanis for his income, it should be permitted! If not, it should be forbidden due to Bitul Torah!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes: One should engage in a job that does not require investigation and concentration, for afterwards it disturbs concentration in Torah. The Kotzker Rav said, "Yegi'as Kapecha Ki Sochal Ashrecha v'Tov Lach" - this is specifically one who eats the toil of his hands, and his head ponders other (spiritual) matters. (NOTE: We find that Shmuel was a doctor, and also the Rambam and Ramban! Perhaps they chose to be doctors, for the Mitzvah of saving lives. The Vilna Gaon supported himself via being Mechadesh mathematical theorems while in the bathroom! Perhaps for exceptionally brilliant Chachamim, there is no concern. - PF)

What is the connection of Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel" to "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah"?

Rashi: Hash-m saw that Torah was very dear to Yehoshua, so He promised him that he will not forget Torah.

Maharsha: We find like this, that the verse is only a Berachah - "va'Ani Zos Brisi... Lo Yamushu mi'Picha..."

How can we forbid Chachmas Yevanis due to "Lo Yamush"? We just said that one fulfills Lo Yamush via Keri'as Shma!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sar ha'Torah (p.265): "V'Dibarta Bam" obligates engaging in Torah day and night "b'Shivtecha b'Veisecha", but not "uv'Lechtecha va'Derech", i.e. when you need income and cannot engage in Torah so much. Then, "b'Shachbecha uv'Kumecha" - one Perek each morning and evening suffices.

What is the meaning of 'do not consider Torah to be a Chovah'?

Rashi: Do not consider it a debt, that you will fulfill it via learning a Perek, and be exempt from it, for you will never be exempt.

Tosfos #1: It is not a Chiyuv to engage in it and in nothing else (i.e. income), nor are you exempt from learning. Rather, Torah is good with engaging in income (Avos 2:2).

Iyun Yakov: This is like R. Yishmael's opinion in Berachos (35b).

Tosfos #2: You are not obligated to learn all of Torah, nor are you exempt from learning. Lo Alecha ha'Melachah Ligmor... (Avos 2:16)

Maharal: Do not consider it an obligation; rather, learn with love - "Le'ahavah Es Hash-m Elokecha u'Ledavkah Bo." However, you cannot exempt yourself; Hash-m commanded you. From His perspective, it is a Chovah.

Maharsha: Above, Rashi explained that Chovah is not precise; it is a Mitzvah. He teaches unlike the opinion that the verse is only a Berachah.

Maharsha: This is like we say (Chulin 105a) that Mayim Rishonim is a Mitzvah, and Mayim Acharonim (Hagahah in Oz v'Hadar edition, and so it says in Chulin) is Chovah. The Mitzvah is due to Terumah (so people will be used to guarding their hands in Taharah); the Chovah is due to danger of Sedom salt. Also here, do not consider Torah a Chovah, that you learn due to danger, like we said that only a Neshamah that guards the Torah will be guarded. One who does so, his Torah is Lo Lishmah.

Why does it say that Hash-m is Mesis?

Maharsha: Usually, Mesis is a bad counsel. Even if you think that Hash-m's command is for bad, it is not so. He is unlike people, who entice away from the ways of life. He entices from the ways of death (Gehinom) to life.

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m's way is the opposite to people's - this is why we say 'Divrei ha'Rav and Divrei ha'Talmid, whose words do we heed?!'

What is the significance of Gehinom having a narrow opening?

Rashi: This is so the smoke will gather in it and not leave, so Resha'im will be judged in fire and smoke.

Maharal: Initially it is narrow, corresponding to Resha'im who begin evil. Afterwards it widens, corresponding to Resha'im who increase evil. Gehinom is lack - it widens. Every Rasha is judged according to what is proper for him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Pi TZar" does not refer to Gehinom, rather, Tzarim (people who afflict).

Iyun Yakov: This is like Yalkut Reuveni (Korach) - the land opened like the thickness of a person, and they descended slowly, and the land choked them, and they cried 'Moshe Emes and Toraso Emes.'

What is the answer "Hemik Hirchiv"?

Rashi: Once Gehinom gets deep, it widens. The verse discusses Gehinom. "Hemik Hirchiv" (it is very wide).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Gam Hi" teaches that kings are the same, so "Hemik Hirchiv" must apply to the place of Gehinom.

What was the question 'perhaps it is not for kings'?

Maharal: According to a king's grandeur and perfection, Gehinom is not proper for him. He has no lack; he is complete. However, lack cling to him due to sin. His perfection is physical; such perfection does not save from Gehinom. A king is closer to sin than all others! Therefore, Gehinom is prepared also for him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): What is the Havah Amina that it is not for kings? A verse explicitly says "Gam Hi l'Melech"! All three of these questions are weak. I say that Chazal wanted to explain the verse in Iyov "v'Af Hasischa mi'Pi Tzar..." refers to the attribute of Torah, which saves from judgment in Gehinom, which is called Tafteh, for anyone who is Mispateh (accepts enticement) of his Yetzer ha'Ra falls there. Man entices his friend by showing to him the dearness and beauty of matters of this world, and shows to him ways of life, and from them he will be drawn to ways of death. Hash-m entices, in the opposite direction, via afflictions. Chazal said that one who wants to live [forever], he should die (refrain from pleasures of this world), and one who wants to die, he should live.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Others are judged with wood. A king who separated from Torah, fire comes out from him, and it singes him. Everyone is singed by his colleague's Chupah, like Chazal expounded "Ki Esh Yatz'ah mi'Cheshbon" - fire will come from those who are Mechashev (consider their deeds, and consume those who do not - Bava Basra 78b).

What was the question 'perhaps there is no wood there'?

Maharal: Perhaps the punishment is not so great to make the Nefesh perish, like people say that the spiritual Neshamah has no loss. We answer, there is wood and fire - the Neshamah is lost.

What was the question 'perhaps this is its reward!'?

Rashi: Perhaps the only reward of Torah is that it saves (those who remain righteous) from Gehinom

Maharal: Perhaps Resha'im's only punishment is to be judged in Gehinom, but Gehinom will not make them totally lacking. Punishment of Resha'im is called Sechar (reward) - the Sechar of an Aveirah is an Aveirah (Avos 4:2).

What do we learn from "v'Nachas Shulchanecha Malei Dashen"?

Maharal: He is judged in Gehinom until fire of Gehinom rules over him, and turns him into ashes. "V'Nachas Shulchanecha" - man finds contentment when he eats and completes himself. He will be the opposite of ashes, which happens to Resha'im.