What is the meaning of "Akut b'Dor"?

Rashi: I will take Yisrael and rule over them. "Akut" hints to a Dor Katan, unlike previous Doros. Presumably, this is the generation of Mashi'ach, in which will be great changes. The simple meaning refers to Dor ha'Midbar, but since it says Akut (future), we expound it to be a prophecy for the future.

Maharsha: The simple meaning refers to Mashi'ach! Before this, it says "ha'Yom Im b'Kolo Sishma'u", i.e. then Mashi'ach will come (98a). After this, it says "Al Takshu Levavchem ki'Mrivah...; Asher Nasuni Avoseichem" - do not test Me like Dor ha'Midbar did.

Why is the special king ("Melech Echad") Mashi'ach?

Rashi: He is [most] esteemed.

Maharsha: He will be the only king in this world. Even David ha'Melech will be only Nasi under him.

How do we learn three generations from "Yira'ucha Im Shemesh v'Lifnei Yare'ach Dor Dorim"?

Rashi: "Im Shemesh" is with Mashi'ach, about whom it says "Lifnei Shemesh Yinun Shmo." "V'Lifnei Yare'ach" - before Malchus Beis David, which is compared to the moon - "k'Yare'ach Yikon Olam." Dor is one generation; Dorim is two generations.

Maharsha: "Yira'ucha Im Shemesh" is expounded to discuss Tefilah at sunrise (Berachos 9b). In the days of Mashi'ach, Yir'as Hash-m will be in the world in Tefilah. Malchus Beis David was not complete for three generations; it was split in the days of Rechavam, the third generation. In the future, it will be complete for three generations.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 4 citing Perush ha'Mishnayos on our Mishnah: Mashi'ach will die, and his son and grandson will reign.

What is the basis of the argument about the duration of Yemos ha'Mashi'ach?

Maharal: R. Eliezer holds that Mashi'ach is merely one who will take Yisrael from Galus. Afterwards, Hash-m Himself will conduct Yisrael. From leaving Galus until serenity will be 40 years, like from Yetzi'as Mitzrayim until serenity at the end of the journeys in the Midbar was 40 years. The one who says 70 years, like one king, the verse does not make Tzur dependent on Melech ha'Mashi'ach. It does not pertain to Mashi'ach! Rather, Tzur will be forgotten like the days of the special king (Mashi'ach), who has a proper reign. No one is as proper to reign as he is! His reign must be 70 years; if not, it would be lacking. The one who says three generations - this is like one generation, "Li ul'Nini ul'Nechdi." Until this is one kingship; less than this is Chaser.

Why do we learn the duration of Mashi'ach from the Churban of Tzur?

Maharsha: Tzur (of Edom) was filled from the Churban of Yerushalayim. "Imal'ah ha'Charavah" - when this one rises, the other falls (Pesachim 42b).

Why did R. Hillel say that there is no Mashi'ach for Yisrael?

Rashi: He holds that Hash-m Himself will redeem them and rule over them.

Ramah: If so, how could he say 'they already consumed it in the days of Chizkiyah'? Surely it will be better when we are directly under Hash-m! (NOTE: Perhaps Rashi holds like Anaf Yosef, that 'they already consumed it in the days of Chizkiyah' means that Zechus Avos ended. - PF)

Maharal: If so, why did Rav Yosef say 'Hashem should pardon him!'? We say so also elsewhere, about anyone who says something that seems to contradict a verse. The one who says 40 years or three generations, what will be afterwards? After Yemos ha'Mashi'ach finish, Hash-m will conduct them. (So R. Hillel holds that Hash-m Himself will redeem them. Heaven forbid, he did not deny Mashi'ach!) Or, He will pour His Ru'ach on all flesh, and all will be Chachamim who know Torah. R. Hillel did not hold that all the Nevu'os were said about Chizkiyah. They were not all in his days! Rather, the level of Mashi'ach is special - Hash-m will make his haters fall in front of him. This already happened in the days of Chizkiyah!

Anaf Yosef citing Ir Binyamin Sheni and Toras ha'Olah: Rashi (98b) says that he holds that Chizkiyah was Mashi'ach. Hash-m should pardon R. Hillel, for he leaves room for people to err. Chachamim already expounded "l'Marbeh ha'Misrah" - Hash-m wanted to make Chizkiyah Mashi'ach, but Midas ha'Din protested, for he did not sing Shirah (94a). 'They already consumed it in the days of Chizkiyah' means that Zechus Avos ended. Since Chachamim outnumbered R. Hillel and rejected his words, one may not say that he holds like him. Teshuvas Chasam Sofer 356 elaborated about this.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Teshuvas Chasam Sofer YD 356: One must say like Rashi. Why did Rav Yosef ask from "Oni v'Rochev Al Chamor", which one could reject, that it refers to Nechemyah, like the Ramban wrote at the end of Shir ha'Shirim? He should have asked from "Yetze'u Mayim Chayim mi'Yerushalayim" (Zecharyah 14:8)! Rather, surely R. Hillel agrees that there will be Ge'ulah. In any case, we do not hold like him, and one who says like him is a Kofer. R. Eliezer says that for Bris Milah on Shabbos, we cut trees... to make a knife...; the Halachah does not follow him, and one who does so is Chayav Sekilah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5 citing Chidushei ha'Ran: Surely R. Hillel did not mean that Yisrael will not leave Galus! Rather, he diminishes Yemos ha'Mashi'ach. Mashi'ach will not need to conquer the nations. Rather, immediately after they leave Galus, Kevod Hash-m will be seen on them, and the dead will live and enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah. 'They already consumed it in the days of Chizkiyah' means that the best days of this world were in his days, unlike Rav and Shmuel, who said (98b) that they were in the days of David or Moshe.

Iyun Yakov: His opinion was put in the Gemara so people will despair from Ge'ulah - it comes only via Hesech Da'as (97a).

Why should Yemos ha'Mashi'ach be 40 years, like the years in the Midbar?

Maharsha: Yisrael should have entered Yisrael immediately [after leaving Har Sinai]. Due to the Meraglim, they delayed 40 years, with Inuy and hunger. Hash-m will fill (the 40 years of good that they lost), for Hash-m's Midah Tovah never returns without fulfillment. Likewise, R. Dosa holds that the 400 years of Galus Mitzrayim were due to Avraham's question "ba'Meh Eda"; if not, he and his seed would have received Eretz Yisrael immediately. The days of Mashi'ach will compensate for the 400 years of good that were lost.

What is the source that "ki'Ymos Anisanu" are the years of affliction in Egypt? Perhaps it is Galus Edom!

Maharal: Inuy Mitzrayim has a known limit; the length of Galus Edom is not known. Also, the latter is called Galus; Inuy was only in Egypt - "v'Inu Osam Arba Me'os Shanah." So will be the days of Simchah. If not, Ra would exceed Tov.

NOTE: The entire stay in Egypt was only 210 years! One opinion holds that through the harshness of the Shibud, it was like 400 years. All the more so, the great good that will be in Yemos ha'Mashi'ach can be considered like 400 years in a shorter time! (PF)

How does Rebbi learn 365 years from "Yom Nakam b'Libi u'Shnas Ge'ulai Ba'ah"?

Rashi: It is like the day of vengeance of the Meraglim - a year for each day [that they toured Eretz Yisrael], "Yom la'Shanah Yom la'Shanah." So the year of My redeemed will come, a year for each day. Some texts say 365,000 years, for "Elef Shanim b'Einecha k'Yom."

Maharsha: I say that the verse discusses the vengeance against Edom - Mi Zeh Ba me'Edom." It will be a year for each day [of the year], like the Meraglim's punishment.

Iyun Yakov: Each later Tana gives a larger Shi'ur. This supports the opinion that Rebbi says 365,000 years.

Maharal: The final Ge'ulah's relation to the first Ge'ulah will be like the sun's relation to the moon. The moon illuminates, and then darkens. So after the first Ge'ulah, there was darkness of Galus. The final Ge'ulah will be constant, like the sun, which does not change. Therefore, the days of Mashi'ach will be 365 years, corresponding to the days of the sun. Shmos Rabah (15) expounds "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" - before Hash-m took Yisrael out of Egypt, he informed them that their kingship will last only 30 generations, like a month is 30 days. The moon begins to illuminate on the first day, and increases until it is full on the 15th, and then wanes, and on the 30th, it is not seen. So Yisrael were 15 generations from Avraham until Shlomo. Avraham began to illuminate... Because the moon has light each day by itself, therefore there are 30 generations corresponding to it, and not 30 years, for each generation is by itself. The final Ge'ulah will be 365 years (for it will not cease).

Why do these Chachamim argue about the duration of Yemos ha'Mashi'ach? We do not learn any Halachos from this!

Iyun Yakov: It is in order to understand the meaning of the verses.

What is the meaning of 'I revealed it to My heart, but not to My limbs'?

Rashi: I did not say a word with My mouth, that My limbs would be able to hear it. It was hidden in My heart.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 9 citing Ramah: Surely Hash-m, who has no limits, is not physical and does not have limbs! All such expressions are Meshalim - Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam. Man's thoughts depend on his heart, so thought is called Lev; a fool without understanding is called "Chaser Lev." Speech depends on the limbs.

Maharal: The Ketz does not depend on Hash-m's To'arim (descriptions, i.e. Midos). Rather, it is due to His own Emes. The Midos are called limbs. Just like one acts via his limbs, so He acts via His Midos. Reish Lakish disagrees, for then the Ketz is too hidden, and it is too long.

Etz Yosef citing the Vilna Gaon on Yeshayah: Lev he'Edah are the Chachamim who learn written Torah, which is sealed, like the heart. Peh he'Edah are those who learn oral Torah; the mouth reveals what is in the heart. This was not revealed to the Peh - it was not given for oral Torah to explain this. Perhaps also here, the heart is sealed, like written Torah, and the limbs are exposed, like oral Torah.

Etz Yosef: Just like the heart gives life to all the limbs, so written Torah gives hints to all oral Torah. There is nothing that the Torah does not hint to. Here, it was not revealed to the limbs (oral Torah).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing She'eris Nasan: Tikunei Zohar 21 says that Tzadikim are called the limbs of the Shechinah. Some are like the eyes, and there is a Tzadik who is like the heart. Hash-m revealed Sod ha'Ge'ulah only to that Tzadik, but not to other Tzadikim, who are like other limbs.

Why did Reish Lakish say 'it was revealed to His heart, but not to the angels'?

Ramah #1: Hash-m said the words to Himself; even angels did not hear.

Ramah #2: Hash-m sometimes informs angels without speech; this He did not reveal even without speech.

Maharal: It does not depend on the angels; He will not redeem via an angel. Mashi'ach said 'I am coming now', for from his side, there is no blockage; only the recipient is not prepared - "ha'Yom Im b'Kolo Sishma'u." The Ketz is the recipient's preparation.

Maharsha: This is like the angel told Daniel "Sesumim va'Chasumim ha'Devarim Ad Ein Ketz" (Daniel 12:9).

How do we learn 7000 years from "u'Msos Chasan Al Kalah Yasis Alayich Elokayich"?

Rashi: A Chasan rejoices seven days with his Kalah. Hash-m's day is 1000 years.

Maharal: It is proper that a Chasan have a complete Simchah with his wife. Therefore, it is seven days; seven is a complete number. So Hash-m's Simchah with Yisrael will be complete - 7000 years.

Maharsha: It will be based on Hash-m's day, for in the world to come the reward is based on the Giver, who is unlimited, and not based on the recipient - "Secharo Ito u'Fe'ulaso Lefanav."

Iyun Yakov: Even though Yisrael in Galus are called "k'Almanah", and a Chasan rejoices over a widow only three days, at the time of Ge'ulah they will return to youth like a Nesher. Their law will be like a Besulah - "Ki Yiv'al Bachur Besulah Yiv'aluch Banayich u'Msos Chasan..."

Avimi says that Yemos ha'Mash i'ach will be 7000 years. Must he argue with those who say that the entire world is 6000 years (97a)?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11 citing Mishmeres Kehunah: No. The days will elongate. (Zohar Vayishlach 172 says like this.)

What is the source that "ki'Ymei ha'Shamayim Al ha'Aretz" refers to Yemos ha'Mashi'ach?

Rashi: Yisrael were not in their land so long. Rather, it must refer to when Mashi'ach will come.

Maharsha: Before this, it says "Asher Nishbati la'Avoseichem Lases Lahem." We learned from here Techiyas ha'Mesim (90b) - it does not say 'Lachem', rather, "Lahem." (He will revive the Avos and give Eretz Yisrael to them.)

Why should Yemos ha'Mashi'ach last as long as from creation until now?

Maharal: Yemos ha'Mashi'ach is a world unto itself. Therefore, it is equal to from creation until Mashi'ach. Even though Shmuel said that the only difference between this world and Yemos ha'Mashi'ach is Shibud Malchuyos, his words 'between this world and Yemos ha'Mashi'ach' imply that each is a world unto itself.

Maharsha: 'Until now' means until Mashi'ach. Yemos ha'Mashi'ach should not be less than this world, also according to the opinion that it is from the flood until Mashi'ach

How do we learn from "Ki Mei Noach Zos Li Asher Nishbati"?

Rashi: We read this like ki'Ymei Noach - like the time from Noach (the flood, until Mashi'ach), I swore not to destroy My world.

Maharal: The world after the flood is like a new world, and so will be Yemos ha'Mashi'ach.

Why did no eye see the world to come?

Rashi: It has no end.

Etz Yosef: In Shabbos (63a) Rashi explained that the Nevi'im's eye (prophecy) did not see it.

Maharal: The Nevu'os were for Yemos ha'Mashi'ach. Conduct will not be like in this natural world, for Hash-m will have total connection to the world - "ba'Yom ha'Hu Yihyeh Hash-m Echad u'Shmo Echad." His name will be pronounced like it is written. He will not conduct it via nature. Shmuel disagrees, and holds that it will be natural.

See Bi'urei Agadah for Brachos 34:2.

How can Shmuel say that the only difference between this world and Yemos ha'Mashi'ach is Shibud Malchuyos? Now there is no Yerushalayim or Beis ha'Mikdash!

Etz Yosef citing Tosfos Shabbos 63a: He did not mean that there is no other difference (only that nature will continue).

Why can absolute Tzadikim not stand where Ba'alei Teshuvah stand?

Rashi: Ba'alei Teshuvah have more strength.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: This is because they tasted sin, so it is very hard to refrain, and guard Mitzvos. Therefore, their reward is greater.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Arvei Nachal (Vayechi): Here we discuss one who is a Tzadik, but he considers himself a sinner and is constantly repenting. He is also a Ba'al Teshuvah! Absolute Tzadikim (who know that they are Tzadikim) are at a lowere level than such a Ba'al Teshuvah.

What is 'far from sin'?

Rashi: His entire life - an absolute Tzadik.

What is the significance of wine that has been guarded in the grape since the six days of creation?

Maharal: Such wine was not exposed. Wine in the grape is the highest level. It is separated; it is deposited in the grape. It is not the grape itself, just it joins with the grape. So Yisrael will reach a level without connection to this physical world, only like the connection of wine to the grape. Hash-m made this world in six days. Also the world to come was created then (Menachos 29b) - "Ki b'Kah Hash-m Tzur Olamim." The world to come is separate from this world like wine from the grape. The grape is physical; wine is fine, without a (NOTE: solid - PF) body. The Nevi'im did not see this, for they were in this physical world.

Etz Yosef citing ha'Kosev in Berachos: There is a secret in this. The simple meaning is, wine gladdens the heart and makes one forget worries about occurrences - "Yayin Yesamach Levav Enosh", "Yishteh v'Yishkach Risho." The Simchah of the world to come will have no pain or worry mixed in wine. The wine was hidden for Chachamim, who engage in something else that wine hints to, i.e. Torah - "Shivru ve'Echolu... b'Lo Chesef... Yayin v'Chalav", "u'Shesu b'Yayin Masachti." This is Midah k'Neged Midah. It says 'from the six days of creation' to teach that this pleasure was arranged from the time of creation.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 16 citing Midrash ha'Nelam Toldos 135b: These are ancient matters that were not revealed to man from creation. They will be revealed to Tzadikim in the world to come.

What is the difference between wine that has been guarded in the grape, and Eden?

Maharal: Eden is a higher level. Wine has a connection to the physical grapes. Eden is totally separated. Physical things have Chisaron; evil clings to them. Man is in the physical world, but intellect is not physical, just it is in a physical [body], just like wine is in a grape.

Etz Yosef citing ha'Kosev in Berachos: Adam ha'Rishon was in Gan Eden. Its trees, springs and all its matters, their forms were very fine; he contemplated spiritual matters in them. Similarly, Hash-m gave to us forms of the Mishkan, Mikdash and their Kelim - Menorah, Shulchan and Mizbechos, to contemplate via them higher truths. Eden hints to the source of the spring - "v'Nahar Yotzei me'Eden Lehashkos Es ha'Gan." Adam was not allowed there, for he could not have understood it even before the sin. Even Eden is prepared for Chachamim [in the future].

What is an Apikoros?

Maharal: It is an expression of Hefker. He conducts as if the world is Hefker, without a Leader. Therefore, he has no fear at all. It is as if he doubts Hash-m's existence. We need not say that he says that there is no Elokim at all, just that he does not fear Shamayim. Therefore, one opinion (99b) says that he disgraces Chachamim, and one says that he shames another in front of a Chacham. He would not do so if he feared Shamayim! After Apikoros, it mentions Megaleh Panim ba'Torah she'Lo k'Halachah and Mefir Bris - first sinning against Hash-m, then against His Torah, and then against His Bris.

Maharsha #1 (Sof 99b): Apikorsus is an expression of audacity.

Maharsha #2 (99b): This was the name of a particular heretic.

Etz Yosef citing citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: He denied eternity of the Nefesh. Chachamim applied his name to one who disgraces Chachamim and their true words.

What is the consequence of Kares?

Maharal (99a): Man, the Alul (result), has a connection with the Cause (Hash-m), via the Torah. "Luchos ha'Bris" hints that Torah is the Bris and connection, One who annuls the Bris is not proper for connection; Orlah separates man from Hash-m. Megaleh Panim ba'Torah does not want the connection (Torah). An Apikoros conducts with Hash-m like Hefker, and nullifies the connection. Rebbi holds that Yom Kipur atones even without Teshuvah, except for these three - Porek Ol (Apikoros), Mefer Bris and Megaleh Panim ba'Torah she'Lo k'Halachah (Yoma 85b).

What is disgracing the Mo'adim?

Rashi (here and on Avos 3:11): He does Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed, or his eating and drinking is like on a weekday. Because they are not as severe as Yom Tov, he is not concerned to guard them.

Anaf Yosef: All of these matters are in present tense (he disgraces the Mo'adim...) to teach that he has no share in the world to come only if he persists in his evil. If he repented, nothing stands in front of (blocks) Teshuvah. See Midrash Shmuel on Avos 3:11 [who rejects the text 'even if he has Teshuvah and good deeds, he has no share...' for this reason]. Does R. Eliezer ha'Moda'i argue with the Tana of our Mishnah, who did not list these matters? Tiferes Yisrael there says that all these matters are included in one who denies Torah Min ha'Shamayim.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 21: The Rambam says that he does forbidden Melachah on Yom Tov. He holds that the Isur Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Rabanan. We do not find such a punishment (losing the world to come) for mid'Rabanan laws! Rashi said that he disgraces Chol ha'Mo'ed; he forbids mid'Oraisa Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed.

What is Mefer Bris?

Rashi (Avos 3:11), Ramah: He does not want to circumcise himself.

Kovetz Shitos Kamai citing R. Yehudah ha'Kohen: He pulls his foreskin to cover his Milah, so he will appear Arel. Margoliyos ha'Yam 18 - the Yerushalmi at the beginning of our Perek says so. Mefer Bris implies that he had a Bris, but annuls it.

We apply to ha'Mefer Bris "Hikares" - in this world. The Rambam (Hilchos Milah 1:2) holds that he is not Chayav Kares until he dies Arel. How does he explain "Hikares" - in this world?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 18: After he dies, his seed will be cut off.

What is "Tikares" - in the world to come?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 20: The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 8:1) says that anyone who gets Kares, his Nefesh does not merit the world to come. The Ramban (Vayikra 18:29) says that there are three kinds of Kares. (a) When it says "v'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu", if he had mostly merits but his desire overpowered, he dies in his youth but his Nefesh merits the world to come. (b) If with the severe sin, his Aveiros outweigh his merits, he is cut off from the world of Neshamos. (c) Here it says "Hikares Tikares" - his Nefesh will not be in Techiyas ha'Mesim, and he has no share in the world to come.

What is a Dikduk?

Rashi: It is a word missing a letter or with an extra letter.

Maharal: The Torah is one. It cannot be divided. Even one letter is Me'akev. Therefore, disgracing one Dikduk is disgracing Devar Hash-m, as if he disgraced the entire Torah.

What is the source to include one who says that the entire Torah is from Shamayim, except for one verse, Dikduk, Kal va'Chomer or Gezeirah Shavah?

Maharsha: It says "Devar Hash-m Bazah" - singular. Davar also hints to Dibur - something not written, and it is only oral, e.g. Kal va'Chomer or Gezeirah Shavah.

Why is he punished for saying that a Kal v'Chomer is not from Shamayim? One may expound a Kal v'Chomer by himself! Also, perhaps he has a Pircha (challenge) that rejects the Kal v'Chomer!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 25: In Dikdukei Soferim, the word Zeh (this) is omitted. He rejects the Midos of expounding Kal va'Chomer and Gezeirah Shavah; the same applies to one who rejects other Midos. Also Rashi's text did not have 'Zeh'; it was mistakenly inserted in brackets to 'fix' the text.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Divrei Torah (6:36, citing the Yismach Moshe): If the Sevara of the Kal v'Chomer is correct, it is Torah from Shamayim. (NOTE: He must explain that someone has no challenge to the Kal v'Chomer, just he holds that it is not from Shamayim.)

How does "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah v'Es Mitzvaso Hefar" teach about one who desecrates Kodshim or disgraces the Mo'adim?

Rashi: They are included in Bizayon (disgrace).

Maharal (99a): One who denies Torah from Shamayim or is Megaleh Panim ba'Torah she'Lo k'Halachah, he disgraces the most Divine matter. How could he have a share in the world to come, which is totally Divine and non-physical?! The same applies to one who profanes Kodshim, for they have the name of Divine Kedushah on them, and the Mo'adim, which are called Mikra'ei Kodesh. Mefer Bris is the primary Kedushah that Hash-m put in man, like we say in the Berachah 'Asher KIdesh Yedid mi'Beten.' Man is physical; Mitzvas Milah connects him to Hash-m, who is totally separated.

Maharsha: The verse does not teach about them, only about one who nullifies circumcision or is Megaleh Panim ba'Torah.

How does "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah v'Es Mitzvaso Hefar" teach about one who makes one blush in public?

Rashi (Avos 3:11): I do not know how the verse teaches this. It is not in Sanhedrin. (NOTE: Also some other Rishonim say that it is not in the text here. - PF)

Maharal: Man was created b'Tzelem Elokim - this is a Divine aspect. One who whitens another's face annuls the Tzelem Elokim; he is removed from the Kadosh, non-physical world.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Be'er Sheva: Just like Hash-m commanded about Kodshim and Mo'adim, it commanded not to make someone else blush in public - "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach Es Amisecha v'Lo Sisa Alav Chet." This applies even when giving Tochachah, and all the more so when not rebuking! Also, "Shofech Dam ha'Adam b'Adam Damo Yishafech" - making someone blush is like spilling blood, for the red leaves his face and it becomes white. Therefore, "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah" applies. Also, this is Apikorsus. One who shames another in front of a Chacham is an Apikoros. A Rabim is no less than a Chacham. Also, usually there is at least one Chacham in a Rabim!

How does "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah v'Es Mitzvaso Hefar" teach about one who learns Torah, but does not teach it?

Maharal: It is proper to publicize Devar Hash-m to others. It is honor of His Torah that all know it.

Maharsha: One can learn via hearing, but one can teach only through Dibur. He disgraces the Dibur, but not the hearing.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It says "v'Es Beneihem Yelamedun" and "v'Osi Tzivah Hash-m Lelamed Eschem" - this is Devar Hash-m. One who does not teach, he disgraces Devar Hash-m!

What is the meaning of 'is not Mashgi'ach on Mishnah'?

Rashi: He does not consider it primary.

Maharal: He engages in Talmud based on his intellect, and not based on the Mishnah. He neglects Devar Hash-m for his own Pilpul - this is a disgrace to Devar Hash-m!

Maharsha: He does not verbally review his Mishnah, which explains the written Torah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 26: He does not review his learning. 'Mishneh' is repetition, like "Al Hishanos ha'Chalom."

Why does R. Yishmael say that "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah" refers specifically to one who serves idolatry?

Rashi: Yisrael heard "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha" and "Lo Yihyeh Lecha Elohim Acherim" directly from Hash-m.

In Shabbos (138b), we say that "Devar Hash-m" is the Ketz. We should say that "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah" applies also to one who denies the Ketz!

Iyun Yakov: Our Mishnah already taught that one who denies Techiyas ha'Mesim has no share in the world to come.

Why is one who learns Torah and does not review like one who sows and does not harvest?

Maharal: Learning Torah is seeding intellectual Torah in physical man. When he reviews, he reaps - he clarifies it until it is totally intellectual and separated from man, and not joined to physicality. This is like grain - it grows in the ground. When he returns and reaps, he separates it

Maharsha: His action is futile, without purpose.

Why is one who forgets his learning is like one who bears children and buries them?

Maharal: One should not think that forgetting a matter of learning is like forgetting a mere matter that he heard. Rather, it is like a physical woman who gives birth and buries the children. An acquisition of Torah is a full existence, more than other matters. Learning it is like giving birth; forgetting it is as if it died.

Maharsha: It is as if she never gave birth. We say that a Mes is forgotten from the heart.

Iyun Yakov: This is worse than one who sows and does not harvest. There, he does not benefit, but others benefit from his act. One who forgets his Torah, he is pained and no one benefits from it, like a Yoledes [whose children died] is pained, and no one benefits from them.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One who does not review, this is like one who sowed and did not reap - it is still there to reap. If he will return, he will recover his learning. If he made it forgotten, this is like one who buried her children - it will not return.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 28: Forgetting is Ones. It says Meshachecha - he causes it to be forgotten, via not reviewing it.

What do we learn from Zemer b'Chol Yom Zemer b'Chol Yom?

Rashi #1: Arrange your learning, even though it is arranged in your mouth like a song. This will cause that you are always happy and singing. (NOTE: We omitted the word 'ha'Ba' from Rashi, like the text of Rashi in Ein Yakov and the Soncino printing. - PF)

Maharsha: According to this, we cannot explain how he learns from "Nefesh Amel Amlah Lo Ki Achaf Alav Pihu"!

Rashi #2: Because he engages in it constantly, it becomes like a song. So one who reviews Torah constantly, it becomes arranged in his mouth.

Maharal: Torah is not merely knowledge, and when he knows, he does not need more. Rather, Torah is a song. The perfection of a song is not via knowing it, rather, via singing it. It is not enough to think it - he must carry it out in action, via the mouth. Zemer b'Chol Yom - even though he learned Torah and knows, he must learn every day, and not merely in thought, rather, with his mouth. When one sings each day, he clings to Torah, which is Hash-m's way. Hash-m gave the Torah, and it brings man to Hash-m. If he learned only in thought, it was not brought to deed. Only when it is brought to deed, Torah acts for him elsewhere. Man toils in this lower world, and Torah toils for him in the separated world.

Maharsha #1: If you will sing every day in learning Torah, Torah will sing for you. Secrets of Torah will be revealed to you.

Maharsha #2: Zemer is an expression of Zomer (pruning) vines. If you will plant , toil and prune - one who learns and reviews is like one who plants and reaps (99a) - Torah will toil and prune for you elsewhere.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 1: In a Tosefta (Parah 3), R. Akiva says that one should constantly sing in Torah. There was a special tune for Mishnah (Tosfos Megilah 32a). The Targum of "Kumi Roni va'Laylah" is 'engage in Mishnah at night.'

What do we learn from "Nefesh Amel Amlah Lo Ki Achaf Alav Pihu"?

Rashi #1: Because he toiled in Torah, Torah toils for him. He put words [of Torah] in his mouth constantly, like a saddle on a donkey.

Rashi #2: Torah returns to him, and requests from its Owner to reveal to him its reasons, because he bent his mouth for Divrei Torah.

Anaf Yosef and Margoliyos ha'Yam, citing Toras Chayim: One who learns 100 times is unlike one who learns 101 times (Chagigah 9b). This is because Poteh, the Sar appointed over forgetting, the Gematriya of his name is 100, and Micha'el, the Sar appointed over memory, his Gematriya is 101. If one toils for Torah (constantly reviews) "Ki Achaf Alav Pihu" (the Gematriya of Pihu is 101, and so is Achaf), it toils for him, and he remembers it.

Margoliyos ha'Yam citing Toras Chayim: One might have thought that Divrei Torah is not called toil, for it is not an act. The verse teaches that bending the lips is an action.

For what toil of the mouth was man created?

Maharsha #1: He learns Torah and reviews every day.

Maharsha #2: He toils to teach to others. Le'amel is an acronym for Lilmod Al Menas Lelamaed

What is the Havah Amina that man was created to toil in Melachah?

Maharsha: Any Torah without Melachah, in the end it will be Batel (Avos 2:2). We conclude that man was created for toil of the mouth, like we say that early Chasidim, Torah was their profession, and their work was done automatically (Berachos 32b or 35b). (NOTE: It said that they made their Torah primary and their work secondary, and both of them were blessed! Many tried to engage only in Torah, like R. Shimon, and did not succeed! - PF) And so was the beginning of the world. Only due to Adam's sin, he was told "b'Ze'as Apecha Tochal Lechem."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1, Etz Yosef citing Ya'aros Devash 2, 62c: This refers to toil of Mitzvos. He concluded that it is toil of Torah, for Torah sustains the world.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: One might have thought that the verse asks in astonishment. Was man created to toil in work?! Birds fly and get their food easily. Was man, the purpose or creation, created to toil for food?! Rather, it is a punishment for Adam's sin. R. Elazar teaches that it is not in astonishment. R. Yishmael said that "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" cannot be literally true - "v'Asafta Deganecha", one must toil in work. R. Shimon understands "Lo Yamush" simply. If we merit, others will work for us. If not, we ourselves must work - "v'Asafta Deganecha." R. Elazar concluded like R. Shimon, from "Ki Achaf Alav Pihu."

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pnei Menachem (Bechukosai 5753): This refers to Melachah of fighting the Yetzer ha'Ra. The answer is, one should toil in Torah, which is the spice for the Yetzer ha'Ra; automatically, it saves from the Yetzer ha'Ra.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shraga ha'Me'ir: Hash-m decreed toil on man. It is impossible to evade it. A Chacham chooses to bear the yoke in spiritual matters - to meditate in Torah and Mitzvos with all his strength and Nefesh. A fool despises this; Hash-m's decree will be fulfilled on him, and he will need to bear the yoke of Nochrim. So i explain "Milkra Kodesh Yihyeh Lachem" - if one accepts to strive to understand Gemara, Rambam, Tosfos, Midrash..., then "Kol Meleches Avodah Lo Sa'asu" - you will not need to do any Melachah. This is like it says in Berachos 35b, if Yisrael do Hash-m's will, others do their work.

Was there a Havah Amina that man was created to toil in Sichah?!

Maharal: The Gemara mentions three toils - Melachah, Sichah and Torah. Man has Nefesh Chiyunis, Nefesh Medaberes, and Nefesh Sichli (intellectual). Do not think that your perfection is in Nefesh Chiyunis via Melachah, like animals, or in Nefesh Medaberes. Rather, it is in Nefesh Sichli, via Torah.

Maharsha: Man is called Medaber. This distinguishes him from animals. We conclude that he was not created for idle talk, rather, for Torah - "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah..."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: This refers to SIchah to bring merit to the Rabim, to guide them in the ways of Torah. We resolve the question from "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" - he must engage in it all his days.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: Perhaps he was created to toil to avoid extra Sichah. Perhaps "Lo Yamush" is merely a Berachah! He concludes that it is a command - if it were a Berachah, it is for all of Yisrael, and not only for Yehoshua! (NOTE: Also if it is a command, it is for all of Yisrael! - PF)

Iyun Yakov #1: Idleness brings to insanity and Zimah.

Iyun Yakov #2: Sichah of Chachamim must be investigated (great matters are learned from it).

Etz Yosef citing Ya'aros Devash 2, 62c: Sichah does not refer to conversation, rather, Tefilah - "va'Yetzei Yitzchak Lasu'ach ba'Sadeh." He answered that he was created to toil in Torah, for without Torah, Tefilah is not with Kavanah.

Ben Yehoyada: The question was whether one should toil to say every word, from the Akeidah until Aleinu, with great Kavanah, even though this will take many hours and little time will remain for Torah, like the Ba'al Shem Tov and Chasidim. Or, one should pray at a reasonable pace, in order that much time will remain for Torah, like the Vilna Gaon and the Misnagdim.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ohr Torah (R. Y. Chaver): One might have thought that learning is in order to know the laws of the Mitzvos, and once he knows them, speech is primarily to increase Tefilah. Yehoshua disproves this. He was expert in the entire Torah, and Hash-m commanded him "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha." However, Sha'arei Teshuvah (2:19) explains 'Ben Tish'im Lasu'ach' - after 90 years, one's primary speech should be Tefilah and telling Hash-m's wonders! Merafsin Igra answers that this is for one who has no strength to learn. One who has strength must engage in Torah until he dies.

What are Derufatakei?

Rashi #1: They are toils. All bodies were created to toil.

Maharal: Man has a body. Rest is proper only for what is separated. We find that Shabbos is a day of rest because it is Kodesh. Also, man is potential and not deed, like every physical matter. It is proper that he toil, to carry out his potential in deed. However, man's primary creation was not to toil in speech and expressions, rather, to reach perfection via Torah.

Rashi #2: It is a long pouch for coins. All bodies are cases to put things in them. Happy is one who merited to be a case for Torah.

Etz Yosef citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: This is Greek for a fence of wooden pegs inserted in the ground.

What is the meaning of 'Tovei lid'Zachi'?

Rashi #1: Happy is one who merits that his toil is in Torah.

Maharsha: He merits the purpose for which he was created.

Rashi #2: Happy is one who merits to be a case for Torah.

How does "No'ef Ishah Chasar Lev" apply to one who learns intermittently?

Rashi: He does not learn constantly. This is like one without a wife - sometimes he has Bi'ah with this woman, and sometimes with this one...

Maharal: Due to the level of Torah, it is not proper that one learn intermittently. This is like chance. Lower matters are via chance, but Torah should not be! If one has a regular wife, and one has a wife via Zenus, do not say that the difference is, he is regular with the former but not with the latter. The latter is not a wife at all, rather, a Zonah! So too, one who learns intermittently, he does not have Torah. Chasar Lev is as if he has no existence. Life and existence depend on the heart. Anything sporadic is not a real existence. Torah is man's completion. It is called Ishah, for a wife is man's completion.

Maharsha: Torah is compared to a man's wife. It is "Ayeles Ahavim" when he engages in it constantly, and it is always in his house, like his wife. One who learns sporadically, it is not found by him, like an adulteress wife. He thinks that he need not review it constantly, for he has a good heart to understand. He errs! One who does not review his learning constantly, his heart lacks.

Iyun Yakov: "Ayeles Ahavim v'Ya'alas Chen" - Divrei Torah are compared to a female deer. Its womb is narrow, and it is always dear to its mate as at the beginning. Likewise, Divrei Torah are always as dear to one who learns every time that he reviews, like the first time. One who learns sporadically, he would despise Torah if he learned constantly - he is like a husband, who despises his wife who is constantly found by him [so he he is Mezaneh with other women]. He is Chasar Lev, for Chochmah does not dwell in it - "b'Lev Navon Tanu'ach Chochmah" (Mishlei 14:33); see the beginning of Yalkut Mishlei.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim and the Vilna Gaon: He does not learn constantly, like one who is Mezaneh with a woman. He does so only sporadically, for she is not constantly found by him.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5, citing Pesach Einayim: Midrash Mishlei on "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha" explains that one who has times for Torah (does not learn constantly), he is Mefer (annuls) Torah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Nasan Lubart: Both of them do what they desire and the freedom of their hearts. One who engages in Torah must have a yoke on himself - one who accepts the yoke of Torah (Avos 3:5); one should make himself like an ox to bear the yoke of Torah (Avodah Zarah 5b).

What do we learn from "Na'im Ki Sishmerem b'Vitnecha Yikonu Yachdav Al Sefasecha"?

Rashi: You guard [Divrei Torah] in your stomach when they are arranged in your lips.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 6, Dikdukei Sofeim: The verse "Na'im..." belongs above. Rava brought it, to teach that happy are those who toil in Torah.

Why do we need to expound Aveiros of Menasheh from "Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah Es Hash-m Hu Megadef"? It says "Hirbah La'asos ha'Ra bEinei Hash-m Lehach'iso"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It is because it says "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah v'Es Mitzvaso Hefar Hikares Tikares." Why does it need a new reason for Kares? Before this, it says explains that "Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah Es Hash-m Hu Megadef"! The Tana of our Mishnah holds that he has no share in the world to come. He repented, and Hash-m dug a tunnel under Kisei ha'Kavod to accept him! Therefore, we expound another matter from which he did not repent.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 7, 8: "Es Hash-m Hu Megadef" implies that he mocked Torah - why did Moshe need to write...? Moreh ha'Nevuchim (3:50) says that everything in Torah is essential, including the names of the families and placeS after Noach, Bnei Se'ir ha'Chori... The Zohar says that stories of the Torah are clothing of the Torah. Without the clothing, the world could not bear it. One who thinks that it is the Torah itself, he has no share in the world to come. David said "Galil Einai v'Abitah Nifla'os mi'Sorasecha" - what is under the clothing. The entire Torah is names of Hash-m; also the Ramban said so in his introduction to the Torah. Perhaps this is why in Birkas ha'Torah, we request to be 'Yode'ei Shemecha.'

Why does it say that he sat and expounded problems in Torah?

Iyun Yakov: It is honor of the Torah to stand while learning; we learn from Yisrael, who stood on Har Sinai to receive Torah. Menasheh rejected this. They needed to stand so their filth (that the snake injected in Chavah) would depart! 'Yisrael, who stood on Sinai, their filth departed' (Shabbos 146a). There are two explanations why Yishmael came from Avraham. (a) Hagar was only a Pilegesh - Sarah's slave. (b) The Bechor always absorbs filth, until Yisrael stood on Sinai and their filth departed. R. Bechaye says that the Torah teaches that Timna was a Pilegesh to Elifaz, lest we be astounded at the Chiyuv to destroy Amalek. Amalek was Esav's grandson - "Lo Sesa'ev Edomi Ki Achicha Hu"! Since Amalek was not Zera Kosher, the verse does not apply to him. Menasheh said that a Ben Pilegesh is Zera Kosher; there was no need to write that Timna was a Pilegesh. He said that we cannot learn from Reuven that Tzadikim refrain from Gezel - he was the Bechor, and absorbed filth. He was not a Tzadik!

Why does it say that he expounded? He merely mocked!

Anaf Yosef citing Ohr k'Salmah: The [Vilna] Gaon said that he expounded, but based on his own reasoning. He did not receive principles [of how to expound] from a tradition. It had no foundation. Since Chazal expounded differently, it was Sheker.

What is "b'Chavlei ha'Shav"?

Rashi: It is for nothing. He sins without any benefit.

Maharsha: He sins via saying that Moshe wrote matters l'Shav (without need).

Why does it say "b'Achicha Sedaber"?

Maharsha: This refers to Moshe - all of Yisrael are brothers. "B'Ven Imecha Titen Dofi" - they are brothers also from the mother (Leah) - Moshe was from Levi, and Menasheh from Yehudah.

What was the question from "vecha'Avos ha'Agalah Chata'ah"?

Maharsha: These are thick, unlike Chavlei ha'Shav. We answer that the Yetzer ha'Ra begins with a light Aveirah, like a thread of a spider's web, and accustoms man to it until [he sinned so much that] one can twine thick ropes from it.

Why did the Gemara bring "Aluf Lotan"?

Rashi: Since Timna's brother was essentially a king, surely she was a Bas Melech.

Why did Menasheh question "va'Achos Lotan Timna" more than other verses about women of Esav's family?

Maharsha: He questioned why the Torah gave the entire lineage of the Chori, who were not from the seed of the Avos. It was all written due to "va'Achos Lotan Timna." Bereishis Rabah (82:14) says that he questioned "v'Timna Haysah Pilegesh." Why must we know whether she was a full wife or a concubine?!

Iyun Yakov, from R. Bechaye: Since she was a Pilegesh to Elifaz, her son Amalek was not Zera Kosher, so "Lo Sesa'ev Edomi" does not apply to him.

How did the Avos distance Timna, and why?

Rashi: They distanced her from coming under the wings of the Shechinah; they did not let her convert.

Maharsha: Chazal expounded that she came to convert, for the Torah does not mention the mothers of other sons of Elifaz. She gave birth to Amalek because the Avos rejected her.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11: Perhaps they had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to 'smell' the potential for Amalek in her. The Mechilta on "Ki Yad Al Kes Kah" says that Hash-m swore not to accept converts from Amalek.

Maharal: Due to her esteem and royalty, she would not convert properly. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov lowered themselves in front of Hash-m. Timna, due to her esteem, would not consider herself a convert. Because she came to convert, and they rejected her, she totally distanced and Amalek came from her.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ya'aros Devash 1:3: The seed of Esav will fall only to the seed of Yosef (Bava Basra 123b). Why is Esav's seed better than Esav himself, who fell to Yehudah? Amalek has the merit of Timna, who chose to be a Pilegesh to the seed of Avraham, rather than a distinguished wife in another nation. They will fall only to the seed of Rachel, who pardoned being Yakov's wife and gave the Simanim to Leah. Leah will be the main wife, and Rachel the second. This is greater than Timna's act - she had no choice to be a proper wife of Elifaz. He had many wives before he took her!

NOTE: After Yakov married Rachel, he considered her his primary wife, but she did not know this when she gave the Simanim. Perhaps she did not even expect Yakov to marry her, after he married her sister! (PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rashi (Bereishis 36:12) says that Elifaz had Bi'ah with Chori's wife, and Timna was born. Since she was a Mamzeres, the Avos did not let her convert - "Lo Yavo Mamzer bi'Khal Hash-m." They were punished, for they should have converted her, even though she may not marry into Yisrael. (NOTE: Meshech Chachmah (Bereishis 19:37) says that even though there is no [Isur of] Mamzerus among Goyim, Mamzerus blemishes the nature of the descendants. - PF)

Panim Yafos (Bereishis 36:22, partially cited in Daf Al ha'Daf): The Ari Zal said that Chochmah of the nations comes from sparks that fell from Achorei (in back of) Chochmah - "v'Chacham b'Achor Yeshabechenah" (Mishlei 29:11). The source of Yakov's Neshamah came from Achorei Chochmah he'Elyonah; it was upon him to fix these sparks that fell from his source [to Chachmei ha'Goyim]. The letters after 'Chochmah' spell Lotan. He was from these sparks. Also "Achos" hints to Chochmah - "Emor l'Chochmah Achosi At" (Kidushin 30b). The letters of Timna can be switched with those of Sama'el, for they are adjacent (Tov is before Aleph). She went to Yakov to marry him, so he would fix her. He fixed only the letters Aleph Lamed, which switch with Tov Mem; this is why we say 'Yakov Lo Mes' (Ta'anis 5b). He did not fix Samech Mem (which correspond to Ayin Nun), so she went to Elifaz, who took her for a Pilegesh.. Rashi (Iyov 4:12) explains "v'Elai Davar Yegunav" that Elifaz ha'Teimani's Nevu'ah was like theft, like one who has Bi'ah with his Pilegesh; Elifaz' Chochmah was due to her. This is why Elifaz was able to chase Yakov and take his money, making him an Oni (the root is Ayin Nun). He could not kill him, for Yakov fixed Mem Tov (Misah). Wherever Chachamim put their eyes, Misah or poverty resulted (Mo'ed Katan 17b). Via their Chochmah, they ruled over Dinim of Mem Tov (Mes) and Ayin Nun (Oni), the letters of Timna, Achorei Chochmah.

NOTE: Tana d'Vei Eliyahu 22 says that Elifaz ha'Teimani is Elifaz ben Esav. This is like most Midrashim, that Iyov was a Nochri who lived the 210 years of Galus Mitzrayim. All the opinions that he lived later hold that he was Jewish, for Moshe prayed that there not be Nevi'im among Goyim, and Hash-m acceded (Bava Basra 15b). (PF)

How does "bi'Ymei Ketzir Chitim" teaches that Tzadikim are careful to avoid theft?

Rashi: He went after the field was harvested. Then, people may go in others' fields.

Maharsha: "Bi'Ymei Ketzir Chitim" implies at the time of the harvest, and not after it finished! Margoliyos ha'Yam 12 - due to this, Be'er Sheva says that surely Rashi himself did not write this, rather, a Talmid who erred.

Maharsha, Margoliyos ha'Yam 12 citing Be'er Sheva: He did not take wheat, rather, something Hefker that people do not care about. So Rashi explained in Bereishis (30:14). Menasheh did not question why the episode itself was mentioned. If so, he could question all episodes of the Avos! He questioned only why it says that it was at the time of the harvest.

Why does learning Torah Lishmah make Shalom between the entourages above and below?

Maharal: Upper and lower beings are divided. The only connection between them is the Torah. Shmos Rabah (12) says that before Matan Torah, "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Shem veha'Aretz Nasan li'Vnei Adam." After Matan Torah, Hash-m descended on Har Sinai, and Moshe ascended to Hash-m. In this way, he makes Shalom between the entourages above and below.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The ansgels prosecuted when Hash-m came to give Torah to Yisrael - "Tenei Hodecha Al ha'Shamayim Mah Enosh Ki Sizkerenu." When Yisrael engage in Torah Lishmah, without any other motive, the angels cannot prosecute, and they are b'Shalom with Hash-m to agree about giving Torah to lower beings. They also cause Hash-m to be b'Shalom with His entourage below. If people do not engage in Torah Lishmah, He quarrels with the lower beings; they they received Torah, but do not engage in it Lishmah.

Iyun Yakov: It says "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha Asher Hotzeisicha me'Eretz Mitzrayim", and not 'who created you', for this refuted the angels - did you descend to Egypt?! This also rejected the other nations, that they have no claim to Torah. However, it was better for man that he was created (Eruvin 13b). If so, the angels still have a claim! Anyone who engages in Torah Lo Lishmah, it would be better that he was never created; if he engages in Torah Lishmah, it is better that he was created (Bechoros 16). If so, it could have said 'I created you!' Why does it say 'I took you out of Egypt'? Rather, surely it is to dispel the claims of angels and nations, that they should have received the Torah.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Snow and hail are among the angels above, and also fire. Amidst great Shalom among them, they do not harm each other - "Hamshel va'Fachad Imo Oseh Shalom bi'Mromav." Each has a boundary; one does not enter another's border. The entourage below are the four elements - "Esh u'Varad Sheleg v'Kitor Ru'ach Se'arah." (NOTE: Malbim (Tehilim 148:8) explains that smoke is a Toldah of the Yesod fire; hail and snow are Toldos of water; Se'arah is a Toldah of Ru'ach. The next verse says "he'Harim v'Chol Geva'os" - the fourth element, i.e. earth. - PF) Also these, even though they oppose each other, amidst great Shalom among them, they do not harm each other, due to Chukim (laws) that Hash-m made for them - "Samti Gevul la'Yam." These Chukim persist only due to Torah - "Im Lo Vrisi Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti." This is because the beginning of the creation was via the Torah - "va'Ehyeh Etzlo Amon" (Mishlei 8:30) - the Torah says, i was Hash-m's tool. Just like a builder builds according to a blueprint, Hash-m looked in the Torah and created the world.

What is Ma'uzi?

Rashi: It is Torah.

Maharsha: One who engage in Torah Lo Lishmah, he is soft and weak in Torah, and prone to abandon it due to those who mock him. One who engages in Torah Lishmah, he is Me'iz Panim (brazen) against those who mock him, and persists in it. This is why Torah is called Oz - "Hash-m Oz l'Amo Yiten"! "Oh [Yachazek b'Ma'uzi...]" is like Im.

What is the reason for the repetition "Ya'aseh Shalom Li Shalom Ya'aseh Li"?

Maharsha: The two worlds are His. The first time it says Ya'aseh before Shalom, and the latter time it says Shalom first. Above, Shalom is next to Li (Hash-m), for it is intrinsic, just via [people's] sin, there is prosecution above. Some prosecute and some advocate. One who learns Lishmah makes Shalom above. Below, Asiyah is next to Li, for Shalom is not intrinsic; it is by chance. We find that Shalom said that man should not be created, for he is totally feuds (Bereishis Rabah 8:5); via learning Lishmah, man makes Shalom.

How is it as if he built palaces above and below?

Maharal: Lower beings have continuity only via connection to upper beings. This is why the world would revert to Tohu va'Vohu if Yisrael would not accept the Torah.

Maharsha: Man cannot build the Aliyah (upper story) before he builds the house. According to Beis Shamai, Hash-m built Shamayim first (Chagigah 12a). Also one who learns Lishmah, first he builds the Aliyah (sustains the upper world), and then the world below. - "va'Asim Devarai b'Ficha... Linto'a Shamayim v'Liysod Aretz" - Shamayim before Aretz.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Shamayim, Aretz and all their legions depend on merit of the Torah of lower beings.

How do we learn from "uv'Tzel Yadi Kisisicha" that he protects the entire world?

Maharal: He connects the world to Hash-m, and it is under His shade via the Torah - "uv'Tzel Yadi Kisisicha." Without Torah, the world is removed from Him.

Maharsha: Tzel Yad of Hash-m (the shade of His hand) is the entire world. "Kisisicha" means that I cover due to you.

How does he bring the redemption close?

Maharal: A free person is only one who engages in Torah. Hash-m takes Yisrael to Himself, and they are separated from the world. This is the Ge'ulah! Yisrael cling to Hash-m, and He removes us from this physical world. All this is only when he learns properly, i.e. Lishmah. If not, it is not the level of learning Torah.

Maharsha: It should have said v'Leimor l'Yisrael (or li'Yhudah) Ami Atah. Hoshe'a said, i called Yisrael Lo Ami in Galus; they will be Ami in the future Ge'ulah. Yeshayah said l'Tziyon - since they will be Metzuyanim (distinguished) in Halachah, to engage in Torah Lishmah, they will be called Ami in the Ge'ulah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): After "Zichru Toras Moshe Avdi...", it says "Hine Anochi Shole'ach Lachem Es Eliyahu ha'Navi." "V'Leimor l'Tziyon Ami Atah" refers to Chachamim Metzuyanim in Torah to learn Lishmah.

Iyun Yakov: Those who learn Lo Lishmah, they are haughty and say others' teachings in their own names to aggrandize themselves. One who says things in the name of the author, he brings Ge'ulah to the world (Megilah 15a).

If one teaches Torah to another's son, why is it considered it as if he made him?

Maharal: Before he learned, he was not considered a creation. R. Eliezer says that it is as if he made the Divrei Torah, for before he did not have Torah. Neither of these apply to one who taught another Chacham, for the latter already existed, even if he did not know this matter that he taught to him now.

Maharsha: It says in Bereishis Rabah (39:14) that all the nations could not put a Neshamah in a mosquito - how can it say "v'Es ha'Nefesh Asher Asu v'Charan"? Before man knows the ways of Torah, "u'Mosar ha'Adam Min ha'Behemah Ayin." When he knows the ways of Torah, he is unlike all living beings, and he is Adam - the purpose of creation.

Anaf Yosef citing Binah l'Itim: It says 'his colleague's son', and not 'his colleague', for man's essence is his form and Nefesh. His parents have no share in this, only in his body. Reish Lakish teaches that the one who teaches him made him [complete], and not his parents, like it says "v'Es ha'Nefesh Asher Asu v'Charan."

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Man's body is from his parents, and his Neshamah is from Hash-m. Both of them need to be raised and fixed; this is making them. We said above (19b) 'Merav gave birth to them, and Michal raised them, so they are called Michal's sons. Anyone who raises an orphan is credited as if he fathered him. Fixing is called Asiyah, like Rashi explained "va'Ya'as Elokim Es ha'Raki'a." It says "va'Yigdal ha'Yeled" and "va'Yigdal Moshe" - one for growth of the body, and one for growth of the Neshamah.

Pesach Einayim: Based on letter of the law, the father and Rebbi should each get half the reward for the son, just like when a flooding river took Reuven's tree to Shimon's land (and it grew fruits there). The verse attributes as if the Rebbi alone made him; he gets the entire reward. (NOTE: The words imply that the father gets no reward. However, Chida compares this to what he wrote about Megadel (one who raises) an orphan; he is credited as if he fathered him (19b), and He does not deny the father his reward, Margoliyos ha'Yam 20 explains that also the father gets full reward. I infer that since Chida said only 'He does not deny the father his reward', but did not mention Chesed, the father gets half the reward, like is proper. He does not lose due to the Chesed done for Megadel. - PF)

What is the meaning of "v'Es ha'Nefesh Asher Asu v'Charan"?

Rashi: The Targum is 'they made them subservient to the Torah.'

Maharsha: Via teaching to them the ways of Torah, they made them considered Adam.

If one teaches Torah to another's son, why is it considered it as if he created the Divrei Torah?

Maharsha: I learned much from my Rebbeyim, more from my colleagues, and the most from my Talmidim (Ta'anis 7a). Via teaching another's son, he learned new matters; it is as if he created them.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Hash-m teaches Torah to Yisrael. This Tzadik goes in His way, and teaches another's son. Even though the Torah said only "v'Hodatam l'Vanecha veli'Vnei Vanecha" (your own sons and grandsons), he acts like Hash-m; it is as if he made Divrei Torah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 19: The Vilna Gaon rearranges the text. This (and Rava's teaching, it is as if he made himself) refer to one who learns Torah Lishmah. After this, Reish Lakish taught about one who teaches another's son.

If one teaches Torah to another's son, why is it considered it as if he made himself?

Maharal: The greatest taking potential to action is when one influences on another. Then he has the level of Sechel due to his own act. It is unlike one who learns; he received from his Rebbi or from Hash-m.

Maharsha: Perhaps when he began teaching him, the Rebbi was not at the level of Adam. Via teaching him, he increased Chochmah, and he is called Adam.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since he has power to make others, it is as if he created himself. (NOTE: i do not understand this. - PF)

If one induces another to do a Mitzvah, why is it considered as if he himself did it?

Maharal: A Mitzvah completes a person. If Reuven induced Shimon to do a Mitzvah, he perfected Shimon, so it is as if Reuven did the Mitzvah. This is only if he forced Shimon Bal Korcho (against his will).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This is like Rashi explained, that it is as if he did the Mitzvah. (NOTE: One could have explained 'k'Ilu Asa'o' to means that it is as if he made the other person. - PF) We hold that one who induces another to do a Mitzvah is greater than the one who does it (Bava Basra 9a)! It seems that he is greater, for he has reward for doing the Mitzvah, and also for bringing merit to the one who did it. Margoliyos ha'Yam (22) - also the Chida (Kikar la'Aden) asked this. Yefe To'ar on Shemos Rabah 35:3 says that only regarding Tzedakah, the one who induces is greater, for he causes that more Tzedakah is given. When one Mitzvah is done, there is no reason for his reward to be greater than one who does the Mitzvah.

Maharsha: We learn this from "Asher Hikisa Bo Es ha'Ye'or", for people were murmuring against the staff. They said that it is only for punishments; Hash-m showed that it is also for good. Hash-m's acts are outside of nature. The staff that struck the river for punishment, use it to hit the rock for good (to give water). One might say, perhaps it depends on the Shali'ach! For Aharon it was punishments, and for Moshe it is good! Therefore, the Torah teaches that Aharon's act was considered Moshe's.

Why is one who disgraces a person in front of a Chacham an Apikoros?

Maharal (99a): He disgraces Hash-m's words "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha" - you should fear Me! One who disgraces a person in front of a Chacham is not concerned for the honor of a Chacham.

What is Megaleh Panim b'Torah?

Rashi: He is brazen to those who engage in Torah.

Maharsha: He disgraces the Torah itself, as opposed to an Apikoros, who disgraces Chachamim.

What was the question 'how does Rav explain Megaleh Panim ba'Torah?'

Rashi: Megaleh Panim b'Torah is worse than Apikoros, who merely shows Hefkeros. If one who disgraces a Chacham is only an Apikorus, all the more so one who disgraces someone in front of a Chacham!

Iyun Yakov: Our Sugya proves that Megaleh Panim b'Torah is worse. This is difficult for Tosfos Yom Tov (Avos 3:11), who says that Apikoros is worse.

One who says 'Chachamim do not benefit others', why does he lose the world to come?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Chafetz Chaim: Whatever one benefits from in this world, it is deducted from his merits. If so, how does one merit the world to come? 'The entire world is fed in the merit of R. Chanina (Ta'anis 24b), i.e. Tzadikim of the generation, and others keep their merits. One who says that Chachamim do not benefit others, he is not fed in their merit, so he is fed in his own merits, and nothing remains for him for the world to come. When a great Tzadik dies, this is a great loss. The world was fed in his merit. Perhaps now they will be fed in their own merits, and they will be deducted from them!

What do we learn from "Im Lo Brisi Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti"?

Rashi: The world exists only because people are learning.

What is the significance of saying 'we said such and such there', and he does not attribute the teaching to the Rebbi?

Maharsha: Even though the matter arose via debate between the Rebbi and the Talmid, he should not attribute it also to himself (we said), rather, entirely to the Rebbi. (NOTE: It is astounding that for this he is called Apikoros, and has no share in the world to come! - PF)

Why did they mention a raven and a dove?

Iyun Yakov: There is a kind of raven whose head resembles a dove's.

Why did Rava say 'I permit a raven to you!'?

Rashi: The Heter is not in written Torah; Chachamim taught it.

Maharsha: Tum'ah is often attributed to a raven - the Zarzir (starling) dwells with the raven, for it is the same species (Bava Kama 92b). It is steeped in Zimah; it is one of the three that had Bi'ah in the ark. A dove is the symbol of Tehorim - "Yonasi b'Chagvei ha'Sela." It has Bi'ah only with its mate. The man said, Rabanan never permitted something that seems Tamei like a raven, and did not forbid anything that appears Tahor like a dove.

What is improper about saying 'Hani Rabanan'?

Rashi #1: He should refer to them more honorably - 'our Rebbeyim in that place.'

Rashi #2: 'Hani' is derogatory. Hinahu is fine.

Why is saying that Megilas Esther does not require a cover like Apikorsus?

Rashi: They spoke definitively. They should have asked their Rebbi.

Ramah: This is a disgraceful way to speak about Megilas Esther. It is like saying 'Hani Rabanan.'

Maharsha #2: Even though Megilas Esther was not authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to be written, it was give with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to be read. They should not have belittled it.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Chasam Sofer (OC 691) brings from She'elas Ya'avetz (2:103) that since we hold that it was authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, one may not touch the parchment, like a Sefer Torah. R. Nasan Adler, the Chasam Sofer's Rebbi, would not touch it when reading it.

Maharsha #1: Perhaps they hold like the opinion (Megilah 7a) that it is not Metamei the hands, for it was not authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to be written. Therefore, it does not require a cover like other Kisvei ha'Kodesh. It was Apikoros to say so, unlike their Rebbi Rav Yehudah, for many argue with that opinion.

Is it forbidden to say one's Rebbi's name?

Rashi: He must say 'Mori Rebbi Ploni.'

Maharal: Saying his name without a title of respect is Hefkeros to Torah, for his primary Torah is from his Rebbi.

Margoliyos ha'Yam: We find that Yehoshua said "Adoni Moshe."

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pardes Yosef ha'Chadash (Beha'alosecha): The Shach (YD 242:24) says that even with a title of respect, one may not say his Rebbi's name in front of him. Many challenge this from "Adoni Moshe." Teshuvah me'Ahavah (Hagahos b'Sof Shulchan Aruch) says that the Noda bi'Yehudah answered, 'Rebbi Ploni' implies that he has another Rebbi. This did not apply to Moshe, who was the Rebbi of all of Yisrael. The Sefas Emes answered, we find that 'his name is greater than Raban' (e.g. we say Hillel, and not Raban Hillel). The same applied to Moshe.

Why did R. Yochanan ask why Gechazi was punished?

Maharal: He comes to answer how an improper Talmid could come from Elisha. We say 'our entourage should not be like Elisha's - Gechazi came from it' (Berachos 17a). He answers that Elisha was not considered his Rebbi; had he been his Rebbi, his merit would have protected him. Since Gechazi called him by his name, he was not considered his Rebbi.

Ramah, Maharsha: He does not discuss why he got Tzara'as. The verses explicitly say that this was due to taking gifts from Na'aman! Rather, he asks why he has no share in the world to come.

Iyun Yakov: Both of these punishments were before he called his Rebbi by his name (107b)! Perhaps since he said 'Elisha' while telling episodes, presumably, he was used to doing so, also before the punishments. This led to greater sins that brought the punishments.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5: Ratzuf Ahavah asked, why was he punished for saying "Elisha" to the king without calling him Adoni? Uriyah was considered Mored b'Malchus for saying "Adoni Yo'av" in front of David (Kidushin 43a)! (NOTE: This is like Rashi; Tosfos there explains differently. - PF) He answered that a Rebbi is different; his grandeur does not depend on the king, unlike a Sar Tzeva.

Why did R. Yirmeyah think that saying 'very good! R. Yochanan said the same' is Apikorsus?

Maharsha: He implies that there was a Havah Amina to explain that it is merely a Mashal, unlike the simple meaning, like Apikorsim do. R. Yirmeyah thought that this is Apikors us. R. Zeira answered, it is not - he supported you against the Minim! If you heard [that supporting the Rebbi is Apikorsus], it was the following case of the Talmid who did not believe like the simple meaning until he saw it.

What are Megadim?

Rashi: They are sweet fruits.

What do we learn from "l'Chadashav Yevaker"?

Rashi: Every month fruits will ripen.

Why did the Talmid became a mound of bones?

Rashi: He died. Anyone who dies becomes a mound of bones.

Etz Yosef citing Maharsha Bava Basra 75a: Resha'im are called dead even in their lifetimes. Therefore, his flesh decayed as if he was dead.

What is the significance of the gates being 200 Amos tall, twice Adam's height?

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Bereishis Rabah 12:6 says that every "Toldos" in the Torah is Chaser (missing a Vov), except for "Eleh Toldos ha'Shamayim" and "v'Eleh Toldos Peretz." There, the Vov teaches that six things were taken from Adam, and will not return until Ben Peretz (Mashi'ach) will come. One of them is Adam's height. Hash-m consoles doubly - "Nachamu Nachamu", therefore his height will be twice Adam's. (NOTE: The Midrash implies that the entire generation will be so tall. If so, it is not difficult if Og himself was taller (his ankle was 30 Amos above the ground - Berachos 54b). However, the dimensions of the future Bayis at the end of Yechezkel are not appropriate for such giants. Pesach ha'Heichal will be seven Amos wide (41:3; Rashi explains that it will be six Amos tall). One who is 200 Amos tall cannot pass through it! Perhaps people will enter miraculously. Bereishis Rabah 5:9 says that Yehoshua brought all of Yisrael between the two staves of the Aron, an area of at most 25 square Amos! -PF)

Was the Heichal 100 Amos?

Rashi #1: This was its length, including the Ulam and the walls.

Rashi #2: In Bayis Sheni, the Heichal was 100 Amos tall.

Why did R. Yochanan expound the verse to teach about frames around windows, and not about the gates themselves?

Iyun Yakov #1: He did not discuss the gates themselves, for Tana'im argue about their height.

Iyun Yakov #2: He did not want to expound about the gates, lest people mock his words. A Talmid mocked his words even about gems 30 Amos tall!