Why do we ask about b'Reishis written regarding Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu? And what is the question 'were there no kings until now?'

Rashi: It does not say b'Reishis regarding other kings. If it merely wanted to teach that it was at the start of their reigns, it should have said 'in the first year'!

Was Yehoyakim's evil enough to destroy the entire world?

Iyun Yakov: Yes - "Chotei Echad Ye'abed Tovah Harbe."

Was Tzidkiyah's merit enough to save the entire world?

Maharsha: Yes - the world was created for [even] one Tzadik - "v'Tzadik Yesod Olam." Even though it says in Divrei ha'Yamim "va'Ya'as ha'Ra b'Einei Hash-m Elokav Lo Nichna mi'Lifnei Yirmeyah...; v'Gam ba'Melech Nebuchadnetzar Marad Asher Hishbi'o bEi'lokim", this was not considered a great sin, for he believed Yirmeyah's words, and saved him several times from the evil people of his generation. He believed his words "if you will go out [and submit to Melech Bavel], you will live; if not... the city will be given to the Kasdim and they will burn it, and you will not escape them." He was worried about his Dor, lest he be given into the hands of the Yehudim that fell to the Kasdim. Also the Shevu'ah to Nebuchadnetzar that he rebelled against him (he did not fulfill what he swore to Nebuchadnetzar), was via his Dor, which permitted the Shevu'ah. The Gemara asked from "va'Ya'as ha'Ra b'Einei Hash-m k'Chol Asher Asah Yehoyakim", which implies that he was no better than Yehoyakim! We answer he should have protested, but he did not; however, he himself was a Tzadik.

NOTE: I find this difficult. Yirmeyah promised him that he will live if he surrenders. He did not need to fear Bnei Doro! Also, he should not have asked to permit his Shevu'ah! Why was Tzidkiyah the reason to sustain the world, and not Yirmeyah? The generation normally follows the king. Yehoyakim's Dor were Tzadikim; they saved the world. Soon after his reign, they were a reason to destroy the world! Rashi (Vayikra 26:35) calculates years in which Shemitah was not observed. He counts years when the king was a Rasha, even though there were virtuous Nevi'im! (He also counts Tzidkiyah's years, for here it says that His Dor was evil.) The world was created for Yisrael; in Tzidkiyah's Dor, they were evil without any coercion from the king. Perhaps Hash-m saved the world only because the king was a Tzadik, and could make them repent. Perhaps Tzidkiyah's great merit was remaining virtuous in an evil Dor that wanted to kill Yirmeyah. Surely Yehoyakim arranged that everyone with authority, especially those close to the king, were idolaters like himself. (PF)

What was the answer 'Hashem wanted to return the world to Tohu va'Vohu...'?

Rashi: Hash-m wanted to return the world to Tohu va'Vohu, like it was b'Reishis (at the time of creation).

How did the generations change so quickly, that Yehoyakim's generation was a reason to save the world, and Tzidkiyah's generation was a reason to destroy the world?

Rashi: Yehoyakim was before ha'Cheresh veha'Masger, who were great Tzadikim, were exiled. Tzidkiyah reigned after they were exiled.

Ayeles ha'Shachar: Since Hash-m was considering destroying the entire world, what is the difference if the Tzadikim are in Eretz Yisrael or in Bavel?

How does "Ish Chacham Nishpat Es Ish Evil..." teach about Hash-m's conduct with Achaz and Amatzyah?

Rashi: "Ish Chacham" is Hash-m, who is called "Ish Milchamah." "Ish Evil" are Achaz and Amatzyah. "V'Ragaz v'Sachak v'Ein Nachas" - whether He showed anger to or dealt favorably with them, they did not fear Him to repent.

Iyun Yakov: Even though Amatzyah was before Achaz, we explain like the verse, which first discusses the anger against Achaz, like 'easily angered, and easily appeased' (Avos 5:11). Had the verse said v'Sachak v'Ragaz v'Ein Nachas, we would have thought that v'Ein Nachas applies only to v'Ragaz, which is right before it. Now that it is next to v'Sachak, we know that it applies to v'Sachak, and all the more so to v'Ragaz.

Etz Yosef citing Midrash Eichah: "Ish Evil" is Yisrael - "Ki Evil Ami."

Etz Yosef: When Hash-m shows anger, they do not accept Musar. From the laughter and Simchah that He shows to them, they do not increase Ahavas Hash-m. Rather, they transgress His will. Achaz should have realized that he had more afflictions than all Malchei Yehudah before him due to his idolatry; rather, he increased to serve the gods of Damesek. Initially, Amatzyah was proper, and succeeded. He should have realized that he defeated Se'ir because he does not serve idolatry! Rather, he served Se'ir's gods.

Where are they Mechatech Halachos?

Rashi: It is in Har ha'Bayis and the Azarah. There were three Sanhedriyos - in Lishkas ha'Gazis, Pesach ha'Azarah, and Pesach Har ha'Bayis.

Maharsha: We expound Sha'ar ha'Tavech, for we do not find a gate with this name. We find that Beis Din ha'Gadol sits in Yerushalayim - "v'Kamta v'Alisa El ha'Makom...", "Lo Sasur Min ha'Davar Asher Yagidu Lecha Yamin..." This is like 'in the place of Mishpat, there is the Resha' (Vayikra Rabah 4:1).

Why do we expound "Al Sedeh Ish Atzel Avarti" to refer to the evil kings?

Maharal: The verses discuss increasing damage due to his laziness. So the evil kings, each added to the evil of those before him.

Maharsha: In the days of these kings of Yehudah, Yisrael's hands slackened and they decreased each day, until Churban ha'Bayis and Galus Yisrael in the days of Tzidkiyah.

Iyun Yakov: The decrease began in the days of Achaz - the exile of the 10 tribes began then.

Why does "Al Sedeh Ish Atzel Avarti" refer to Achaz?

Rashi: He prevented Avodah and study of Torah, as we will expound (Amud B).

Maharsha: He was the first king of Yehudah to cause Yisrael to serve idolatry and slacken.

Why does "v'Al Kerem Adam Chasar Lev" refers to Menasheh?

Rashi: He erased the name of Hash-m and destroyed the Mizbe'ach.

Maharsha: Yisrael are called Kerem Hash-m Tzevakos .In Menasheh's days, they decreased day by day.

Why does "v'Hineh Chulo Kimshonim" refer to Amon?

Rashi: He caused cobwebs to come on the Mizbe'ach, like it says on Amud B.

Why does "Kasu Fanav Charulim" refer to Yehoyakim?

Rashi: He covered his face from Hash-m's light. He said 'people need from Him only His light. He can take His light away!' (Amud B)

Maharsha: In his days, afflictions came on Yisrael.

Why does "v'Geder Avanav Neherasah" refer to Tzidkiyahu?

Rashi: The Mikdash was destroyed in his days.

How does "Mashach Yado Es Lotzetzim" teach that scoffers do not behold the Shechinah?

Rashi: He withdrew His hands from being close to them.

Ramah: These groups, even if they have Torah and good deeds, and they have a share in the world to come, they cannot see the Shechinah via a clear glass.

Maharsha: "Yado" is His place. It mentions Yad, for scoffers show frivolity with their hands.

Why does "Ki Lo Lefanav Chanef Yavo" refer to flatterers?

Maharsha: Flatterers begin with flattery before they make their request.

Why does "Lo Yegurcha Ra" refer to Ba'alei Leshon ha'Ra?

Rashi: It says after this "Te'abed Doverei Chazav Ish Damim" and "Kirbam Havos Kever Pasu'ach Geronam..."

Maharsha: Rashi (Sotah 42a) explained that after this, it says "Ein b'FIhem Nachon Kirbam Havos..."

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Anyone who wastes seed is called Ra - "va'Yhi Er Bechor Yehudah Ra", like the Zohar says. One who sins with his tongue and speaks Leshon ha'Ra is like one who wastes seed - the Bris of speech and the Bris of flesh (Milah) are opposite each other - "Al Titen Es Picha Lachati Es Besarecha." Therefore, also one who speaks Leshon ha'Ra is called Ra.

What is the meaning of "Se'unah"?

Maharsha: It is the cause of a matter.

Why does it mention finding your wife Safek Nidah when you return from a trip?

Rashi: Ohalecha is your wife. Safek Nidah pains more than Vadai Nidah, for he suspects that she is Tehorah, and he is needlessly withheld from her at a time of great desire.

Maharsha: A wife is called Ohel or Bayis, like it says in Shabbos (118b) ' I never called my wife 'Ishti', rather, 'Beisi'.' This is because she is primary in the house, and she is always there - "Kol Kevudah Vas Melech Penimah."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We expound these, for Ra'ah and Nega could have been taught together, and the verse divided them into two expressions.

Rashi (Bava Metzi'a 107a): You will not find her Safek Nidah, and all the more so Vadai Nidah.

Ya'avetz (ibid.): This is difficult. Yisrael are not suspected of Bi'ah will a Vadai Nidah! Also, if he returns when she should be Nidah based on her Veses (expected time of menstruation), will she deviate from her Veses?!

Yad David (ibid.): It is a smaller Chidush that Hash-m will change her Veses. Rather, even in cases like three women who slept on a bed (and blood was found, and we do not know from whom) , or one who walked through a butcher's market and is unsure if she walked where blood could touch her, and she was negligent and not careful, Hash-m will guard the Tzadik from Safek Nidah.

Maharal: Man comes from the road in order to have Chibur (connection) with his wife - this is Shem Yud Kei. (NOTE: When a husband and wife merit, the Divine Presence is between them. There is a Yud in Ish, and a Hei in Ishah; these comprise Shem Yud Kei (Sotah 17a). - PF) Pega'im (mishaps) will not block this Chibur.

Maharsha: Just like Nega'im on a house show that sin clings to its inhabitants, Tum'as Nidah when a man returns from a trip shows that he sinned. It says Safek, for this does not apply at her Veses (expected time of her menstrual cycle; then she would be Vadai Temei'ah, and it is not due to sin).

Iyun Yakov (here and Bava Metzi'a 107a): Nega'im come primarily due to relations when she is Nidah. Yisrael are not suspected of Bi'ah with a Vadai Nidah; rather, it is when she is Safek Nidah. If a woman has a regular Veses, and her husband returns and finds her sleeping, if there was time for her to become Tehorah after her period, he may have Bi'ah with her without waking her (YD 184-185). Sometimes, it turns out that she was Nidah! If she was Vadai Nidah (there was not time for her to become Tehorah), she is forbidden until he asks her; he will not come to sin.

Daf Al ha'Daf (Bava Metzi'a 107a citing Ben Yehoyada #1): Safek Nidah is a stain. Perhaps she will count seven clean days, and on the seventh day her period will come, and she counted the days without any benefit from this.

Daf Al ha'Daf (Bava Metzi'a 107a citing Ben Yehoyada #2): Safek Nidah is a stain. It is not part of nature. Hash-m will not change her Veses, which is natural, due to the Berachah.

What is Makdi'ach Tavshilo?

Maharsha: Torah and deeds are compared to cooking, e.g. one who toiled on Erev Shabbos will eat on Shabbos (Avodah Zarah 3a). One who ruins his Torah via his deeds, is like one who burned his food and ruined it.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nifla'os ha'Yehudi p.119: Beis Hillel permit to divorce one's wife 'even if Hikdichah Tavshilo' (Gitin 90a), i.e. she does not act like Das Yehudis and in the straight path. Due to this, the children will be Makdichim Tavshilam in public and veer from the straight path. He should divorce her! (NOTE: The next opinion in that Mishnah, R. Akiva, permits divorcing 'even if he found a prettier woman.' Seemingly, just like he discusses Reshus (he may divorce her if he wants), also Beis Hillel! - PF)

How do we know which were his father' Berachos, and which were his mother's?

Rashi #1: Presumably, a father blesses about things that men think about - Safek Nidah, Yetzer ha'Ra, evil thoughts and a child or Talmid who will be Makdi'ach Tavshilo in public. So David blessed Shlomo. A woman's heart is soft - she prays that he be saved from stumbling blocks, Ruchim and Shedim.

Rashi #2: In between, it says "Ki Mal'achav Yetzaveh Lach...", i.e. Hash-m blessed him "Ki Vi Chashak va'Afaltehu...." This Berachah must be from Hash-m!

Maharsha: Initially, David addresses Hash-m in second person and mentioned His name in his Berachos - "Ki Atah Hash-m Machsi...; Lo Se'unah Elecha Ra'ah." Afterwards, the verses address Hash-m in third person, without His name - "Ki Mal'achav Yetzaveh Lach..." These are his mother's Berachos. Women do not say His name so often, for they are often Temei'os, and request that He guard her children via angels. (NOTE: Women did not refrain from saying His name due to Ezra's decree [about Tum'as Keri], which was 500 years later! However, perhaps they were stringent; Daf Al ha'Daf (Berachos 18b, citing the Chida (Ya'ir Ozen Tes:7)) says that Benayahu was stringent to immerse from Tum'as Keri before learning. - PF) Hash-m blessed him "Ki Vi Chashak va'Afaltehu" (for he desires Me), and not due to his father's Tefilah, and not due to his mother's, who requested that angels guard him. Rather, I Myself will guard him.

Iyun Yakov: There are three Berachos, from the three partners in his formation. White matter, including the brain, comes from the father; he blessed that he not have evil thoughts. The mother blesses that his body be guarded. Hash-m blesses His contribution (the Neshamah) with length of days.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ohr Yakov p.36: The father's Berachos are Yitzchak's Berachos to Yakov when he sent him to Padan Aram. The Torah says only "va'Yvarech Oso"; it does not say what the Berachos were. He added "v'Kel Shakai Yevarech Osecha"- Hash-m should add His Berachah. "Ki Vi Chashak va'Afaltehu" is appropriate - Hash-m promised to guard him. "Ki Mal'achav Yetzaveh Lach Lishmarcha b'Chol Derachecha" is proper for one who goes on a trip. His mother counseled that he go! "Imo Anochi v'Tzarah" is appropriate - Yakov had many Tzaros. This does not apply to Shlomo - all his years were good, and all kings were submissive to him. Also all Yisrael were serene during his entire kingship. Even though David wrote Tehilim, it says that 10 other Chachamim composed some of the Tehilim, including Avraham.

How is the 'Ayin' of "me'Resha'im" Teluyah, and what do we learn from this?

Rashi: It is written above the other letters, not in line with them, so it looks like 'me'Rashim'. Once one becomes Rash below (people dislike him), he is Rash above. 'Rashim' hints to two kinds of Rash.

Ramah: This is wrong. If so, there was no reason for the Ayin at all!

Maharsha: Rashi explains like "Kol Achei Rash Sene'uhu." So David was pursued via his brothers, from Yisrael, and also Nechemyah. It was forbidden for them to hate him - "Lo Sisna Es Achicha." This Drashah applies here, for the previous verse there, "Tis'hapech k'Chomer Chosam v'Yizyatzevu Kemo Levush", discusses the world to come. Resha'im will lose the world to come due to their light in this world. Their strong arm in this world will be broken in the world to come.

Ramah: If one becomes a Rosh (leader, without inheriting the position) below, he is a Rasha above. This does not apply to Moshe, Yehoshua and Shmuel. They conducted the nation only because all needed their Chochmah and Nevu'ah. Also, they did according to Hash-m's word.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 1: Perush ha'Mishnayos (Avos 1:9, v'Al Tisvada li'Rshus) says that once one is appointed a leader below, he becomes a Rasha above. The Tur (Bamidbar 1:50) says similarly. Midrash Chaser v'Yasir (p.39) says so.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Maharatz Chayos (Avos 1:9) says that the Rambam's text here said 'if one becomes Rosh below, he becomes a Rasha above.'

Maharal: If one becomes Rash (descends from his importance) below, also above.

Iyun Yakov: An Ashir is one who is happy with his portion (Avos 4:1). Rash is one who is very sad. Surely he is Rash above! "V'Yimana me'Resha'im Oram..." - Simchah will be withheld from them. This is like "la'Yehudim Haysah Orah v'Simchah v'Sason."

How does the 'Ayin' show honor to David?

Rashi: [It is written] Resha'im, to show that this does not apply to Tzadikim. Many people hated David, but Hash-m loved him. (NOTE: Perhaps Hash-m desires the Teshuvah of Stam Resha'im, but not of those who are hated below. - PF)

Maharsha: It is only for Resha'im, for it is permitted to hate them.

Maharal: The rule does not apply to David, even though he descended from his importance when Avshalom pursued him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The rule does not apply to David, even though he cried much (was sad) - "Mitasi b'Dim'asi."

How does the 'Ayin' show honor to Nechemyah?

Rashi #1: [It is written] Resha'im, to show that this does not apply to Tzadikim. Many Nochrim hated him and wanted to kill him, for he was building the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps because he fought Nochrim, there was concern for danger to Yisrael, and also Yisraelim hated him. One is not hated above due to hatred of Nochrim below!

Rashi #2: Many Yisraelim envied him - "Rabim bi'Yhudah Ba'alei Shevu'ah Lo Ki Chasan Hu li'Shchanyah Ven Arach"; they disgraced him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The rule does not apply to him, even though he cried much - "va'Evkeh va'Es'abelah Yamim."

What is the significance of expounding in 55 facets in Toras Kohanim?

Rashi: Each year of his reign, he expounded in a new way.

Ramah: This is difficult. While doing all abominations, he expounded Toras Kohanim?! (NOTE: Achav expounded it in 85 facets. We do not find that he was initially a Tzadik! Perhaps Menasheh was worse. Achav sinned only with idolatry and matters of desire (e.g. Navos' vineyard), but Menasheh wanted to anger Hash-m. - PF)

Ramah: He expounded when he was a Tzadik, and through this, he merited to reign for 55 years.

Maharsha: It mentions Toras Kohanim, which discusses coming close to Hash-m via Avodah; one must offer Lishmah. They distanced themselves from Hash-m, to offer to idolatry.

According to the opinion that (Sotah 22) that Torah protects and saves even when not engaging in it, why didn't the Torah of these kings protect them, especially Yaravam? There was no defect in his Torah (above, 102a)!

Iyun Yakov: We must say like it says in Chagigah 15 (about Acher) - there was sin in their hearts (their Torah was not proper).

What is the meaning of 'they will not live [and will not be judged]'?

Rashi: They will not live in the world to come with the Tzadikim. This is only for Malchei Yisrael. Shlomo and Tzidkiyah were from Beis David. Even though it says about them 'va'Ya'as ha'Ra', they will live in the future.

Maharsha: They hade no share in the world to come because they knew their Master (they expounded in so many facets) and rebelled against Him. There are other Malchei Yehudah about whom it says 'va'Ya'as ha'Ra b'Einei Hash-m", e.g. Yehoram, Yeho'achaz ben Yoshiyah and Yehoyachin; it is known that they were not so evil.

Ramah: They are light Ruchos that are blown in the world. They have neither pleasure nor pain, i.e. of Gehinom. This is because they saved Yisraelim, fought wars and felt pain of Yisrael. Surely they are pained that they are not allowed to go to the world to come!

How does "va'Yaku Es Avshalom" teach that he has no share in the world to come? Haka'ah does not always refer to death!

Maharsha: Here it must mean death, for it says afterwards that they buried him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said va'Yaku va'Ymisuhu l'Avshalom. Rather, it says "va'Yaku Es Avshalom" - in this world, that his name will not be mentioned, "va'Ymisuhu" - in the world to come.

If Avshalom has no share in the world to come, why didn't our Mishnah list him?

Iyun Yakov: In Sotah 10 there is an argument about this.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5: Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim says that if a Pilegesh has Kidushin, Avshalom has no share in the world to come, for he had Bi'ah with his father's Pilagshim. If she has no Kidushin, he has a share. (NOTE: One who has Bi'ah [even] with a married woman, he has a share in the world to come (107a)! Perhaps that is only if he was executed and confessed. Avshalom was killed, but not executed, and we do not find that he confessed. - PF)

Etz Yosef: The one who says that he has a share in the world to come, he explains that "va'Yamisuhu" in the world to come was before David prayed for him to bring him to the world to come (Yalkut 19).

Why does it specify Achaz and Achazyah?

Rashi: Chachamim knew that they were Resha'im. Amon and Yehoyakim are not included, even though they were very evil; Chachamim knew that they will live.

What is the source that he killed Yeshayah?

Maharsha: It says "Peh la'Feh" - because he sinned with his mouth. Yeshayahu [said a name of Hash-m, and] was swallowed into a cedar tree. They brought the tree and were sawing it. When they got to the place of his mouth, he died, because he had said (earlier) "I dwell among a people of unclean lips" (Yevamos 49b). According to the opinion that he killed 1000 people each day via an idol, he transgressed idolatry and murder; Anochi and Lo Sirtzach are opposite each other on the Luchos - this is "Peh la'Feh."

Iyun Yakov citing a Midrash, Margoliyos ha'Yam 8 citing the Yerushalmi here: "Peh la'Feh" hints that he was equal to Moshe, about whom it says "Peh El Peh Adaber Bo."

How did the idol kill the 1000 people who moved it each day?

Rashi: They were broken due to its weight.

Maharal: They could have had 2000 or 3000 people carry it, and it would not break them! Perhaps its Avodah was to be carried via people who have no strength to carry any more. (NOTE: Even if it was not big enough for 2000 people to stand under it, they could have made long poles to enable more people to bear the weight. - PF)

Why is the Neshamah of one Tzadik worth as much as an entire world?

Maharal: This world is physical. A Tzadik's Neshamah is separated [from physicality]. He is equal to the entire world, for it is not found in the world. Even though the world has things not in a Tzadik's Neshamah, they are equal, for each has something not in the other.

What is the significance of an idol with four faces?

Maharal: Idolatry is veering from Hash-m to cling to idolatry. There are four Lavim of idolatry - "Lo Yihyeh Lecha", "Lo Sa'aseh Pesel", "Lo Sishtachaveh" and "Lo Sa'avdem." Every veering is to the four sides; these four Lavim correspond to the four sides. This was total idolatry. Surely Hash-m saw [was angered by] it more than Stam idolatry.

Maharsha: This is like the Kisei ha'Kavod, which has four Panim.

How do we learn from "Ki Katzar ha'Matza me'Histare'a" that Amon put an idol in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim?

Maharsha: It says about Amon "Hirbah Ashmah" - he added to his fathers' sins. Achaz put an idol in the Aliyah above the Heichal; Menasheh put one in the Heichal, and Amon in Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. This is ha'Matza, where the Shechinah dwells on the Kapores - "Bein Shadai Yalin."

Why would R. Yonason cry when he read "veha'Masechah Tzarah"?

Maharal: Surely idolatry is nothing compared to Hash-m. A dog is insignificant compared to the Cause of causes! However, man's action causes it to be considered a Tzarah of Hash-m. He cried that man can stoop so low, as if he made a Tzarah to Hash-m! Also, one should be pained that such a sin was done, to make a Tzarah to "Kones ka'Ned Mei ha'Yam."

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: Idolatry does nothing. How can it be a Tzarah to One who does great, famous miracles?! Alternatively, it mentions piling up the water, for via this, all agree that Hash-m is one.

Maharsha #1: Hash-m can widen the world. Even in the sea, he piles up the water to make room for dry land. The idol makes it Tzarah (narrow) for Him, due to their sin.

Iyun Yakov: This is like a man used to say 'when I loved my wife, we could both fit on the blade of a sword. Now that our love has waned, a bed 60 Amos wide does not suffice' (7a).

Maharsha #2: Hash-m piled up the water of Yam Suf, and was not adamant about Pesel Michah that went with them. Will you make the Mikdash narrow for Him due to their sin!

What do we learn from "Te'udah Chasum Torah b'Limudai"?

Maharsha: Te'udah is Avodah - it testifies that the Shechinah dwells in Yisrael. It says "Tzur", for he tied Avodah and sealed Torah. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 42:4) says that he stopped children from learning in Batei Kenesiyos and Batei Midrashos. He said, if there are no kids, there will not be adult goats.

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: He intended to make Torah forgotten from Yisrael.

What is the source that Menasheh destroyed the Mizbe'ach?

Maharsha: After he repented, it says that he built the Mizbe'ach. We infer that he had destroyed it when he sinned. Surely it was built in the days of his father Chizkiyah!

What is the meaning of 'brought Shemamis on the Mizbe'ach'?

Rashi: He abolished the Avodah to the point that cobwebs covered the Mizbe'ach.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 13: Achaz ceased the Avodah, and Menasheh destroyed the Mizbe'ach. How did Amon sin more than them?!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 13: His fathers ceased Avodah - passive sin. He offered a Tamei being on the Mizbe'ach! (NOTE: Also destroying the Mizbe'ach was active! - PF) Ibn Ezra on "Shemamis b'Yadayim Tesapes" (Mishlei 30:28) holds that it is a Chayah (monkey); its form resembles a human form. It says Tesapes, for it is Tofes (holds) what one gives to it. Ramban (introduction to Perush ha'Mishnayos) says that it is a bird that builds a nest in houses in warm weather. Ramah says that it is a Tamei bird used for frolic in kings' palaces.

What is the source that Amon burned the Torah and brought Shemamis on the Mizbe'ach?

Maharsha: Since his fathers Achaz and Menasheh sinned in two pillars of the world, Torah and Avodah, and he sinned more than them, surely he sinned in both of these.

How did Achaz permit Arayos?

Rashi: He considered Arayos to be permitted.

What is the source that Achaz permitted Arayos and Menasheh had Bi'ah with his sister?

Maharsha: It says about both of them "k'So'avos ha'Goyim", i.e. Arayos - "Ki Es Kol ha'So'avos ha'El Asu Anshei..."

What is the basis of the argument about whether "Hirbah Ashmah" refers to burning the Torah or Bi'ah with his mother?

Maharal: Burning the Torah is the ultimate sin of the Sechel - he says that he has no share in Toras Moshe. Bi'ah with his mother is the ultimate physical abomination. It is worse than other Arayos - it is only to anger Hash-m. Perhaps the name Amon hints to this - it is like Imo (his mother), just like Mo'av hints to me'Av (she became pregnant from her father).

Margoliyos ha'Yam 16: R. Yochanan taught that he did one of these. He also taught that Menasheh added three faces to his idol, to anger the Shechinah from every direction, and that Achaz, Menasheh and Amon erected idols in the Aliyah, Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, respectively. He taught that Esav did five Aveiros on the day he sold his Bechorah, for he holds (Bava Basra 109b) 'we attribute ruin to the corrupt' - whatever evil we can expound about Resha'im, we do. (NOTE: It seems that Rav Ashi disagreed. He accepted Menasheh's words that he sinned due to the great Yetzer ha'Ra for idolatry. This implies that he did not intend to anger Hash-m! - PF)

What is the question 'will you derive pleasure from the place you came from'?

Rashi: A man came out of his mother's womb. He has no desire for [Bi'ah] in that place.

What is Parvayim?

Maharsha: It is exceedingly red gold, like it says in Yoma 45a. It resembles blood of Parim (bulls). Therefore, it shines excessively.

Why did Yehoyakim say 'we do not need His light'?

. Yehoyakim said that man does not need Hash-m, for man has Parvayim gold, which illuminates. He has existence without Hash-m, so he need not serve Hash-m. This is wrong. Hash-m's light is non-physical. This shows that he brings the non-physical from potential to deed. Light of Parvayim gold is physical. It is desired only in this physical world.

Maharsha: He denied Hashgachah, and said that Hash-m abandoned the land.

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Do we need only His light?! Perhaps he meant that Hash-m created the lower world complete; we need the upper world only for light that shines from there to the lower world.

What was the answer 'He already gave them to us'?

Maharal: This world is physical; Hash-m gave it to man, who is physical. Therefore, we do not depend on the Cause, and need not serve Him. He erred. Since Hash-m gave the gold, He illuminated and brought man to deed, so we must serve Him.

Maharsha: "Ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Shem" - the luminaries are in Shamayim, but the land he gave to people.

Why did Yehoyakim engrave the name of idolatry on his Ever?

Maharal: Even though this is exceedingly disgraceful, it shows absolute clinging to idolatry. Nothing is more proper for idolatry than Ervah. Man's Ever is his strength. They said that idolatry has power.

Maharsha: "V'So'avosav [Asher Asah]" always implies Ervah. Also idolatry is called To'evah. It says "veha'Nimtza", for his Dor was virtuous, and he was afraid and ashamed to do so openly. It was found after his death.

Why did he engrave Hash-m's name on his Ever?

Maharal: The Ever is a sign of kingship, like we said about [the father of] Yaravam and Achitofel (101b). They said that Hash-m rules over man, but His power is physical; it is not separated from physicality.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 17: Both opinions seek to expound for his detriment. One holds that idolatry, to which he clung, is most severe. The other holds that [disgracing] Kedushas Hash-m is most severe.

Here it says that Yisro's reward for "Kiren Lo v'Yochal Lachem" was that his descendants sat on the Great Sanhedrin in Lishkas ha'Gazis. In Sotah 11a, we say that he merited this for being in Pharaoh's counsel [about the savior of Yisrael, and fleeing [when he heard that they will drown Jewish babies]! If these opinions argue, the Gemara should have said so!

Maharsha: His reward for giving food was that his children should be proper to marry into Yisrael, similar to Mo'av, which lost this for not giving food. (NOTE: Why would we think his children should be forbidden? Maharsha holds that Yisro was from midday. Just like we eradicated Midyan due to sending Bil'am to curse Yisrael, and in the end he caused them to sin, perhaps remnants should be punished and forbidden to marry into Yisrael. - PF) Via another merit, i.e. fleeing, he merited that his descendants sit on the Sanhedrin. This was possible only due to the first reward, for only people who may marry into Yisrael may be on the Sanhedrin. It says that Bnei Banav sat on the Sanhedrin, for even from Mo'av, Bnei Banos can marry into Yisrael. (NOTE: Even though he fled the counsel before he gave food, Hash-m knew that later he will give food to Moshe, and merit that his children may marry into Yisrael. We can say that He immediately decided that for fleeing, his descendants will sit on the Sanhedrin. - PF)

Why did Michah's food being open to travelers offset his idolatry?

Ramah: Due to this, Chachamim did not want to openly teach that he has no share in the world to come.

Maharal: Giving his food fulfills "Acharei Hash-m Telechu" - just like He bestows Chesed, you should bestow Chesed (Sotah 14a). Hash-m is called "Mekor Mayim Chayim"; idolatry is "Boros Nishbarim Asher Lo Yachilu ha'Mayim" (Yirmeyah 2:13). Hash-m constantly puts influences on all creations; they continue to exist only due to him. Since Michah bestowed to everyone, he clung a bit to Hash-m, and distanced from idolatry, which does not bestow.

Maharsha #1: The text does not say 'for it says', for we do not learn from "v'Ovar ba'Yam Tzarah." (NOTE: Our text says 'Kol ha'Over v'Shav El ha'Leviyim.' There is no such verse. A Hagahah in the Oz v'Hadar edition says that it is not in old texts; Maharshal added it based on Rashi. - PF) "V'Ovar..." begins a new matter.

Maharsha #2: The text can say 'for it says.' Just like Hash-m had mercy on Michah and let him pass through the sea with Yisrael, even though he had his idol with him, so He had mercy and did not list him with commoners [without a share in the world to come] because his food was open to travelers.

Iyun Yakov: Hosting guests is greater than receiving the face of the Shechinah. Therefore, it atoned for idolatry.

Etz Yosef: Everyone lodged with him. "Va'Yavo Har Efrayim Ad Beis Michah La'asos Darko" (Shofetim 17:8) - he went to Har Efrayim only because Beis Michah was there; Michah gave provisions to travelers.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 18: Bamidbar Rabah 10:5 says that Resha'im's names come before 'Shem', e.g. "Naval Shmo", and oppositely for Tzadikim - "u'Shmo Elkanah." We ask from "u'Shmo Michahu", and answer that because he received guests, he is written like Tzadikim. Sefer ha'Mesilos (p.140) says that perhaps Michah was the "ha'Ish me'Har Efrayim" who hosted Pilegesh b'Giv'ah, and said "Kol Machsorecha Alai."

Did Michah take his idol through the Yam Suf?

Rashi #1: He took a plate with Hash-m's name, which Moshe had used to raise Yosef's coffin from the bottom of the Nile, which he would later use to make the Egel.

Maharsha: It said on the plate 'Alei Shor' (Yosef, who is compared to an ox, should rise).

Beis Yosef (Sof OC 51, citing Orchos Chayim): One must be careful to say "[Mi Chamocha ba'Elim Hash-m] Mi Kamocha Nedar ba'Kodesh" (the Chaf in the latter Chamocha has a Dagesh). If he says [Hash-m] Mi Chamocha, this reviles Hash-m, for [before finishing the word] it sounds like Hash-m Michah, and Michah stole Hash-m's name and used it to make the Egel! This is only because here discusses Keri'as Yam Suf, and Michah took the name through the sea. We do say "Kol Atzmosai Tomarnah Hash-m Mi Chamocha" (Tehilim 35:10), for it does not pertain to Keri'as Yam Suf.

Rashi #2: He made an idol, and brought it through the Yam Suf.

Ramah: This is wrong. Verses prove that Michah made his Pesel afterwards! (NOTE: Rashi must mean that he made an idol before Keri'as Yam Suf, and another one in Eretz Yisrael. - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 19: Targum Yonason (Shemos 17:8) says that Amalek killed people from Dan that the cloud expelled due to idolatry among them. (NOTE: i.e. there was idolatry in Michah's Shevet even before entering Eretz Yisrael. - PF)

Vilna Gaon: He did not take an idol. Rather, he had a spiritual defect that would later cause him to make one.

Why does the Gemara mention Gerav and Shilo?

Rashi: Michah set up his idol in Gerav; the Mishkan was in Shilo.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 20: Our Gemara says that they were three Mil apart. Pesikta d'Rav Kahana on "Bacho Sivkeh" says that Pesel Michah was in the west [of Eretz Yisrael], and the Mishkan was in Shilo.

What is the meaning of Ledochfo?

Rashi: The angels wanted to kill Michah.

Maharsha: They wanted to push the smoke from [offerings to] Pesel Michah, so it would not mix with smoke from Hash-m's Mizbe'ach, which went straight up. Wind carried smoke from Pesel Michah three Mil, and it mixed with Ashan ha'Mizbe'ach. (NOTE: Hash-m stopped the angels, because his food was open to travelers. Is this a reason to let the smokes mix?! - PF)

How did they fight for the honor of a person, but not for Hash-m's honor?

Maharsha: They fought to avenge the concubine who was raped and killed, but not to stop Michah.

Who are the close and the far?

Rashi #1: Amon and Mo'av are close; Midyan is far. Far and close are not precise, for Midyan was Avraham's son from Keturah. They are closer than Amon and Mo'av, who are from Lot, Avraham's nephew!

Maharsha: Our Gemara refutes the Ramban (Devarim 23:5), who applies "Al Davar Asher Lo Kidmu Eschem ba'Lechem uva'Mayim" only to Amon, but not to Mo'av, for it says "Ochel ba'Kesef Tashbereni...; Ka'asher Asu... veha'Mo'avim" (Devarim 2:28-29). Here it says that also Mo'av was distanced for not giving food! We can support the opinion that "Lo Kidmu" means that they did not give food for free, like Yisro did. The Ramban said that for a [big] camp, it suffices to sell. I say that kingdoms normally give provisions to their neighbors. He asked, if Mo'av sold like Edom did, why was Mo'av distanced more from Yisrael? I answer that their merit "Ki Achicha Hu" diminished their punishment.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 22: Be'er Sheva similarly questioned SMaG, who explained like the Ramban. He concludes like Ibn Ezra, that Mo'av let us pass through their land, like Edom - "Atem Overim bi'Gevul Acheichem Bnei Esav." Melech Edom said "Lo Sa'avur Bi" - [he forbade only] in my Medinah (via his city).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Mo'av was distanced primarily "Al Davar Asher Lo Kidmu..."; hiring Bil'am caused that we should never seek their Shalom or benefit. (NOTE: If so, this applies only to Mo'av, but not to Amon. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: This is Midah k'Neged Midah - because they did not bring food to you, they cannot enter Kahal Gerim, the primary attribute of it is "v'Ohev Ger Lases Lo Lechem." Also, because [Mo'av] hired Bil'am to curse you, "u'Verach Es Lachmecha" will not apply to them, for "I will curse those who curse you." (NOTE: Amon and Mo'av can convert, just their male converts may not marry Yisraelim. Perhaps due to this, almost no men from these nations convert! - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 23: Pesikta Zutresa says that Bnei Edom made markets and sold to Yisrael. Bnei Lot - not only did they not give free food, nor sell to them - they even hired Bil'am! I heard that if not for hiring Bil'am, we could have said that they were stingy or poor. However, they offered to Bil'am a house full of gold and silver! This shows that due to hatred, they did not give food and water. Therefore, they were forbidden to enter Kahal Hash-m. (NOTE: The verses do not say that Balak offered this to Bil'am. This opinion infers from "even if Balak would give to me his house full of gold and silver", that Balak offered to him a house full of silver and gold. - PF)

Rashi #2: Amon and Mo'av are close, i.e. neighbors of Eretz Yisrael; they are closer than Midyan.

Maharsha: If so, there is no added Chidush that Legimah dispels the close, and brings close the far! (There is no reason why neighbors should be able to marry into Yisrael more than others.)

Maharsha: Mo'av is close, and Midyan is far. Due to the episode of Beis Pe'or, we should have distanced Midyan more than Mo'av. Mo'av feared, for Yisrael were close to their land - "v'Hu Yoshev mi'Muli." Midyan were far, and had no fear; they entered a feud that did not pertain to them. This is why Yisrael took vengeance "me'Es ha'Midyanim", and not against Mo'av. They should have been distanced more; Legimah brought them close.

Etz Yosef: Why did the Gemara mention also Amon? Sifri (Bamidbar 131) says that Amon and Mo'av set up booths with women to make Yisrael stumble. If so, also they took part in Mo'av's sin. (NOTE: The Ra'avad (on Sifra Metzora 5:1) says that one king used to rule over Amon and Mo'av; sometimes he was from Amon and sometimes from Mo'av. - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 104a 1 (citing Pnei David), 3: Amon and Mo'av are close; Yisro's family is far. A Midrash says that Yisro counseled Pharaoh not to harm Bnei Yisrael. Pharaoh got angry, and Yisro fled to Midyan. This implies that Yisro was not from Midyan, he merely fled to there! Tanchuma Yisro 4 counts 10 generations from Mitzrayim ben Cham until Yisro. This implies that he was Egyptian. (NOTE: Even if Yisro was a Mitzri convert, who may not marry into Yisrael, his grandsons could be third generation Mitzrim, who may marry into Yisrael, and all the more so later generations are permitted, so they may be on the Sanhedrin. - PF)

Who are "Mishpechos Sofrim Yoshevei Yabetz Tir'asim Shim'asim Suchasim"?

Rashi, from Sifri: They are the Kinim, descendants of Yisro.

Maharsha citing Rashi (Sotah 11a): Yabetz was a great man. He prayed that Hash-m bless him in Torah and many Talmidim. Tir'asim - they heard the Teru'ah on Har Sinai, or sat in the Sha'arim (gates) of Yerushalayim. Shim'asim - they (descendants of Yonadav ben Rechev) heard (obeyed) their father's command. Suchasim- they dwelled in Sukos. Mishpechos Sofrim is the Sanhedrin.

Why does Legimah dispel the close, and bring close those who were far?

Maharal: Hash-m is the Ikar (root) of everything. Just like a tree's trunk is close to its roots, is nourished via them, and it sends sustenance to all its branches, so one who sustains others is close to the Ikar (Hash-m). Therefore, Yisro was brought close. Conversely, Amon and Mo'av, who did not give food, were distanced. This is only for giving food and water, which is sustenance, but not for Tzedakah. One who gives gold or silver, perhaps the recipient will not be fed from it.

Iyun Yakov: Hosting guests is as great as coming early to the Beis Midrash (Shabbos 127a). Also, bread and water are compared to Torah - "Lechu Lachamu v'Lachami." Therefore, Yisro's descendants sat in Lishkas ha'Gazis - from there, they draw from their Torah and give to others to drink.

What was the episode of the man who gave Ido to eat?

Rashi: Seder Olam says that Ido is the Navi who prophesized the destruction of the Mizbe'ach on which Yaravam set up idols. Hash-m commanded him not to return [on the path he took, e.g.] to Beis Kel; a false Navi told him [in the name of Hash-m] that he must return with him to Beis Kel, and he fed Ido. In the merit of giving to him to eat, Hash-m spoke to the false Navi.

Why does Legimah give prophecy to false Nevi'im of the Ba'al?

Maharal: It is a Divine attribute, to bestow on others. It puts Shechinah on people not worthy of it.

Iyun Yakov: Hosting guests is greater than receiving the Shechinah (Shabbos 127a).

Why is the man who gave Ido to eat called a false Navi of the Ba'al? In the days of Yaravam they served calves. Achav began Avodas ha'Ba'al!

Maharsha: Perhaps he is called a Navi of the Ba'al, for we find false Nevi'im of the Ba'al. (We do not find Nevi'im of the calves.)

Why does Legimah hide Resha'im from the eyes?

Rashi: It stops Hash-m from looking at their deeds, to pay them like their evil. Rather, it is as if He does not see their deeds.

Maharal: Since he bestows good to others, Midas ha'Din overlooks him and does not conduct Din will him.

How is Shegagah of Legimah considered like Mezid?

Maharal: If one forgot and did not give Legimah to someone, he is punished as if he was Mezid. Since it is such a Divine, separated attribute, Shogeg does not apply to it. Similarly, Shogeg of Talmud Torah is considered Mezid (Avos 4:4), since learning pertains to man's Sechel. Shogeg applies to the physical, in which there is error, but not to what is non-physical.

Why does it mention [not giving to David] two loaves?

Maharsha: This refers to two meals, like we say that one who has food for two meals may not take from the Tamchuy... if an Oni passes through a city, we give to him bread for two meals (Shabbos 118a and Rashi). (NOTE: Chazal discussed a loaf that suffices for two meals. Maharsha explains that here, 'two loaves' means food for two meals. - PF)

How can we attribute the death of Sha'ul and his three sons to Yonason not giving food to David? When Sha'ul conjured up Shmuel, Shmuel said that it was due to leaving a remnant from Amalek!

Maharsha: Rav Yehudah understands that the sin of Amalek was proper only to lose kingship. Sha'ul and his sons would not have been killed if not for the sin of Nov. This is clear from Yoma 22b.

Why did the Gemara not add that [had Yonason given bread to David,] David's seed would not have been [virtually] wiped out?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): [Hash-m told David to choose a punishment.] Had David chosen to be given over to the enemy, his seed would not have been wiped out. He himself caused this!