In what case do we heed a Navi to transgress a Mitzvah?

Rashi: He is an established Navi, and he says to transgress for a need (Hora'as Sha'ah), like Eliyahu transgressed Shechutei Chutz on Har ha'Karmel

What is the meaning of 'the Torah knows idolatry... therefore it gave to it authority'?

Rashi: Even if you see a Navi [of idolatry] rule and do wonders like he desires - "v'Nasan Elecha Os Oh Mofes" (Devarim 13:2).

Aruch l'Ner: It knows the power of witchcraft, i.e. Tum'ah of idolatry, therefore it wrote that a Navi of idolatry could do wonders.

R. Akiva said that Hash-m would never allow a sinner to do wonders. At Chet ha'Egel, magicians were able to give life to the Egel!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Maharil Diskin (Ki Sisa): Surely Yisrael would have served it even if it did not have life. Since there was not yet Avodas ha'Mishkan, there was no Chiyuv for serving like Avodas ha'Mikdash, only for k'Darkah (the way the idolatry is normally served). There was never such an idolatry, so k'Darkah did not apply! They were not liable for accepting it for their god, since it was b'Shituf (they accepted it along with Hash-m).

NOTE: i.e. Hash-m would not do miracles for a Navi of idolatry, lest this make Yisrael stumble. Here, He let them succeed to exempt Yisrael from a Chiyuv Misah! However, perhaps R. Akiva agrees that a false Navi could do witchcraft; he said only that he could not stop the sun. Witchcraft has limitations - water nullifies it; it does not work on something smaller than a barley seed; the witch must be standing on the ground... If witchcraft could stop the sun, why did the entire world fear Moshe when he stopped the sun (Targum Yonasan, Yalkut Shimoni and Rashi on Devarim 2:25)? (PF)

Why does our Mishnah begin with 'every Yisrael has a share in the world to come'?

Ha'Kosev: This is not part of the Mishnah. It was added in order to begin with a nice matter.

Maharal #2: We can explain so according to Rashi. Normally the Tana does not begin with a bad matter. (NOTE: Even if the Hakpadah is only for the beginning of a Perek, the other last five Perakim begin 'the final verdict was given; they take him out to stone him..., Four Misos were handed over to Beis Din... When does one become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh?... These are burned... These are choked...'! Perhaps those are not considered bad, for 'everyone killed by Beis Din confesses, for everyone who confesses has a share in the world to come' (43b). - PF)

Maharal #1: Had the Mishnah began 'these have no share in the world to come...', this would have implied that if they have a majority of merits, they would have a share in the world to come, like we say in Kidushin (39b, that man is judged according to the majority). Therefore, first it taught that all of Yisrael have a share in the world to come, and then teaches sins that are so severe that they left the Klal of Yisrael, and have no share in the world to come.

Maharal #3: The Mishnah does not come to teach those who have no share in the world to come. This is not relevant to any law! Rather, he teaches that anyone Chayav Misah has a share in the world to come, even if Beis Din did not know and he was not judged. He should not say, since I sinned, there is no solution - there is no reason not to sin more! Rather, everyone has a share, unless his sins are the majority.

Maharsha: The previous Perakim taught the four Misos Beis Din. Here it teaches that even if one sinned, he is a Yisrael, and he has a share in the world to come, like we said about Achan (43b). It says 'share', for not all shares are equal - every Tzadik is singed via the Chupah (reward) of his colleague (Bava Basra 75a). Even sinners, after they received their punishment, are Tzadikim. It says "Nivlas Avadecha... Besar Chasidecha" - "Chasidecha" are true Tzadikim; "Avadecha" are those who were Chayav Misah. Since they were killed, they are called "Your servants" (47a).

Maharal #4: Yisrael are separated and more Kadosh than the nations. The nations lean to physicality; Yisrael lean to what is separated from physicality. This is why only Yisrael are called Adam (Yevamos 61a) - more separate from physicality than other living beings. Daniel depicted the kingdoms as animals, except for Malchus Yisrael - Mashi'ach had a human form. Therefore, a separated world (Olam ha'Ba) is proper for Yisrael. The name Yisrael hints to this - Shem 'Kel' clings to it, for Yisrael cling to Hash-m - "v'Atem ha'Devekim ba'Shem Elokeichem Chayim Kulchem" (Devarim 4:4).

Etz Yosef: It says Yesh [Lo Chelek] to hint to 310 (the Gematriya of Yesh) worlds. In the future, Hash-m will give every Tzadik 310 worlds (100a).

How does "v'Amcha Kulam Tzadikim l'Olam Yirshu Aretz" teach about a share in the world to come? Also, not all are Tzadikim!

Maharal #1: This does not refer to Tzadikim based on deeds. Rather, it teaches that the world to come was created for Yisrael, for whom was it created?! Rather, Yisrael are intrinsically Tzadikim; eternal life in Olam ha'Ba is proper for them.

Maharal #2: Something that moves and changes does not endure; what rests, it endures. Only the land does not move - "veha'Aretz l'Olam Omedes." Since Yisrael inherit a matter that rests and endures, also they endure. However, many died in Chutz la'Aretz, and did not receive a portion in the land! Rather, it refers to the world to come. So the Rambam explains, Eretz is Eretz ha'Chayim.

Iyun Yakov: One should not transfer inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son (Bava Basra 133b). Therefore, all [of Yisrael] will inherit the land. According to the reason there that it is because we do not know what children will come from him, this does not apply to the world to come - there is no procreation there! Rather, all of Yisrael are Tzadikim after they are judged.

Why does it say "Netzer Mata'ai"?

Maharal #1: Netzer is a sapling that emerges from the ground before it sends off branches to the sides. A Tzadik is straight; he does not veer to the sides. So the land is in the middle, like the center of a circle. They will inherit life without end (death). It says Mata'ai (plural), for Hash-m has many Neti'os, but the others are branches that go off to the sides.

Maharal #2: It says Mata'ai (plural) because Yisrael are "Ma'ase Yadai" - the work of both His hands. Each hand is an extreme. The work of one hand is not centered, but the work of both, the right and left extremes, is central and eternal.

Maharsha: Gan Eden is Hash-m's Netzer Mata'ai. Man's hand did not rule over it. This is unlike this world - "va'Ychal Noach... va'Yita Kerem." A Rasha merits the good of this world (70b). Do not say that a Tzadik, who merits the world to come, is not so different. A Tzadik is glorified in Ma'ase Yedei Hash-m (ha'Olam ha'Ba) and eternity, like his Maker.

Are only Yisrael "Ma'ase Yadai"? Hash-m said 'Ma'ase Yadai drowned in the sea, and you want to sing Shirah?!' (Megilah 10b)!

Maharal: The other nations are not His children. They are Ma'ase Yadav, but they are not called so, for they were created only to serve Yisrael.

If every Yisrael has a share in the world to come, what was the Chidush of the Bas Kol 'everyone who was at the funeral of Rebbi is Mezuman to life in the world to come'? (Kesuvos 103b)

Etz Yosef #1: Tosfos there said that whenever it says Mezuman l'Chayei ha'Olam ha'Ba, it is without judgment and afflictions.

Etz Yosef #2: Here it teaches that every Yisrael has a share in Elokim (Neshamah ha'Kedoshah), via which he can merit the world to come.

If every Yisrael has a share in the world to come, do the categories listed below refer only to Goyim?

Maharal: The sins listed are so severe that the sinner left the Klal of Yisrael.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ramasayim Tzofim: These sinners have no share due to themselves, only due to being part of Yisrael..

What is Techiyas ha'Mesim?

Anaf Yosef citing Sefer ha'Nitzachon: All great Meforshim say that the Neshamah returns to the body. The Rambam says that [revived people] will eat and reproduce until the world ends. 'Eating' is like at Matan Torah - Hash-m brought out food (manna) so light that it is absorbed in the limbs without any excess (waste). Any other food is from the four elements (earth, fire, wind and water), which are opposites; this confuses the intellect and blocks understanding and perfection in Torah. Chazal discussed eating Shor ha'Bar, Livyasan and wine guarded in its grapes from the six days of creation. They do not discuss pleasure of the palate and filling the stomach. Rather, these will help to understand, like manna. If a woman had multiple husbands, Moshe will tell to whom she is proper. Who would rule in front of him?! Logically, she should remain with the last; death of her husband is like divorce, about which it says "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon Asher Shilchah Lashuv Lakachta." At the time of Techiyah, people will fulfill Torah and Mitzvos without impediment, to straighten their intellect. Even though we may make shrouds with Sha'atnez, and Rav Yosef said 'this shows that Mitzvos will be Batel in the future' (Nidah 61b), this refers to as long as he is dead. Do not say that while he is dead, he is like a live child; we may not feed to him Neveilah (even though he is exempt, we may not cause him to transgress). 'Asid' (future) can apply to something soon, like we say b'Shabbos 'those who took weapons to save [Yisraelim] may return with their weapons, lest they stumble in the future', i.e. another Shabbos. We say 'today to do the Mitzvos, and not tomorrow' (Avodah Zarah 3a). 'Tomorrow' is Olam ha'Neshamos, but Mitzvos apply in the time of Techiyas ha'Mesim.

NOTE: If we forbid to return with their weapons, the next time they will not go to save. Rashba (Teshuvos Chadashos 368) brings this proof that 'Asid' can mean the near future. There is no such Gemara in Shabbos, only in Eruvin (45a), and it does not say lest they stumble in the future (the Magihah there)! Rosh Hashanah 21b brings this reason regarding witnesses of the new moon. They should have brought a proof from there! (PF)

Why does it say 'Kol Lach Lamah (why is there such a great punishment)?'

Maharsha: Indeed, denying Techiyas ha'Mesim Min ha'Torah is a great denial. We ask why this was taught before denying Torah from Shamayim and an Apikoros. The answer was, this is a greater Midah k'Neged Midah than other denials.

Does our Mishnah include one who believes in the world to come, just he says that the Torah does not teach it?

Rashi: Yes. He is a Kofer, for he rejects the Drashos in the Gemara. How does he know that there is a world to come?! (NOTE: Perhaps he learns from a Kal v'Chomer, like the Gemara brought! - PF)

What are 'foreign books' for which one loses his share in the world to come?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Dover Tzedek: Those who engage in foreign Chochmos deny [basic tenets]. They hold that the world conducts only according to nature.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15: The Zohar says that they are not from the side of Torah. Me'iri says that they believe only what investigation and analysis compels. Rivash (45) says that it is even if he does not believe in them. Merely reading them can veer his heart to believe in them, like happened to Elisha ben Avuyah (Acher). Seforim ha'Kedoshim say that it is like denying Torah, for he wastes his time with them. Bamidbar Rabah 14:4 says that verses not from the 24 Seforim of Tanach are like foreign books. I explained that at the time that Tanach was fixed, there were Seforim common among the nation (NOTE: e.g. Sefer Ben Sira). There was concern lest they enter them into Tanach. Reading other Seforim is like reading a letter (it is not a problem).

Why does Menasheh have no share in the world to come? Most of his years [of adulthood, or of kingship] were in Teshuvah!

Radak (Melachim 2:22:8): There is such a Drashah, but it is difficult. If his last 33 years of kingship were in Teshuvah, why was no Sefer Torah found until the 18th year of Yoshiyah ha'Melech? (NOTE: Amon, a Rasha, ruled for two years after Menasheh. Perhaps Amon eradicated the Sifrei Torah! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ta'amei ha'MInhagim p.425 citing Sidur Ramak: Surely all of them have a share in the world to come. To disgrace them, Chazal said in the Mishnah that they do not; this is a Kaparah for them.

Here, R. Yehudah says that Menasheh has a share in the world to come. The Yerushalmi says that he totally repented, and in the fifth level in Gan Eden, he is king over Ba'alei Teshuvah. In Berachos 10a, R. Yehudah expounded that Chizkiyah did not fulfill Peru u'Revu, for he saw through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that unworthy children would come from him. Did he have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh only for bad, but not to see that he would repent?!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Merafsin Igra: Indeed, Chizkiyah saw only his evil, but not his Teshuvah, to teach that even in such a case, 'do not delve into Hash-m's secrets. Do what you are commanded, and Hash-m will do what He wants!' So Yeshayah rebuked him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Likutei Yehudah citing Ya'aros Devash (1:36): Teshuvah is a wonder; one cannot see it in Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. The Imrei Emes says that this is why Korach did not see that his sons would repent. (NOTE: He saw a great chain of descendants, including Shmuel ha'Navi (Rashi Bamidbar 16:7, from Bamidbar Rabah 18:8). Since he did not see Teshuvah, he assumed that all of them held like he and his sons, that they are correct and Moshe is false. - PF) Megaleh Amukos explains that Moshe saw that they will repent, for "u'Semunas Hash-m Yabit" (Bamidbar 12:8).

NOTE: R. Akiva saw that Turnosrufos' wife (who came to seduce him) would later convert (Avodah Zarah 20a). This is the ultimate Teshuvah! Teshuvas Ohr Some'ach (2:32) says that Hillel had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to know that the man who wanted to convert [in order to wear Bigdei Kohen Gadol] would later convert l'Shem Shamayim. (PF)

What is the consequence of Hash-m always bestowing Midah k'Neged Midah?

Maharal: Evil does not come from Hash-m, only good comes from Him. If a borrower repays the same matter that he borrowed, it came from the lender; if he repays something else, it came from the borrower. Man brings evil on himself via doing evil!

In Sotah (8b), we learn that Hash-m punishes Midah k'Neged Midah from "b'Sase'ah b'Shalchah." Why did we bring a different source here?

Maharsha: Perhaps that refers only to deeds. Here we show that Midah k'Neged Midah is even for thoughts, e.g. the Torah does not teach Techiyas ha'Mesim, just like the king's servant was punished for thinking that Hash-m cannot feed everyone.

Iyun Yakov: Here is a bigger Chidush. Even though Techiyas ha'Mesim is a general matter, and it is proper that those who denied it be revived to see their error, and be judged afterwards. Therefore we bring from the servant who denied the Navi's words. He should have lived to see that the price plummeted, and afterwards be judged! Rather, because Hash-m punishes Midah k'Neged Midah (he did not see it, and they will not be revived). (NOTE: The Navi said "Hinecha Ro'eh b'Einecha"! He will see that Hash-m gave an abundance of food, unlike his disbelief "Hash-m Oseh Arubos ba'Shamayim." He did not see the price plummet. - PF)

Why is a Chacham's curse fulfilled if it is unjustified?

Maharal: A Chacham is at the level of intellect. A curse comes from him to physicality, which is a lower level. Nothing is more lacking and cursed than physicality, which has no form! Therefore, it is cursed more via him, just like Niduy (excommunication) and decrees come from a Chacham.

Be'er Sheva: This is difficult. Even if you will say that the victim was liable for another reason, [Shamayim] does not bring bad matters via good people (Tosefta Yoma 4:11)! Daf Al ha'Daf (Berachos 56) - also, if Reuven is punished via Ploni, Ploni does not enter Hash-m's abode (Shabbos 149b)!

What are matters of the Sha'ar?

Maharsha: Sha'ar means price, like 'Yatza ha'Sha'ar' and 'Sha'ar ha'Gavoha' (Bava Metzi'a 72b). He mocked that the price will be so low.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps it was due to Elisha's curse - you will see [from the gate] and not eat from it! It seems that because he was trampled in the Sha'ar, we say that this was Midah k'Neged Midah for disbelief about the Sha'ar. He could have seen in the market, and died elsewhere afterwards without eating from it!

How does R. Yochanan learn from Aharon?

Rashi: He did not live 'forever', i.e. he did not live to enter Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, we must say that he will receive Terumah after Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Maharsha: There is a hint to this in Terumas Ma'aser, which is Kodesh Min ha'Kodesh. It is proper that Aharon receive it, for "Aharon was separated to be Kodesh Kodoshim" (Divrei ha'Yamim I, 23:13; Horayos 13a), in ha'Olam ha'Ba, which is totally Kodesh Kodoshim.

Maharal: The Gemara does not mean that in the future we will give Terumah to him. Rather, it says that we give to him because the gift to him persists in the world to come. If there were not Techiyas ha'Mesim, the gift to him would be Batel; giving nowadays would not be called giving to Aharon.

How can R. Yochanan say that in the future, we will give Terumah to Aharon? He holds that Mitzvos will be Batel in the future (Nidah 61a)!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Kerem Shlomo (YD 351) and No'am Megadim (Lech) say that only Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh will be Batel. Aruch l'Ner said that Terumah does not apply in the world to come - there is no eating or drinking there! Rather, great Tzadikim will rise in the days of Mashi'ach; they will give Terumah to Aharon. (NOTE: The Ritva (Ta'anis 30b) says that there is an early Techiyas ha'Mesim for all who hoped for Hash-m's return to Yerushalayim.) Daf Al ha'Daf - the text of Ein Yakov here does not say 'R. Yochanan'; if so, there is no question.

Why did the Torah teach about Techiyas ha'Mesim specifically via giving Terumah to Aharon?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Imrei Emes: The Seforno (Ki Savo) explains "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh Min ha'Bayis v'Gam Nesativ la'Levi" - in our sins, Kehunah and Terumah was taken from the Bechoros; therefore we give Ma'aser to Leviyim. Even though in the future Avodah will return to the Bechoros, we will give Terumah to Aharon.

Daf Al ha'Daf here (citing Kerem Yakov 14) and in Berachos 46a, and Chashukei Chemed: The Aderes proved from R. Zeira that a Kohen who died and was revived does not return to be a Kohen. Rav Hutner rejected this. After Techiyas ha'Mesim, we will give Terumah to Aharon! R. Chaim Sofer (Moriyah 7 p.27) answered, Aharon will need to be anointed again to become a Kohen again! The Ramban (on Sefer ha'Mitzvos Shoresh 3) says that Aharon will need Milu'im again after Techiyas ha'Mesim, for his Meshichah was Batel after death.

What is the significance of "Lema'an Yechezku b'Soras Hash-m"?

Maharsha: It seems that "Yechezku" refers to the giver, like Chazal said "Etz Chayim Hi la'Machazikim Bah" (Mishlei 3:18) - it does not say to those who engage in it, rather, those who support and help Torah, and give to those who learn it, e.g. Ma'aseros to Leviyim and Kohanim. The giver is warned to strengthen Toras Hash-m via his giving; he gives with intent that his gift will help Kohanim and Leviyim to learn.

What is the argument about what we learn from "u'Nsatem... Terumas Hash-m l'Aharon ha'Kohen"?

Iyun Yakov: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds that Moshe was not a Kohen. If he were, the Torah should have commanded to give to him - the Torah is called on his name, and he was Aharon's Rebbi! R. Yochanan holds that he was a Kohen. The Torah wrote Aharon to teach about Techiyas ha'Mesim. It could not have taught Moshe, for he did not die (Sotah 13b). A Midrash says that we learn Techiyas ha'Mesim from Miryam. She became Metzora'as like snow because she spoke Leshon ha'Ra about Moshe, who served as Kohen Gadol for 40 years and atoned for Yisrael - "Im Yihyu Chata'eichen ka'Shanim ka'Sheeg Yalbinu" (Yeshayah 1:18). She was punished Midah k'Neged Midah. Why did the Torah write Aharon, and not Moshe? We must say that Moshe did not die; from Aharon, we learn Techiyas ha'Mesim.

NOTE: Even if the verses implies that Moshe was a Kohen during the Milu'im, it is not proven that he was a Kohen after that. Must we expound why the Torah said to give to Aharon, who was Vadai a Kohen? (PF)

Is there an argument about to which Kohanim we give Terumah?

Iyun Yakov: Yes. R. Shmuel bar Nachmani holds that we give to one who is Machazik to learn, even if he is not a Talmid Chacham. Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds that we give only to a Talmid Chacham. Tosfos (Chulin 130) says that if there is no Kohen Chaver, one may give to an ignoramus. Rav Acha and R. Yochanan imply that this is forbidden! This requires investigation.

What is the comparison to 'a lion, it is a Safek if it will be Dores and eat, or not'?

Rashi #1: When a lion takes an animal from the herd we do not know whether it intends to be Dores and eat it immediately, or be Dores and eat it after it rots.

Rashi #2: Sometimes a lion is Dores an animal with its legs and eats it when it is repulsive; sometimes it puts it in its hole, and it is not repulsive.

Maharsha: Derisah is the primary sign of Tum'ah. (NOTE: This is for birds (Chulin 60b-61b). Tosfos, and also Rashi regarding lions, say that it is eating its prey before it dies. The Ramban and Ra'ah say that it is poisoning through its claws. Sichas Chulin p.420-421 elaborates. - PF) Most lions are Dores and eat b'Tum'ah; likewise, most Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz eat b'Tum'ah. We follow the majority and do not give to them.

How do we explain "v'Hisi'u Osam Avon Ashmah"?

Maharsha: D'Vei R. Eliezer ben Yakov explains this simply - those who give to the Kohanim cause them to transgress. Rashi (Devarim 34:6) brought R. Yishmael's opinion, that this is one of three places in which Es (or Osam) refers to the person himself (the Kohanim cause themselves to transgress). It says Ashmah, Korban Asham is brought for Safek; it is a Safek if the Kohen will eat it b'Tum'ah... (NOTE: There is no Korban for eating Terumah b'Tum'ah, just the word Ashmah hints to Safek. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: R. Yochanan taught that he causes the Kohen to die. Surely, the Kohen sins, for there is no death without sin. The sin causes afflictions - there are no afflictions without sin (Shabbos 55a).

How do we learn from "Lahem", in place of Lachem?

Rashi: They did not receive Eretz Yisrael. Their children did! Rather, He will revive the Avos and give Eretz Yisrael to them.

Maharsha: Hash-m said this to Moshe. Perhaps "Lahem" refers to Bnei Yisrael, and not to the Avos! Presumably, it refers to the Avos, for they were mentioned [in the previous verse]. Also, we rely on the verse brought below "Asher Nishba Hash-m la'Avoseichem Lases Lahem." Since the verse addresses Yisrael ("la'Avoseichem"), "Lahem" must refer to the Avos. R. Simai brought "Hakimosi..." because it is earlier in the Torah, even though he needs the other verse to clarify that "Lahem" refers to the Avos. He did not bring "Kum His'halech.... Ki Lecha Etenenah" (Bereishis 13:17) said to Avraham, nor "ha'Aretz Asher Atah Shochev Aleha Lecha Etenenah" (28:13) said to Yakov, for they did not actually receive the land. Rather, Avraham acquired it in potential via walking in it, and it was given in potential to Yakov via being folded under him, to make it easy for his children to conquer it (Chulin 91b). Therefore, they could have had a complaint why the gift was not fulfilled (below, 111a).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Gamliel did not bring "Hakimosi...", lest they explain like Chazal said 'woe that the early ones died, and are not found! I made a Bris with the Avos to give Eretz Kena'an to them, and when Avraham wanted to bury Sarah... (NOTE: he needed to pay a fortune, and he did not resent this. Rashi (Shemos 6:9, from below (111a) expounded so from a different verse; Tzedukim could expound so from Hakimosi. Does the Seifa of our verse "Eretz Megureihem Asher Garu Vah" not prove that "Lahem" refers to the Avos? - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): What is the source that "Lahem" applies to the Avos? Perhaps the verse addresses men between 20 and 60. It does not say Lachem, for they will not enter the land, rather, Lahem (their children)! Since it says "v'Heveisi Eschem El ha'Aretz" (Shemos 6:8) in second person, it addresses those under 20 or above 60. Also the previous verse should have said Lachem! Rather, Lahem refers to the Avos.

Does "v'Kam" apply to the Reisha ("Hincha Shochev... v'Kam") or the Seifa - ("v'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh...")?

Rashi: We cannot resolve this. This is one of three (Be'er Sheva - the text should say 'five') such verses (Yoma 52a).

Maharsha: R. Gamliel said that both ways are true. (They said that it applies only to the Seifa.) Death of Tzadikim is not a loss for them; it is a loss for the generations. You (Moshe) will die and rise [later], but the Am will be Mezaneh, for it will not have one to rebuke it and stand in the breach, like you did after they sinned, and you prayed for them.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why did R. Gamliel try to bring a proof from here? Surely they can reject it! The same applies to "Yichyu Mesecha..."! And they should have admitted that there is Techiyas ha'Mesim [of Yechezkel]! (NOTE: That is explicit in verses! Tzedukim accept written Torah! Perhaps they admit that bones can return to life, and deny only about earth, i.e. old Mesim that even their bones corroded. - PF) According to R. Gamliel, it should say 'v'Kamta'!"

Maharal #1: The simple meaning is that it refers to the Seifa. However, if there were no Techiyas ha'Mesim, one who read "Hincha Shochev... v'Kam", before he finishes the verse, would say Sheker. The Torah is Emes, without any Sheker! Therefore, it must refer also to the Reisha. Even though Yoma 52a brought five verses, Rashi wrote three, because two of the five are expounded both ways. Three are expounded one way or the other, and it is not known which way. The Tzedukim held that this is one of them.

NOTE: Many verses are Sheker, or even Kefirah, if one stops in the middle, e.g. "Lo Yihyeh Lecha Elohim [Acherim Al Panai]", "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yacharam [Bilti la'Shem Levado]", (Shemos 20:3, 22:19), "Shiches Lo [Lo Banav Mumam]" (Devarim 32:5), "Ane Kesil k'Ivalto Pen Yihyeh Chacham [b'Einav]" (Mishlei 26:5). Many verses are true only together with the coming verse, e.g. "va'Yach ha'Barad b'Chol Eretz Mitzrayim...; Rak b'Eretz Goshen... Lo Hayah Barad" (Shemos 25-26), "uv'Eleh Lo Hayah Ish mi'Pikudei Moshe v'Aharon...; Ki Im Kalev ben Yefuneh vi'Yhoshua" (Bamidbar 26:64-65), "va'Nacharem Es Kol Ir Mesim... Lo Hish'arnu Sarid; Rak ha'Behemah Bazaznu Lanu u'Shlal he'Arim" (Devarim 2:34-35)! (PF)

Maharal #2: "V'Kam" refers to something that needs arousal; it is not needed for "ha'Am v'Zanah." My first answer is primary.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "V'Kam" is elevation. "Ha'Am ha'Zeh v'Zanah" is not elevation - it is descent! Also, why is Moshe's Shechivah mentioned next to their Zenus? And why does "ha'Am ha'Zeh" separate between "v'Kam" and "v'Zanah"? For all these reasons, we expound "v'Kam" regarding Moshe. It is consolation for his death. You will rise, and this generation with you.

Anaf Yosef: If "v'Kam" did not apply to Moshe, there would be no reason to write it. It should have said only v'Zanah ha'Am ha'Zeh! If it applied only to Moshe, it should have said v'Zanah ha'Am ha'Zeh! Therefore, it must apply to both of them. However, still, it should have said Hincha Shochev Im Avosecha v'Kam v'Zanah ha'Am ha'Zeh! Rather, it says "v'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh v'Zanah" to hint like it says in Eichah Rabasi, at the time of the Churban, Hash-m told Yirmeyahu to stand by the Yarden and tell Moshe to rise, and he will pray for Yisrael. Moshe will rise twice - at Techiyas ha'Mesim, and at the time of the Churban, because "v'Kam ha'Am ha'Zeh v'Zanah."

Iyun Yakov: One cannot read the Seifa "ha'Am ha'Zeh v'Zanah" without v'Kam. The question was whether it applies only to the Seifa, or also to the Reisha. We learn that even if Yisrael will sin, they will rise in Techiyas ha'Mesim with Moshe. The opinion that Moshe did not die (Sotah 13b) must explain the verse like the Tzedukim.

Who are "Mesecha" and "Nevelasi"?

Rashi: "Mesecha" are the Mesim of Eretz Yisrael (Kesuvos 111a). Nevelasi are Nefalim (miscarriages).

Maharsha: There is an opinion there that [the Seifa] "Nevelasi Yekumun..." are those who died in Chutz la'Aretz. Granted, "Mesecha" (your dead) refers to Eretz Yisrael. However, we cannot explain the pronoun at the end of Nevelasi (my Neveilah)!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rashi explains how R. Gamliel refuted the Tzedukim's rejection, that the verse discusses the enacted that Yechezkel revived. That was in Bik'as Dura, in Chutz la'Aretz. The verse teaches that the dead of Eretz Yisrael will live! Further, he revived those who left Egypt too early (92b). They were not Nefalim - they cannot explain "Nevelasi Yekumun" to be Nefalim! Also according to the opinion that Yechezkel's Techiyah was only a Mashal that Bnei Galus will return to their place (ibid.), it does not refer to Nefalim! (NOTE: Tzedukim reject oral Torah. Why would they explain Yechezkel's Techiyah like Chazal did, or that Nevelasi refers to Nefalim? - PF)

Maharsha: They are Hash-m's dead - those who died bi'Ydei Shamayim. He will revive them. He will revive also Nevelasi - those who did not die bi'Ydei Shamayim, rather, they were killed. Yeshayah included himself, for Menasheh killed him. (NOTE: This verse is in the middle of Sefer Yeshayah. We need not say that he knew that Menasheh will kill him; Ru'ach ha'Kodesh caused him to say so. - PF)

What is the significance of "v'Eretz Refa'im Tapil"?

Maharsha: Og was "mi'Yeser ha'Refa'im." Moshe was buried in his land. The dead of Chutz la'Aretz will rise with him. Tapil (You will put) tunnels in that land for them to return to Eretz Yisrael, like Midrashim say.

How do we learn from "v'Chichech k'Yayin ha'Tov Nesech Holech l'Dodi l'Meisharim Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" (Shir ha'Shirim 7:10)?

Maharsha: We expound this to discuss the Techiyah and the attribute of ha'Olam ha'Ba after the Techiyah. Yayin ha'Tov has been guarded from the six days of creation. It is not the wine of this world, which intoxicates. Rather, it is Holech (goes) to the Mesim in tunnels, until they will rise in Eretz Yisrael. Wine of this world intoxicates and brings sleep; this wine is "Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" (wakes them), and makes them speak words of Elokim Chayim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The verse discusses Divrei Soferim, which are as dear as the wine of Torah.

What is the source to expound "v'Atem ha'Devekim ba'Shem Elokeichem... Chayim Kulchem ha'Yom"? Perhaps it hints that those who did not cling to Hash-m, they died!

Rashi: "Ha'Yom" is extra. It could have said just "Chayim Kulchem." Therefore, we expound 'just like today...'

Maharshal: Rashi's text said 'just like today you are all alive, you will all be alive in the world to come.'

Maharsha: Because you cling to Elokim Chayim, life clings to you, to make you live eternally in the future, just like today, in this world.

Why did the Romiyim ask for the source that Hash-m knows the future? All the Nevi'im told future matters! And why did R. Yehoshua bring specifically this verse?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chanukas ha'Torah: They asked about matters that depend on human choice, like the Rambam's question (how man has free choice, for Hash-m knows what he will choose). Therefore he answered that Hash-m knows that they will sin.

Why did the Romiyim ask for the source that Hash-m will revive the dead, and that He knows the future?

Maharsha: Philosophers deny Hash-m's knowledge and Techiyas ha'Mesim; they asked for sources for these in Torah. R. Yehoshua should have said 'you learn one of them.' Why did he say 'half'? Perhaps he means half of your question of Techiyas ha'Mesim. It is not clear which way to learn the verse - this is like half a proof. You also learn absolutely that He knows the future.

Anaf Yosef: Even without v'Kam, the Seifa "ha'Am ha'Zeh v'Zanah" clearly shows that Hash-m knows the future. (NOTE: Perhaps he explains 'half is in your hands', i.e. you yourselves can resolve one of them. - PF) If so, v'Kam was written with the Reisha, to teach Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Indeed, R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi proved that the Minim's words are false. How did he prove that their Seforim are false?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Their Seforim say "Avonah Bah", and they deny Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Why did he say 'you falsified your Torah, with no gain'?

Maharsha: There are verses in which Techiyas ha'Mesim is explicit. They wrote Lachem in place of Lahem, lest there be a proof. You did not gain, for there is still a proof - "Hikares Tikares Avonah Bah"!

Why must "Avonah Bah" refer to after Techiyas ha'Mesim?

Maharsha: Since he was cut off in this world before his time, how does Avonah Bah apply? Rather, it is for the future, to be judged for it. It says Avonah (feminine), for it refers to the Neshamah in the future.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): After death the Nefesh will be cut off to be judged in Gehinom in ha'Olam ha'Ba. This must be after Techiyas ha'Mesim! They cannot reject that "Avonah Bah" teaches like R. Akiva and R. Yishmael, that Kares is only when he still has his sin (he did not repent from it). That is only in the world to come, but in this world, one who was Chayav Kares and repented, he is cleansed only after afflictions.

NOTE: Perhaps Rif asked that granted, sinners are judged and punished after death, but what is the source for Techiyas ha'Mesim for reward? If so, he did not explain his answer. Human kingdoms judge and punish those who are liable, but they do not reward one who did everything properly! Also, how does he answer his latter question? Deniers can say that "Avonah Bah" teaches that Kares in this world is only before Teshuvah! - PF)

Where does it say "v'Nichresah"?

Rashi: It is written [in the previous verse] about Megadef. He holds that it discusses one who serves idolatry, just like "Hikares Tikares." R. Akiva holds that it refers to cursing Hash-m.

Here it says that clearly, there is not a third world. The Rambam distinguishes between the world of Techiyas ha'Mesim and ha'Olam ha'Ba!

Iyun Yakov: This is difficult. Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim - Techiyas ha'Mesim and ha'Olam ha'Ba depend on each other. One who is cut off from one is cut off from the other. (NOTE: This is an answer if we learn from elsewhere that they depend on each other. If not, perhaps our verse teaches this, so we cannot ask 'is there a third world?!' - PF) Therefore, two expressions of Kares suffice. However, it says in Rosh Hashanah (16b) that there are three groups on the day of judgment, i.e. in Techiyas ha'Mesim. Tosfos says that they are judged whether or not they will merit ha'Olam ha'Ba! (NOTE: So it must say; there is a printing mistake in Anaf Yosef. - PF)

What do we learn from "v'Yatzitzu me'Ir"?

Rashi: In the future, Yisraelim will sprout from Yerushalayim. Hash-m will make tunnels for Tzadikim [revived underground elsewhere] to ascend to Yerushalayim.

Maharsha: The verse arouses a Safek of whether the dead will be revived clothed. It compares Techiyah to Esev (grass) that rises from the ground without any covering. This is reproachful! R. Meir made a Kal v'Chomer... The Esev in this verse is wheat, which is buried bare...

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Meir inferred so, for it says "k'Esev ha'Aretz", and not Stam Esev.

Iyun Yakov (here and 70b): We learn from wheat, for the key of Techiyas ha'Mesim is only in Hash-m's hand, just like there is no Sar (angel appointed) over wheat. It is only under Hash-m. R. Yehudah holds that it is Etz ha'Da'as; it was forbidden to Adam due to its esteem.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The simple meaning discusses how fruitful the land will be. Even so, it must discuss Techiyas ha'Mesim, for normally, trees are not near the city. We distance them (Bava Basra 2:7)! Why does it say "me'Ir"? This teaches that on the day of Techiyah, Tzadikim will sprout from Yerushalayim. Chazal expounded also that in the future, buns and silk garments will grow in Eretz Yisrael - "Yehi Pisas Bar ba'Aretz b'Rosh Harim" - in the future, wheat will grow [tall] like palm trees on the mountaintops (Kesuvos 111b).

What is the significance of being revived clothed?

Maharal: Techiyas ha'Mesim will be with the proper perfection, and not with Chisaron (lack). They will not rise with the clothes in which they were buried, rather, in clothes proper for them, bi'Ydei Shamayim, just like wheat grows in something proper for it. This is even if they were buried naked, just like wheat is normally planted without 'clothing' (a husk). Clothing is like man's body. Just like Hash-m created man, "va'Ya'as Hash-m... Kasnos Ohr va'Yalbishem" (Bereishis 3:21). Just like the body will rise, also clothes. This was a question, for man removes clothes - they are not totally like the body.

Maharal: R. Yanai commanded his children 'do not bury me in white clothing, lest I not merit [and I will be in Gehinom like a Chasan among mourners]! It says in Evel Rabasi that the garment that descends with him, it rises with him! This does not refer to the physical garment, rather, a garment that they make now, that he will rise in it in the future. R. Yanai commanded not to be buried in esteemed garments, lest he not rise in esteemed garments; if so, it is improper to be buried in esteemed garments. The garment that descends with him should be at the level of what will rise with him. And even if these are explained simply, the future clothing will be spiritual when physicality is removed in the future.

Iyun Yakov: The Havah Amina was that people will be revived naked, like the initial creation - Adam and Chavah were "Arumim... v'Lo Yisbosheshu" (Bereishis 2:25).

Why did Kaiser say 'you say [that the dead will live...]'? And why was his daughter adamant to answer first!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Binah l'Itim (1, Drush l'Chol ha'Mo'ed Pesach): Kaiser said, even if we believe in Techiyas ha'Mesim, we should not expound it in public, for many will not believe such an astounding matter. (Maharlbach said not to expound b'Rabim about Gilgulim, for people will not accept it; however, after the Ari Zal publicized it, one may.) She wanted to show that even women and simple people will accept it.

What was the question 'earth does not live!'?

Maharal: Kaiser thought that it is difficult to say that the dead will rise from earth. R. Gamliel answered him that the body is closer to earth than to water. If man was created from water (semen), all the more so it is proper that he be created from earth! Even though this is not according to nature nowadays, for man is formed in the womb, the future creation will be Divine. Man returns to earth, and earth receives him. Whatever receives something, that matter is in its power. It makes no difference if man drowned or was burned; he returns to be earth and the earth receives man; the dead are in the power of earth. The future creation from earth is more important than creation from water, for Adam ha'Rishon in Gan Eden was created from earth, and the dead that would be revived will be at a higher level than those who were created in the womb from semen.

Maharsha: The Kaiser did not believe what the Torah says "va'Yitzer Hash-m Elokim Es ha'Adam Afar Min ha'Adamah" (Bereishis 2:7). He believed that the world is Kadmon (always existed). Therefore, R. Gamliel answered him from what we see - formation from a putrid drop, which is like water. We can say similarly about the heretic who asked R. Ami.

Iyun Yakov: He held that we cannot learn from Adam, for he was created from earth of the Mizbe'ach or of Gan Eden. He asked that Stam earth cannot live. Yechezkel revived bones, and not earth - "ha'Sichyenah ha'Atzamos ha'Eleh" (37:3).

Why didn't Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael and R. Ami answer like Kaiser's daughter - Hash-m can make people out of a drop of semen, and all the more so out of earth!

Rashi: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael did not make this Kal v'Chomer. He merely gives a second version of what Kaiser's daughter said.

Maharsha: Rashi did not want to explain that the Tana made the Kal v'Chomer. Several verses teach Techiyas ha'Mesim; why do we need a Kal v'Chomer?! And why do we need a Kal v'Chomer for Techiyah from earth for one who believes in Moshe's Torah, that man was created from earth?! Rather, it is to answer heretics who do not believe in the Torah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One could reject - perhaps He can make a new form from earth¸ but He cannot make a form from a form that ruined. This is why after this, d'Vei R. Yishmael brought a Kal v'Chomer from glass Kelim - even something that was ruined can be fixed.

What is the Tikum for glass Kelim that broke?

Rashi: One can melt them and make new Kelim from them.

What is the Kal v'Chomer from glass Kelim?

Maharal: Man was created via Hash-m's Ru'ach not he is close to Hash-m. All the more so there is Tikun for him!

Etz Yosef citing Alshich: Glass is made via man's Ru'ach - after it is made, man has no connection to it. Even so, it can always be fixed. Hash-m's Ru'ach gives life to everything, and never ceases, like everything spiritual. All the more so, [man], who is made via His Ru'ach, can always be fixed!