How does "Guvrin Arbe'ah... Revi'a'ah Dame l'Var Elahin" teach that Tzadikim are greater than angels?

Rashi: An angel is called the fourth, after Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah.

Maharsha #1: The verse does not explicitly name the first three, but since it says that the fourth was an angel, we infer that the first three were people.

Maharsha #2: Tzadikim are called Elohim - "Ad ha'Elohim Yavo" (Shemos 22:8). An angel is called Bar Elahin.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Bamidbar Rabah (20:20) and Tanchuma expound, "ka'Es Ye'amer l'Yakov u'Yisrael Mah Pa'al Kel" (Bamidbar 23:23) - in the future, Yisrael will be closer to Hash-m than angels (so angels will ask Yisrael what Hash-m is doing). The Shlah explains, this was the angels' question [when Moshe ascended to receive the Torah] 'what is a [man] born to a woman Beinenu' - why is he between us and You? Yisrael are at the level of Aretz, which corresponds to Chochmah (the second Sefirah); angels correspond to Binah, the third Sefirah - "Hash-m b'Chochmah Yasad Aretz Konen Shamayim bi'Svunah" (Mishlei 3:19). When Yisrael's Neshamos return to their source, they are in front of angels (closer to Keser, the first Sefirah).

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2, citing AMaTZ: Why did the Gemara not learn from the verse in Chumash "ka'Es Ye'amer l'Yakov..."? That will be after Techiyas ha'Mesim; Tzadikim are greater in their death than in their lifetimes. Our verse teaches that they are greater than angels even in their lifetimes.

Why does it say "v'Lanu Boshes ha'Panim ka'Yom ha'Zeh"?

Maharsha: The day that they left the furnace, the nations hit Yisraelim on the faces, and said 'you have a G-d who does such miracles for you, and you bowed to the image?!'

How does "E'eleh b'Samar" show that Hash-m intended that Yisrael be full of Tzadikim?

Rashi: They should be full of Tzadikim like a date tree is full of dates. Yisrael are compared to a date tree - just like a date tree has only one heart... (Sukah 45b)

Iyun Yakov: Yir'as Shamayim is the only matter not bi'Ydei Shamayim.

Maharsha: He wanted that just like a date tree has only one heart, Yisrael will have only one heart to be Mekadesh Shem Shamayim, and not bow to the image.

Iyun Yakov: They are compared to Tamar, like we say in Sotah 10b, you (Yehudah) saved Tamar and her two sons (fetuses) from the fire - I will save three of your sons from the fire. According to R. Shmuel bar Nachmani, Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah were not from Yehudah. He explains that they were saved in the merit of Tamar.

What is the source to expound that Hash-m wanted to turn the entire world to night?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It says "Rochev", and it says "Omed"! Also, it should have said Ra'isi ba'Laylah - why does it say "Ra'isi Laylah"?

Why did Hash-m want to turn the entire world to night?

Rashi: It is because they bowed to the image.

What is the source to expound that Hash-m wanted to turn the entire world to blood?

Margoliyos ha'Yam citing Gilyonei ha'Shas: "Edom" is extra, for Stam horses are red (Rashi Bechoros Sof 6a).

Why did Hash-m want to turn the entire world to blood because they bowed to the image? When the Halachah is 'he must be killed and not transgress', and he transgressed, even though he was Mechalel Hash-m, he is exempt, due to Ones (YD 157)!

Iyun Yakov #1: He is exempt bi'Ydei Adam, but liable bi'Ydei Shamayim.

Iyun Yakov: If so, why is this not among the list of such matters (Bava Kama 55b-56a)? (NOTE: Even though it says there that there are more; the Beraisa listed only Chidushim, also this is a Chidush! - PF)

Iyun Yakov #2: Since they could have fled, and they did not, they were Chayav Misah even bi'Ydei Adam.

Why does the verse call Hash-m "Ish"?

Maharsha: Ish is Midas ha'Din. At Keri'as Yam Suf, Hash-m was Rachamim for Yisrael and Din for Egypt. Therefore, it says "Hash-m Ish Milchamah" - Hash-m (mercy) for Yisrael, and Ish Milchamah for Egypt. It adds Hash-m Shmo - it is proper to mention mercy first, for Hash-m is His name; Ish Milchamah is just a description. A Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 92:3) expounds "v'Kel Shakai YIten Lachem Rachamim Lifnei ha'Ish", i.e. Hash-m, which is written before Ish Milchamah... Here, Midas ha'Din rules over the entire world, to turn it to blood, He is called only Ish Milchamah, and not Hash-m.

Why was Hash-m assuaged after He looked at the act of Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah?

Maharal: Each had the Midos of one of the Avos, which are the foundation of the world. They corresponding to three names of Hash-m - Kel, Elokim and Hash-m. Shimon ha'Tzadik said that the world stands on three pillars - Torah, Avodah and Chesed. The Midos of these three Tzadikim correspond to them. Had all three not been there, the miracle would not have occurred. (NOTE: We find that Yehoshua Kohen Gadol was saved without other Tzadikim! Perhaps even though the Kohen Gadol represents Avodah, he encompasses all three Midos. - PF)

How do we learn from "v'Hu Omed Bein ha'Hadasim Asher ba'Metzulah"?

Rashi: Hash-m held Himself back in the merit of the Hadasim, i.e. Tzadikim - "va'Yhi Omen Es Hadasah (Esther 2:7). Tzulah is Bavel, which sits in Metzulah (the depth). Charavi is like "Charvu ha'Mayim" (dried).

Maharsha: This is like the opinion in Megilah 13a that her name was Esther; she is called Hadasah due to her virtue. Here it relies on what it says there, and conversely; this is common in the Gemara.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: They are compared to Hadasim, which are Avos - three leaves at one juncture (Sukah 32b)

How do we infer that white horses are a good sign in a dream?

Rashi: It is because red horses symbolize a curse.

Maharsha: Red is a sign of anger.

Maharsha: Since white is good in Nevu'ah, the same applies to a dream, for a dream is one part in 60 of Nevu'ah. In Berachos 56b, we say that a white horse is always a good sign. A red horse is a good sign if it is resting, but a bad sign if it is running.

What was the question 'to where did Rabanan go'?

Rashi: What happened to Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah after they left the furnace? They are not mentioned afterwards in Tanach!

Maharsha: Nebuchadnetzar should have appointed them to higher authority, like he did to Daniel.

What is the significance of dying due to Ayin ha'Ra?

Maharal: Daniel did not suffer from Ayin ha'Ra after being saved from the lions, for sometimes lions do not want to eat, but the nature of fire is to burn. Each Chacham explained according to his Midah. R. Eliezer's Midah was Din; wherever he put his eye, the matter was burned (Bava Metzi'a 59b).

Maharsha: This is like Rav said in Bava Metzi'a 107b, that 99% of all people die due to Ayin ha'Ra, and one percent normally.

Why did they drown in spit?

Rashi: Nochrim spit at Yisrael, and said 'you have a G-d who does such miracles for you, and you bowed to the image?!

NOTE: i.e. Nochrim despised the Yisraelim who had bowed. Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah merited Kidush Hash-m, but they were not at a high enough level to make a pure Kidush Hash-m without the negative result for other Yisre'elim. So I heard from R. C. T. Fogel. (PF)

Maharal: It cannot be that they literally drowned in spit. Rather, via them, other Yisraelim were disgraced. Even though the other Yisraelim sinned, a Tzadik is punished for his generation. They were the Klal and Ikar of Yisrael.

Maharsha: It is strange to die this way. Also, the Goyim spit at Yisrael, and the verses did not mention it! It seems that this is a parable. The Goyim spit at Yisrael, and shamed them. Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah died, to stop this disgrace via them.

How does the verse prove that Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah went to Eretz Yisrael?

Rashi: They were in front of the Kohen Gadol, i.e. in Eretz Yisrael.

Why does it say "Ki Anshei Mofes Hemah"? Also Yehoshua Kohen Gadol was saved from the fire!

Maharsha: They were cast in the fire only for the sake of a Mofes. Yehoshua was cast to punish him for his sons, who married women forbidden to them (NOTE: and he did not protest. - PF)

What is the question 'to where did Daniel go'?

Rashi: He was not thrown in the fire with Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah. Where was he?

Maharal: Where did he go after the miracle done for him?

Why did Nebuchadnetzar send Daniel to bring pigs from Egypt?

Rashi: They are big there; he wanted to raise them in Bavel.

How could Daniel go to Egypt? It says "Lo Sosifun Lashuv ba'Derech ha'Zeh Od"!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 10, citing Rif (Alfasi, Sof ha'Maseches): You may not return to dwell there, but you may return for business or to conquer the land.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 10, citing Chaim Sha'al (1:91:3): The Isur is only to go from Eretz Yisrael (Daniel went from Bavel), and only to remain permanently.

What was the answer 'he took small ones without their knowledge'?

Rashi: The Egyptians did not think that he took them for breeding.

Did the three take counsel together that Daniel go?!

Iyun Yakov: No - it means that all three wanted him to go.

Why did we need to say that Hash-m was concerned lest people think that Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah were saved in his merit? We could have said that Hash-m did not want him to be burned, like is proper for idolatry, just like Daniel was concerned for this!

Maharsha: If Daniel was liable, Hash-m would not have sent him, and he would have been burned. Daniel did not know [whether or not he was liable].

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We can say that Daniel was not liable, for he did not accept to be Nebuchadnetzar's god. Daniel was concerned lest sin cause [that in any case he will burned like is proper for idolatry].

Why does it say that Nebuchadnetzar sent Daniel, lest people say that he burned his own god? Perhaps he would not insist that Daniel bow to the image!

Maharsha: Ibn Ezra (Daniel 3:12) says that he did not bow, but those who informed on Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah feared to inform on him, for the king offered Korbanos to him. The Gemara disagrees, for the decree was that everyone [must bow]. Others did not consider Daniel Divine; Nebuchadnetzar would not have been able to save him from the people. (NOTE: We find that Daryavesh did not want to throw Daniel to the lions for praying to Hash-m, but the officers forced him (Daniel Perek 6)! - PF)

Why does it say that he parched them like grain?

Maharal: He did not intend to burn them, only to test whether the fire will rule over them. Once they died, he removed them before their bodies burned.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Their bodies were only singed, and they died. They were not burned due to the merit of Yehoshua.

Why did Nebuchadnetzar ask Yehoshua from Avraham, who was alone and he was totally saved, but he did not say so to Achav and Tzidkiyah?

Iyun Yakov #1: It says in Pesachim (118) 'Hashem said, I am Yachid (alone) in My world, and Avraham is Yachid - it is proper for Yachid to save Yachid. They said, we are two - Hash-m Himself will not save us, only via an angel. For this, we need more merits. The Kohen Gadol is an individual in his generation, therefore Nebuchadnetzar asked him.

Iyun Yakov #2: Nebuchadnetzar did not ask them from Avraham, lest they answer him like Turainus was told 'Nimrod was a proper king, therefore a miracle was done via him (Avraham was saved from the fire. You are not a proper king - Ta'anis 18!) Therefore, he asked them from Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah, which proved that also he was a proper king. (NOTE: This does not answer why he asked only Yehoshua, but not Achav and Tzidkiyahu! - PF)

Why was the Satan on his right?

Maharsha: Yehoshua was in front of Mal'ach Hash-m (an angel of mercy). The Satan was on his right to reverse mercy to Midas ha'Din, and prosecute that his sons married women Pasul to Kehunah.

What do we learn from "Ud Mutzal me'Esh"?

Rashi: Just like a spit is singed, he was singed.

Maharsha: The fire (Midas ha'Din) did not rule over him.

Yehoshua said that since the fire was permitted to kill the Resha'im, it affected also him. Rav Papa said that it is because his sons married women forbidden to Kohanim, and he did not protest!

Rashi: Yehoshua did not give the real reason.

Maharsha: Yehoshua answered truthfully - if two dry spits are with a wet one, they will cause it to be burned. The Gemara asked why he was punished to be thrown in the fire with Resha'im.

Etz Yosef: Initially he did not say so (rather, because he was alone), because also for Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah, the fire ruled over others (those who threw them in). Because they were three, even their garments were not singed, even though the fire ruled over others. When fire does not rule over others, even one's merit suffices.

Iyun Yakov: The Gemara asked why he was punished to have the Satan on his right.

How do dirty garments hint to marrying women forbidden to Kehunah?

Maharsha: They are a metaphor for profaning Kedushas Kehunah - Kohanim are distinguished from the nation via Bigdei Kehunah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 18, citing Gilyonei ha'Shas: Chidushei ha'Ran (Rosh Hashanah 8a) says that "Lavshu" Is a euphemism for Bi'ah. The garments were dirty, because the women were Pasul to Kehunah. They were attributed to Yehoshua, for he did not protest.

What is literally Shesh Se'orim, and why is this unreasonable?

Rashi: It is six barley seeds. We do not give to an Oni at the granary less than half a Kav of barley (Pe'ah 8:5).

Maharsha: Even if you will say that it is six sheaves, surely he would not give so little!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Even before asking 'surely he would not give so little', it was difficult. Why does it say "Shesh ha'Se'orim" with the prefix Hei? It is not needed, for it says "ha'Eleh"!

Why could we not say that he gave to her six Lugim, or six Kavim?

Rashi: We do not bring a Midah less than a Se'ah in the granary. (NOTE: Six Kavim are a Se'ah! However, since the smallest measure is a Se'ah, surely "Shesh" refers to six Sa'im. - PF)

Maharsha: Presumably, if it is not literal, six refers to the common Shi'ur. We cite "Shesh ha'Se'orim ha'Eleh Nosan Li", and not the earlier verse "va'Yamed Shesh ha'Se'orim" (Rus 3:15), for we conclude that he gave six seeds; measuring does not apply to this.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (2): Lugim and Kavim are masculine. It says "Shesh" (feminine).

What is the significance of six descendants, each of whom will receive six blessings?

Maharal: Malchus Beis David had to come from Mo'av. Bo'az hinted to Rus that she will have six descendants, each with six attributes. Sons are from the power of the letter Vav of Hash-m's great name, as people of understanding know. Therefore, each had six Berachos.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: From "Shesh ha'Se'orim" we should expound six descendants, or a descendant who will receive six blessings. How can we expound both? Rather, initially he measured for her six Sa'im, but she would not carry all of them at once. This is why it says above "va'Yamed", and below it says "Shesh ha'Se'orim" - the prefix Hei hints to the barley mentioned above. In addition to them, he gave to her six barley seeds; therefore, we are able to expound two matters of six.

Anaf Yosef: We can say that he gave to her only six seeds, for a hint. Even though she did not understand, she accepted [this paltry gift] happily, therefore she merited that the hint be fulfilled.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (1): An average man can carry five Sa'im - all the more so a woman cannot carry six! Bechor Shor says that we give to an Oni a Kav of barley at the granary. A Se'ah is six Kavim, and he gave to her six - this hints to six six-fold Berachos.

Iyun Yakov, Anaf Yosef #3: We expound two matters of six, for it says Shesh Se'orim twice.

Anaf Yosef #2: Se'orim is written with a Vav, unlike "Kemach Se'orim" of Sotah; this teaches another matter of six.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (4): Sefer Chasidim (515) says that twins are born from one drop of semen, just like six sheaves come from one seed. If so, six seeds hint to six descendants, each of whom will have six Berachos. Barley hints to Tzadikim ("Chomer Se'orim v'Lesech Se'orim" refers to the 45 Tzadikim on whom the world stands - Chulin 92a). Bereishis Rabah 97 says that an extra Vav in Nachshon hints to six descendants, each of whom will have six Midos.

How can Rav Yehudah say that the entire verse was Leshon ha'Ra? All of it praises David!

Rashi: Do'eg praised David to make Sha'ul envy him.

Maharsha: We expound so, for they requested "Ish Yode'a Menagen b'Kinor." Do'eg said that David is "Yode'a Nagen", but did not say b'Kinor, and he added many attributes that were not requested - "Gibor Chayil..." Therefore we expound all of them to teach about David's Chochmah. He intended for Leshon ha'Ra - anyone who praises his colleague too much, he comes to his detriment (Bava Basra 164b). (NOTE: There, it means that he or others will say 'however, in this respect he is not so good...' Here, he said all of it to arouse envy! - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): What is the source to say that he said this with bad intent? Since it does not say who said so, only we learn from "v'Sham Ish.. u'Shmo Do'eg", and there he spoke Leshon ha'Ra about David, presumably, also here.

What is the source that the Halachah always follows David, but not Sha'ul?

Rashi: We say in Eruvin (53a) David was Gali Masechta - it says about him "Yere'echa Yir'uni v'Yismechu" (people will delight, for he gets the correct Halachah). Sha'ul was not Gali Masechta - "uv'Chol Asher Yifneh Yarshi'a".

Maharsha: Meforshim say that "[uv'Chol Asher Yifneh] Yarshi'a" refers to success in war (he does evil to the enemy). This is unlike the simple meaning. Rasha is always one who transgresses Torah! There is no verse uv'Chol Asher Yifneh Yatzli'ach.

Anaf Yosef: Sha'ul succeeded in war because he was great in Torah, and he had other attributes. "Ben Shanah Sha'ul b'Malcho" - he was like a baby without sin (Yoma 22b). Perhaps regarding David, we rely on the verse "va'Yhi David l'Chol Derachav Maskil" (Shmuel I, 18:14); Maskil is like Yatzli'ach. Margoliyos ha'Yam (9) - the Targum of Maskil is Matzli'ach. (NOTE: The Gemara changed the verse to resemble the verse about Sha'ul. - PF)

The verse lists seven Berachos for Mashi'ach!

Maharsha: "V'Nachah Alav Ru'ach Hash-m" is the Klal; the following six Berachos explain it.

What is the significance of 'Hashem loaded Mashi'ach with Mitzvos and afflictions like a Reichayim'?

Rashi: "Va'Haricho b'Yir'as Hash-m" is an expression of Reichayim.

Maharal: "Va'Haricho" is similar to Reichayim, but it is not the same root, for the Mem in Reichayim is from the root.

Maharal: Many texts say only afflictions. Those that say also Mitzvos, this was to purify his Nefesh. Both Mitzvos and afflictions purify the Nefesh. Mashi'ach's Nefesh is separated from physicality; the physical world opposes him greatly. This is when this world did not reach the highest level.

Maharsha: He loaded him with Mitzvos, via which he merited to be the redeemer. He loaded him also with afflictions, to bear the sins of Yisrael, like we say below (98a) that he is sitting among poor Cholim (lepers).

What is 'Morach v'Da'in'?

Rashi: "Va'Haricho" teaches that he does not judge based on what he sees and hears, rather, via smell (he senses what is the verdict).

Maharsha: Sight and hearing are physical; it is common to err about them. Smell is spiritual, from the Neshamah - "Kol ha'Neshamah Tehalel Kah" refers to smell - it does not err.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Above, Rashi said that the text does not say 'and it says "va'Haricho"'! That was according to R. Alexandri, that it refers to Yir'as Hash-m. That is not a Berachah from Hash-m - everything is bi'Ydei Shamayim, except for Yir'as Shamayim! Here, Rashi explains according to Rava; it teaches that he is 'Morach and judges' - this is a Berachah from Hash-m.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Bnei Yisaschar: Smell was not blemished via the sin of Eitz ha'Da'as; Adam ate from it, but did not smell it. Therefore, the Neshamah benefits from it. We needed a source to bless for scents (Berachos 35b); one would have thought that since smell was not blemished, no Berachah is needed to fix it.

Maharal: Smell and judgment are the same - both are from Midas ha'Din. One sees and hears even matters that are not proper. One does not accept a bad smell. So Mashi'ach will not accept a false matter. Also taste, one does not accept a bad taste, but it is not a parable for judgment, which is intellectual; taste is physical.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Heichal ha'Ba'al Shem Tov (28 p.108): Smell reaches the source of things. It revives one who fainted, for it reaches the Nefesh. Hearing testimony and the intellect give a superficial picture. Mashi'ach will know what truly happened via smell. He will also be able to detect hidden evil in Tzadikim, and be able to advocate for Resha'im, for he sees the background and reasons that caused them to sin.

Etz Yosef citing Melei ha'Omer: Mishpat is easy for him like smelling, which has no exertion. There is Mishpat in which the two litigants truly desire to know the Din. Ben David will come only in a generation that is totally worthy or totally guilty. If they are not worthy, Hash-m will empower a king whose decrees are harsh like Haman's (Megilah 13b), so they will [repent] and be totally worthy. Chachamim saw that Bar Koziva could not judge like this, for one of the litigants was a Rasha, i.e. the generation was not totally worthy. This proved that Bar Koziva did not have Ru'ach [Hash-m].

Who was Bar Koziva?

Rashi: He was Echad (one of the) kings of Beis Hordus.

Maharatz Chayos: This cannot be! He was 52 years after Churban Bayis Sheni; R. Akiva supported him.

Ya'avetz: The text of Rashi should say Acher Malchei Beis Hordus.

Margoliyos ha'Yam: One of the kings of Beis Hordus [who disappointed people] was nicknamed Bar Koziva, like the leader of the army in Beitar. Similarly, Bar Kochba was nicknamed 'Yo'av ben Tzeruyah', and a large soldier (Ben Bati'ach - Kelim 17:12) was nicknamed Og Melech ha'Bashan.

Why did they kill Bar Koziva?

Ramah: He said that he is Mashi'ach, and he can Morach v'Da'in. This was false; a Navi Sheker is Chayav Misah. (NOTE: Misas Beis Din ceased even before the Churban! Perhaps they killed him for Hora'as Sha'ah, since he was a Navi Sheker, who should be executed. - PF)

Be'er Sheva citing Eichah Rabasi 2:4: The nations killed him. Yad David - our Gemara is difficult. Why did they wait two and a half years? They should have requested a sign immediately. The Ra'avad says that this was the sign that they requested (Morach v'Da'in)! Also, after they killed him, why did they not make Shalom with Adriyanus, and hand over the city to him? Then, Adriyanus would not have killed all of them! It seems that they did not request a sign. Rather, they saw that he is not Morach v'Da'in, for he killed R. Eliezer ha'Moda'i. (Yerushalmi Ta'anis 4:5 - a Kusi feigned to whisper to R. Eliezer, and told Bar Kochba that R. Eliezer said that he will hand over the city to the enemy. R. Eliezer said, I did not speak with a Kusi. Bar Kochba did not believe him, and kicked him; he died.) Perhaps then, it was too late to make Shalom.

What is the meaning of 'they did not have even k'Rivda d'Chuslisa'?

Rashi: They did not have even a wound from bloodletting, they did not need to let blood. (NOTE: This was a standard cure for illness. - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We expound this, for it says "Ein Bahem Kol Mum." Also, there is a superfluous Aleph in Mum, to expound me'Umah (from a doctor).

Maharshal: They did not have a mark even the size of wound from bloodletting (it is tiny). Maharsha - also Rav Sadya Gaon says so. According to Rashi, it should have said Rivda, without the prefix Kaf (like)!

Why does R. Shmuel say that Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah are from other Shevatim? They are among Rus' six descendants who received six blessings each!

Rashi: He argues with the conclusion above (NOTE: that she will have six descendants who received six blessings each. Rashi assumes that we discuss pure paternal lineage, like for David and Mashi'ach, for Rus could have descendants in other Shevatim through females. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Midrash Rabah counts Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah as one, and adds also Chizkiyah and Yoshiyah [like the conclusion above].

Maharal: If they were from Yehudah, the verse should have listed them before Daniel, for they were greater than him; for they were Nevi'im, and he was not.

What is the literal meaning of "Sarisim"?

Rashi: They were castrated. Kings used to castrate men so they will not marry, and they will be available to serve the king. He argues with the opinion that they ascended to Eretz Yisrael and fathered children.

Maharsha: We find "Sarisim" regarding Malchei Yisrael. Presumably, they did not castrate their servants so they will be available to serve the king! Also, it is unreasonable to expound there that idolatry was castrated in their days. Rather, it means servants. Rashi did not want to explain so here, for this was a Nevu'ah of Chizkiyah's punishment, that his descendants will be Sarisim in the king's palace. This is not a punishment - it is esteem! Rather, they will be castrated. Rav needed to admit that "la'Sarisim Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai" means that idolatry was castrated in their days. He could have explained so also here. What forced him to say that here it means castration, and there it refers to both of them? He holds that it is not a punishment that idolatry was castrated in their days.

Yad David: To say that idolatry will be castrated in their days is consolation. To say that they will be officers is neither pain nor consolation.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (16): In about 10 other places, we find that Rav said 'Mamash' (it is literally true), and Shmuel expounded differently.

Why do we expound that idolatry was castrated in their days?

Rashi: It became known to all that idolatry is futile.

Maharal: The simple meaning of Sarisim is servants. They were not truly castrated; it is not proper to say that Tzadikim would be blemished. The one who says that they were castrated, this was to fulfill the decree "your children will be Sarisim in the Heichal of Melech Bavel."

Maharsha: This was a Nevu'ah of punishment, that they will be tested and cast into a furnace and a lion's den. Similarly, "la'Sarisim Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai" - they would not be called Sarisim of Hash-m if not that idolatry was castrated in their days.

Iyun Yakov: It says "la'Sarisim Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai... Shem Olam Eten Lo Asher Lo Yikares." Why is this reward promised to them? Rather, idolatry was castrated in their days. Since it says "v'Ibadtem Es Shmam", Midah k'Neged Midah, their name will endure forever.

Why does it say "v'Nasati Lahem... Yad va'Shem"?

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: There are two benefits from children. Yad - to rely on them in his lifetime, like we say 'does this woman (myself) not need a stick for her hand [to rely on in her old age]?!' (Yevamos 65b) Va'Shem is after death - his name should not be wiped out, like it says about Yibum "v'Lo Yimacheh Shmo." Therefore, the verse promises Sarisim a Shem better than children.

Why do we expound "Shem Olam Eten Lo" to discuss Sefer Daniel?

Rashi: It is singular - Lo (to him), and not to them.

Maharsha: This excludes Nechemyah ben Chachalyah, who is Zerubavel (38a). Also he was among Sarisei ha'Melech. (NOTE: Ramah there asks that Zerubavel was the son of Yechanyah. Also, verses list both Zerubavel and Nechemyah! Margoliyas ha'Yam there, citing Chida, answers that 'ben Chachalyah' means 'the son of one who was Chayav Kelayah (liable to be destroyed)', and a different Nechemyah was listed with Zerubavel. - PF) Daniel's Sefer is called on his name, but Nechemyah's is not; it is called Ezra.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps Hash-m promised this to Daniel, lest he fear that he is considered idolatry (because Nebuchadnetzar worshipped him), about which it says "v'Shem Elohim Acherim Lo Sazkiru v'Ibadtem Es Shmam." Really, Daniel was not liable; he did not want to be worshipped. Therefore, he received an eternal name.

Rav Nachman explained, it says "Tov mi'Banim umi'Banos" because the children that they hahd already died. How will he explain "Hen Ani Etz Yavesh"?

Maharsha: I am dry (bereft) of the children that I had.

Did Nechemyah write everything in Sefer Ezra?!

Rashi: He wrote the majority.

Why was it improper to say "Zachrah Li Elokai l'Tovah"?

Maharsha: Nechemyah requested to be remembered for good due to his deeds. Really, all man's deeds do not suffice to bring to him merit, if not for Hash-m's mercy.

Anaf Yosef, Ya'aros Devash 1:15: Also Nechemyah requested mercy, like David! However, he said Elokai (Midas ha'Din). According to Din, man does not deserve reward - "Mi Hikdimani va'Ashalem" (Iyov 41:3). Man cannot do any good deed without Hash-m's help! Amidst Chesed, Hash-m considers it as if man himself did good via his choice. David requested from Midas ha'Rachamim - "Zachreni Hash-m."

Iyun Yakov: 'If you learned much Torah, do not credit yourself, for you were created to fulfill Torah and Mitzvos!' (Avos 2:8).

Why was the punishment for denigrating the earlier leaders that his Sefer is not called by his name?

Iyun Yakov: He wanted that there will not be a remembrance of the early leaders - therefore, he will not have a remembrance via his Sefer being called on his name. (NOTE: Did he truly want to remove remembrance of the Rishonim? Perhaps he merely was not careful, and aggrandized himself over them! - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam (19): The Ari Zal said that Nechemyah was [a Gilgul of] Bas Sheva's first son, who died before Bris Milah and never received a name; so his Sefer did not receive his name. The Chida points out that the Gematriyos of Sefer and Shem are the same. Recently, his Sefer became called on his name; he already received his punishment for saying "Zachrah..."

Daf Al ha'Daf: Even though the division of Sefer Ezra into two (Ezra and Nechemyah) was via Goyim, via Hashgachah this was accepted in Yisrael, after Nechemyah's sin was fixed. (NOTE: Notzrim divided also Shmuel, Melachim and Divrei ha'Yamim into two Seforim, and divided all of Tanach into Perakim. Chachamim found their division useful in forced debates, and it became rampant in Yisrael. (Ohr Yisrael (Monsey) 5758 12, p.144) - PF)

What is the source that Nechemyah discussed Daniel? Surely Daniel did not impose taxes on people in Eretz Yisrael before the Galus - there was a king! We do not find that he returned to Eretz Yisrael after coming to Galus!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps Nechemyah meant that the earlier officers in Bavel did so.

How does the verse teach that Daniel was greater than Nechemyah?

Rashi: It says that he was greater than Nevi'im. All the more so he was greater than Nechemyah!

Maharsha: The Gemara implies that Daniel was not a Navi. This explains why his Sefer is in Kesuvim, and not in Nevi'im. We must say that his visions were with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, and not prophecy. Perhaps just like Daniel was greater than Nevi'im, also Nechemyah was greater than Nevi'im! We have no source for this; for Daniel, it says that he saw, and they did not. In Megilah (3a), Rashi says that Daniel was a Navi, just he was never given a Nevu'ah to tell to Yisrael. If so, we can say that his visions were Nevu'ah. However, if he was a Navi, the Gemara should have said simply, in this way he was greater than Nechemyah! (NOTE: Perhaps also Nechemyah was a Navi, just he was never given a Nevu'ah to tell to Yisrael. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: It says in Megilah (14a) that Daniel was a Navi! Rashi there said that the text must be changed to say Shemayah in place of Daniel.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (94a, 1): "La'Navi ha'Yom Yikarei Lefanim ha'Ro'eh" (Shmuel I, 9:9) -teaches why they called Shmuel "ha'Ro'eh", and not ha'Navi. Before he fulfilled his mission as a Navi (to anoint Sha'ul), he is not called Navi.

Iyun Yakov: He was greater than Mal'achi, who is Ezra (Megilah 15). It says several times in Sefer Ezra that Ezra was greater than Nechemyah - "Ezra Hechin Levavo" (7:10), and he was the leader. All the more so, Daniel was greater than Nechemyah!

What is the source that the people with Daniel were Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi?

Maharsha: It says that they did not see. This implies that they were proper to see prophetic visions. The only Nevi'im we find in that generation were Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi.

We could ask about the verse itself, why were they afraid? Why did the Gemara ask only now?

Iyun Yakov: We could have said that Ru'ach Ra'ah scared them, like it scared Sha'ul. However, now that we said that they were Nevi'im, who had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, it is difficult!

What is Mazal?

Maharsha: Rashi (Megilah 3a) says that it is the angel appointed over each person.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kedushas Levi on the six Zechiros: Sometimes Simchah suddenly falls on a person, and he does not know why. It is because they mention him above; he does not see, but his Mazal sees.

Why may one recite "Shma Yisrael..." to protect himself? One may not heal himself with Divrei Torah!

Maharsha: Even though he was already scared, this is called protection (and not healing), which is permitted, like it says in Shevu'os (15b).