Why did she say 'if one brings Terumah, he said that it will be to the Kohen'?

Maharsha: She said that Hash-m commanded Moshe only about Aseres ha'Dibros, which all heard on Sinai - "Kol ha'Edah Kulam Kedoshim", like the Midrash says.

How did Moshe move them?

Iyun Yakov: [He commanded Aharon] to wave the Leviyim, like the Midrash says.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2: She used the expression 'like Kufsa', which is like Kapas Temarim, for you were waved in all four directions and up and down, like a Lulav.

What is the meaning of 'he put his eye on your hair'?

Rashi: He wants that you will not look important like him.

Maharsha: Man aggrandizes himself via his hair; he is disgraced via eradicating it. [Shimon ha'Tzadik] asked the Nazir 'why did you want to destroy your beautiful hair?' Your hair will not be put in the Mikdash under [the pot cooking] the Shelamim, rather, it will be cast outside, for you are not esteemed in his eyes.

What is the significance of "Tamos Nafshi Im Plishtim"?

Maharsha: Shimshon's life was not important, compared to death of the Pelishtim. So Moshe is not concerned for his disgrace, in order to disgrace you!

Why do we expound "Keri'ei Mo'ed" to teach that they knew how to decide leap years and be Mekadesh the Chodesh?

Maharsha: "Nesi'ei Edah" cannot be truly the Nesi'im, for there were only 12, and Korach had 250 followers! Rather, they were esteemed. If so, "Keri'ei Mo'ed" must teach that they decide years and months, which determine the Mo'adim.

Why do we ask what Moshe heard?

Maharsha: Korach and his followers addressed Moshe and Aharon. Why does it say that only Moshe heard? Therefore, we answer that he heard that they suspected him of Eshes Ish. Scoffers said that man cannot separate from a wife (so he is Mezaneh with others' wives). Moshe fell due to shame.

How could they suspect him of Eshes Ish? He voluntarily separated from his own wife!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Vilna Gaon (Aderes Eliyahu Balak): They suspected him of Eshes Ish, i.e. that his Nevu'ah [like that of other Nevi'im] is via angels, which are called Ishim; 'Eshes' hint to one who receives, like a wife receives from her husband. Really, his Nevi'im was direct from Hash-m - "Peh El Peh Adaber Bo."

How does "va'Yikach Moshe Es ha'Ohel v'Nota Lo mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" show that everyone warned his wife not to be secluded with Moshe?

Rashi: He distanced so they would cease suspecting him.

Anaf Yosef: Some say that they claimed that he made his brother and nephews the Kohanim, so they can cover up for him when giving a Sotah to drink. (NOTE: i.e. they will deviate for women secluded with Moshe, lest the water test them and Moshe. - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): A woman may be secluded with a man only if his wife is there. People thought that since Moshe separated from his wife, a woman may not be secluded with him. "Kol Mevakesh Hash-m", including women, went to Moshe! Really, a woman may be secluded with two Kosher men, and "Yehoshua... Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel."

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5 citing As much as"Tz: This verse is written regarding the Egel! Because the women refused to give their rings for the Egel, everyone told his wife 'you heed Moshe more than me!', and warned her against seclusion with Moshe.

NOTE: This is astounding. The men gave for the Egel because they thought that Moshe died! And surely after Moshe descended and rebuked them, they repented! (PF)

How does "va'Yakam Moshe va'Yelech El Dasan va'Aviram" teach that we do not persist in a feud?

Rashi: He pardoned his honor and went himself to end the quarrel.

Maharsha: If he merely wanted to warn others "Suru Na" (separate from them), he could have warned them via a Shali'ach. Even after Hash-m told Moshe to separate from them, he went to them to try to appease them.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 6, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pardes Yosef ha'Chadash, Korach: Chamra v'Chayei explains that even the side that is correct, may not persist in a feud. Had Moshe not gone to appease them, he would have transgressed. Gilyonei ha'Shas brings from She'eltos (Korach) that a feud is forbidden lest they come to hatred. He implies that the Isur of Machlokes is a fence lest one come to hatred. Daf Al ha'Daf - the Rambam and others who count Mitzvos did not list this among the 613 Mitzvos. They hold that the verse is an Asmachta. The Ramban (on Sefer ha'Mitzvos) says that the verse primary forbids contesting the Kehunah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yitzchak of Varka: Ein Machazikim b'Machlokes means that Chazakah does not apply. Even if one made many attempts for Shalom, and failed, we do not assume that more attempts will fail. Rather, without end, one must strive for Shalom.

Why do we say that Adoniyahu challenged Malchus Beis David? Also he was from David!

Maharsha: Since David already gave the kingship to Shlomo, trying to become king is challenging Malchus Beis David.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 7: Perush ha'Mishnayos (Yesod 12) says that a king of Yisrael must be from Shlomo's seed. The Zohar says that Mashi'ach will be from the wife of Nasan ben David. Seder ha'Doros (3056, Asalyah) says that Asalyah killed the entire seed of David, except for Yo'ash, who was from Nasan. However, Horayos 11b says that Yo'ash was Achazyah's son, i.e. from Shlomo.

Why should he be bitten by a snake?

Maharsha: The snake was king of the Chayos, and it envied man, who was more esteemed than itself. Via this, it was cursed. So one who envies Malchus Beis David and contests it should be bitten by a snake, which did like his Midah.

What is challenging one's Rebbi?

Rashi: He challenges his academy.

Maharsha: This is like Korach, who challenged Moshe's authority; this includes his Torah, like we said above.

Iyun Yakov: This is like challenging Hash-m, for fear of your Rebbi should be like awe of Hash-m.

Be'er Sheva, cited partially in Margoliyos ha'Yam 8: Rashi does not means that he disagrees with something that his Rebbi taught, rather, that his Rebbi fixed himself to teach. The Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:2) says that the Talmid fixes himself to expound and teach without his Rebbi's permission. Due to fear of one's father, he may not contradict him, nor prove that his father is right (Kidushin 31b). All Poskim say that the same applies to one's Rebbi. However, Chachamim often disagree with their Rebbeyim or fathers - Tana'im, Amora'im, Rishonim... both in front of him and not in front of them! Torah is Emes; we do not flatter. A Talmid who sees that his Rebbi erred may not be silent! A father and son learning together are enemies, and in the end there is Shalom (ibid. 30b)! Perhaps the Isur is to disagree disrespectfully. If not for Rashi and those who explained like him, e.g. the Tur, Ra'ah and Beis Yosef, I would have said that the Isur is only for worldly matters, but not for Divrei Torah. (NOTE: Presumably, also if a mistake will cause a loss to someone's health or wealth, one must correct his Rebbi or father - PF.)

How do we learn from "Lo Aleinu Selunoseichem Ki Al Hash-m" that one who complains about his Rebbi is like one who complains about Hash-m?

Maharsha: They complained about Moshe and Aharon, and it is called complaining about Hash-m.

How do we learn from "va'Ydaber ha'Am b'Eilokim uv'Moshe" that one who is upset with his Rebbi is like one who is upset with Hash-m?

Ramah: Surely, they were not upset with Hash-m. Further, if they were, they would not be upset with Moshe, a servant who did his Master's command! Rather, they were upset with Moshe, and the Torah considers this like being upset also with Hash-m.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ri of Vishnitz: It says "va'Hashikosi me'Alai... Asher Hemah Malinim Aleichem" - being upset with you (their Rebbi) is like being upset with Hash-m.

What is the difference between Misra'em (complaining) and Meharher (being upset)?

Maharsha: Misra'em is complaining about something that he had, and now he lacks it. Meharher is seeking more than he needs. They had manna, and they said "v'Nafshenu Katzah ba'Lechem ha'Kelokel." Therefore, they were punished more - snakes bit them.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11: Rashi explains Meharher to be 'Mechapeh Alav Devarim.' This implies that the Isur is only if he verbalizes his objection. However, Targum Yonason on the verse says 'they were Meharher in their hearts [and they said about Hash-m's word...]' Daf Al ha'Daf, citing Pardes Yosef ha'Chadash, Chukas - they only thought, and it was called Dibur. (NOTE: Later, they came to Moshe and said 'we spoke against Hash-m and against you.' How did everyone know that the others had the same thoughts? Perhaps those who were bitten confessed publicly. - PF)

How does "Osher Shamur li'V'alav l'Ra'aso" apply to Korach's wealth?

Maharsha: We conclude that part of Yosef's wealth is guarded for Tzadikim in the world to come. What Korach got was bad for him. Due to his wealth, he envied and wanted to be at the level of Moshe, Aharon and his sons. He and his congregation have no share in the world to come!

Be'er Sheva: What need is there for wealth in the world to come?! The Gemara says 'in the future.' Perhaps this refers to Yemos ha'Mashi'ach.

What is the significance of "ha'Yekum Asher b'Ragleihem"?

Maharsha: After it says that Dasan and Aviram and their houses and Ohalim were swallowed, it adds "ha'Yekum Asher b'Ragleihem", i.e. their wealth. They relied on this to argue with Moshe. This was brought here, for they became wealth via Korach's wealth. "Va'Yikach Korach" - the took them with money. (NOTE: Nedarim 64b infers from "Ki Mesu Kol ha'Anashim" that they used to be rich and lost their wealth. Perhaps it was easy to bribe them, for they sorely yearned to return to be wealthy! - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Because Korach's wealth caused him to become haughty and argue with Moshe, it was swallowed with him. Since Korach's wealth was buried, we needed to say below that Shlomo and Antoninus found other treasures of Yosef. (NOTE: Even if Korach gave away money to persuade people to join him, and that was not swallowed, presumably, this was a small part of his wealth. Alternatively, perhaps also what he gave to others was swallowed. - PF)

What is Gildi?

Rashi #1: It is leather. Even though they were light, 300 mules were needed to carry them.

Rashi #2: The text says d'Galda; these are leather covers for sacks.

What is the significance of 300 white mules?

Maharsha: The Rashbam (Pesachim 119a) says that 300 is not precise; the Gemara often says so. It seems that white is precise. A wound from a white mule is harsh (Chulin 7b). People would not try [to take the keys] to steal from the sacks, for they feared the mules' kick.

From where did Yosef get the wealth?

Maharsha: Yosef gathered all gold and silver of the world to Mitzrayim - "va'Ylaket Yosef Es Kol ha'Kesef ha'Nimtza" (Pesachim 119a), and he brought it "Beisah Pharaoh" - an inner (hidden) place. There was a tradition that he divided it into three treasure houses. It says there that Yisrael took it all when they left Egypt, and had it until Shishak Melech Mitzrayim took it back from Rechav'am. This is unlike our Gemara.

If Korach was not burned or swallowed, what happened to him?

Rashi: He died in the plague.

Maharsha: R. Yochanan holds that he was not punished so harshly, for his sin was not so bad, for he erred. He saw the chain of lineage that will descend from him. However, he died in a plague for Leshon ha'Ra against Moshe and Aharon, just like the Meraglim died in a plague for Leshon ha'Ra against Eretz Yisrael. The Beraisa says that they were burned and swallowed, for the sin of the Rabim was due to him. Korach did not receive only one of the two punishments, lest those who received the other complain 'we sinned only due to him. Why he did not receive our punishment?!' (Tanchuma)

Iyun Yakov: The merit of Shmuel ha'Navi, who descended from him, protected him from being burned or swallowed - a son brings merit to his father.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Toras Moshe (Korach): He suffered more than being burned or swallowed! He used to be among the richest people in the world, and all honored him, and 250 Nesi'im followed his counsel. Suddenly, he lost all his property - even a needle was swallowed! All his relatives and friends were burned or swallowed; his sons repented and distanced from him... His disgrace was worse than death! (NOTE: Surely he was the richest person in the world! Yosef divided the world's wealth into three; he received one, and the other two are for Antoninus and the future! 'Me'Ashirei ha'Olam' must mean among the richest people ever, e.g. Pharaoh, Shlomo, Achashverosh... - PF)

How does "ba'Achol ha'Esh Es Chamishim u'Masayim Ish" teach that Korach was not burned?

Rashi: It says "Chamishim u'Masayim Machtos v'Atah v'Aharon Ish Machtaso."

How could Korach be both burned and swallowed?

Rashi: His Neshamah was burned, but his body was intact.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shem mi'Shmuel (Korach): If one is liable two Misos Beis Din, he receives only the more stringent one. Why did Korach receive both? Rashi (Bamidbar 16:6) wrote 'Ketores is the dearest service... Nadav and Avihu were burned via it.' The Neshamah was burned, but his body was intact. The Neshamah returns to its source, to cling to Hash-m. Also Ohr ha'Chayim explains so. Burning was not a punishment - it was for his benefit! 'Two Misos' does not apply.

NOTE: Did all those burned, "ha'Chata'im he'Eleh b'Nafshosam", merit to cling to Hash-m?! One opinion says that the Neshamos of Sancheriv's army were burned, but their bodies were intact (94a). Did they cling to Hash-m?! (PF)

How can R. Yochanan say that he was not swallowed? It says "va'Tivla Osam v'Es Korach"!

Rashi: "V'Es Korach" applies to what it says after this, "b'Mos ha'Edah" - in a plague.

How does the Beraisa learn from "ba'Achol ha'Esh Es Chamishim u'Masayim Ish" that Korach was burned?

Rashi #1: It says "Makrivei ha'Ketores" - Korach was among those who offered Ketores, like it says "v'Atah v'Aharon Ish Machtaso."

Maharsha: "V'Atah v'Aharon" proves that Korach was not among the 250. If so, "ba'Achol ha'Esh Es Chamishim u'Masayim Ish" proves that Korach was not burned! We must say that we learn Sasum from what is explicit, that those who offered Ketores were burned.

Rashi #2: "Es" includes him.

What is the significance of being burned or swallowed?

Maharal: Dasan and Aviram were not burned. They did not offer Ketores, for they did not seek Kehunah. They were Resha'im who argued with Moshe. They were swallowed from below, for Gehinom is proper for those who feud. Gehinom and Machlokes were created on the second day (Hash-m divided the waters); they are proper for each other. Those who offered Ketores, they desired Kehunah and Avodas Hash-m. One who desires grandeur, a level higher than is proper for him, he is burned from above. Korach was the reason for the feud, and also for the 250 people who sought Kehunah. R. Yochanan holds that he died Stam; this applies to both groups. Had he been burned or swallowed, he would receive only the punishment due to one of them. The Beraisa holds that he was both burned and swallowed.

Maharsha: The Neshamah enjoys Ketores (a nice smell). Therefore, those who offered Ketores, the Neshamah was burned and the body remained. Dasan and Aviram sinned with all their bodies and money, so they were totally swallowed.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tzafnas Pane'ach Korach (p.169): The covering for the Mizbe'ach was made from the Machtos of "ha'Serufim." If Korach was burned, also his pan was used. (NOTE: Why was it not swallowed, with "v'Es Kol ha'Adam Asher l'Korach v'Es Kol ha'Rechush"? Perhaps "Ki Kadeshu" (Bamidbar 17:2) - it became Hekdesh, and was no longer considered his property. - PF) Sifsei Tzadik (Korach 54) brings a Midrash that Korach's pan was of gold, so it was not used.

When did the sun and moon go to Zevul, and why?

Rashi: It was when the land cleaved and swallowed [Dasan and Aviram, and according to the Beraisa, also Korach]. They wanted Hash-m to judge Moshe's case.

Rashba (Nedarim 39b, cited in Anaf Yosef): The world was created so man will choose to do Hash-m's will. We can know His will only via Nevi'im. One who says that Hash-m's Shali'ach for Matan Torah is not truthful, he contradicts Torah, and negates the purpose of the world. Had Yisrael not accepted the Torah, the world would have returned to Tohu va'Vohu, and also the sun and moon, which were created to illuminate on the land. If You will not judge Moshe's case, there is no Torah and no world!

Maharal: The sun and moon rule over the Heavenly legions, which have the fastest, most constant motion of all creations. They act with Midas ha'Din; regarding all creation, it says Elokim (Midas ha'Din). If there is no Din, it is not proper that they traverse their orbits. Moshe's level was above theirs, therefore he was able to stop the sun and moon, like Midrash Tanchuma (Acharei) says. If there is no Din for Moshe, we should not move.

Iyun Yakov citing Melo ha'Omer: Even though man has choice, sometimes "Raglei Chasidav Yishmor", and Hash-m stops them from sinning, e.g. R. Akiva and R. Meir. A Bas Kol announced not to harm them, for the world needs their Torah (Kidushin 81a. The Satan made an awesome temptation, and they were about to sin; he should remove the temptation). The sun and moon do not cease shining when people worship them, for this would remove choice (prove that they have no power). They thought that the merit of the Rabim (with Korach) would help; via ceasing to shine, the Rabim would repent, and multitudes of Yisraelim would be saved. Hash-m did not want this, for Korach was a total Rasha; he did not deserve to be guarded from sin.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15: There is Yerushalayim, Beis ha'Mikdash and Mizbe'ach in Zevul corresponding to these below. Micha'el offers there like a Kohen; below, Aharon is a Kohen like the angel Micha'el.

Why does it say "Shemesh Yare'ach", without the prefix Vov before "Yare'ach"?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ohr Pnei Moshe: The moon claimed, two kings cannot serve with one crown. (It wanted to become primary.) The sun heard this insult, and did not insult in return. Therefore, it was aggrandized - "k'Tzeis ha'Shemesh bi'Gvuraso", and the moon was diminished. The moon claimed, also Moshe was insulted, and did not insult in return. If You will not do Din for him, why was I diminished? I should return to be just like the sun! (NOTE: In 40 other places, Redak explains that the prefix Vov is similarly omitted. Can we find reasons for all of them? - PF)

When should the sun and moon have protested for Hash-m's honor?

Rashi: Every day, when kings of the east and west put on their crowns, they bow to the sun.

Ramah: When Yisrael made the Egel, and other idolatries

Why do the sun and moon go out nowadays only after being hit?

Rashi #1: Hash-m decreed this.

Ramah: They go out only after He shoots His arrows at them. These are not literally arrows, rather, some punishment.

Maharal: Hash-m is the true cause of their motion, with Midas ha'Din. An arrow goes only due to the strength of the one who threw it. The sun and moon do not seek absolute Din - they did not protest for Hash-m's honor! Therefore, their motion is only due to Hash-m.

Rashi #2: They are concerned for Hash-m's honor (they do not want people to bow to them).

Ramah: Some texts say 'only after they protest for Hash-m's honor.'

What is the significance of moving the opening to Gehinom to here?

Maharal: Gehinom is separate from this world. This world is existence, and Gehinom is lack. They descended alive, i.e. even though they were alive and existing, they descended to Gehinom. This is bringing the opening close.

What is the meaning of "Nisbatzer"?

Rashi: This is like "Ir Betzurah" (Yeshayah 27:10). Hash-m made a high place for them. They did not descend so deep in Gehinom, and they did not die.

Etz Yosef and Daf Al ha'Daf, citing Toras Chayim: Gehinom is not so hot above. We say (Eruvin 19a) 'Gehinom is made deep for them.' Therefore, they were able to live in the high place.

What is the source that a place was Nisbatzer for them in Gehinom?

Maharal: They should have been swallowed in Gehinom, but they were saved. They sang Shirah over this. A place was made for them to exist, and Gehinom did not rule over them, even though due to Korach, they should have been swallowed. Shirah is for perfection of the world, the opposite of Gehinom.

Maharsha: It says "va'Tivla Osam... v'Es Kol ha'Adam Asher l'Korach." Even if Korach was not swallowed, his sons were! Since it says "u'Vnei Korach Lo Mesu", we must say that they repented, and a high place was made for them in Gehinom. Tehilim 88, "Shir Mizmor li'Vnei Korach" discusses this. "V'Chayai li'Sh'ol Higi'u; Nechshavti Im Yoredei Vor." There are three expressions - Shir, Mizmor and la'Menatze'ach, corresponding to his three sons. "Al Machalas" - Hash-m was Mochel (pardoned) them

Why did they merit that a place was Nisbatzer for them in Gehinom, and they lived?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Yalkut Shimoni (752) says that they saw Moshe, and rose for him. Imrei Shamai brings from Bamidbar Rabah 15:13 that this brings Yir'as Shamayim. They received Yir'as Shamayim, and repented.

What is a Taya?

Rashi: He is a Yishmaeli merchant.

How did the Taya know that every 30 days, Gehinom returns them to here?

Rashi: He tried several times, and saw that every 30 days smoke exudes, and he hears them saying 'Moshe and his Torah are true...'

Why does Gehinom return them every 30 days?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 1 citing Sefer Chasidim 241: After 12 months after death, one must pray for the Niftar every month, for the fire of Gehinom is turned over - "v'Hayah mi'Dei Chodesh b'Chadsho..."

Perush Kadmon on Sefer Chasidim 241: The judgment of Gehinom is only 12 months, i.e. the harsh judgment. Other judgments persist longer. The verse after "v'Hayah mi'Dei Chodesh b'Chadsho..." says "v'Isham Lo Sichbeh."

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashbam (Bava Basra 74a) says that they return every Rosh Chodesh. Derushim v'Likchei Musar of R. M. Banat's Talmid says, Rashi on Chumash said, we have only one Kohen Gadol. This is like the moon's claim, two kings cannot serve with one crown. Since Hash-m told it to diminish itself, it seems that this was an improper claim. However, in Chatas Rosh Chodesh it says "la'Shem", as if it atones for Hash-m diminishing the moon (Shevu'os 9a). The moon said, [should I be diminished] for saying a proper matter?! This shows that its claim was proper. Every Rosh Chodesh, this Korban proves that also Moshe's claim was correct, so Gehinom returns them and Korach and his congregation admit.

Maharsha: The simple meaning is Yerushalayim or the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Drashah rejects this, for even those who entered Eretz Yisrael did not merit the Beis ha'Mikdash until the days of David and Shlomo! Therefore, we expound that it refers to Menuchah in the world to come - the true rest.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We cannot say that it is Yerushalayim, for Dor ha'Midbar did not enter any part of Eretz Yisrael! Therefore, we expound it to discuss the world to come.

Why did R. Akiva need to bring also "Asher Nishbati v'Api Im Yevo'un El Menuchasi"? And why does R. Eliezer disagree - surely the two Misos "Yitamu" and "v'Sham Yamusu" are for the two worlds!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One could have said that it says "Yitamu" and "v'Sham Yamusu" to double the matter, for a Shevu'ah, and it is only for this world.

Anaf Yosef citing Binah l'Itim Drush 66: Surely the verse does not teach two Misos. Why does it begin "Ani Hash-m Dibarti"? He was speaking also before this! Also, it says "Im Lo Zos E'eseh", and did not say what will happen if He does not [kill them]! Rather, Hash-m decreed that they wander in the Midbar for 40 years, to bear their punishment on their bodies in this world, so it will not affect their Nefashos. "Ani Hash-m Dibarti" teaches that this decree was amidst mercy (Shem Havayah), and not via harsh Din. If I would not do so, rather, kill them immediately, the punishment would be also on the Nefesh in the world to come, like the first Shevu'ah - "Yitamu v'Sham Yamusu." However, now I retract.

How does R. Eliezer infer that the verse discusses Dor ha'Midbar?

Rashi: "Koresei Vrisi" are those who made a Bris with Him "Alei Zevach" over Korbanos, "va'Yizbechu Zevachim Shelamim", "va'Yizrok Al ha'Am va'Yomer Hine Dam ha'Bris Asher Karas Hash-m Imachem."

Maharsha: "Chasidai" are Dor ha'Midbar, like we bring below "Zacharti Lach Chesed Ne'urayich... Lechtech Acharai ba'Midbar..." Death of Tzadikim is merely Asifah (gathering) - they will stand in the world to come.

Does retraction help after He swore?

Maharsha: Yes - He retracts and regrets. Via regret, one can permit a Shevu'ah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said 'Lo Yevo'un El Menuchasi.' Rather, it says "Im Yevo'un" - Im is like Asher. Since I swore in My anger, they will come.

Etz Yosef: Rashi (Chagigah 10a) says that since He swore amidst anger, and not amidst settled Da'as, this is a Pesach to permit the Shevu'ah. This is a source to permit via a Pesach!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2 citing Tosfos Chagigah 10a: R. Yosi bar Chanina said that "Asher Nishbati v'Api" is a source for Hataras Nedarim. How can we say that Hash-m retracted? They did not enter the land! We must say that He permitted the Shevu'ah only regarding having no share in the world to come. This is like R. Eliezer, who holds that a partially permitted Neder is not totally permitted. R. Akiva holds that a partial Heter permits totally. He must hold that it was not permitted at all. If not, why did they not enter the land?!

According to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, to whom does "Isfu" refer?

Maharsha: It refers to all three categories that the verse hints to. Asifah (gathering) of Tzadikim is good for them and for the world; Asifah of Resha'im is bad for them and for the world. Asifah applies to Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah - because three Tzadikim were gathered together, the fire did not affect them at all, unlike Yehoshua Kohen Gadol, who was the only Tzadik in the fire (93a).R. Akiva and his colleagues, e.g. R. Yehudah ben Beseira and R. Chanina ben Tradyon, gathered many and taught Torah b'Rabim, and were killed for Kidush Hash-m.

Why did he need "Koresei Vrisi" to teach about Chananyah Misha'el and Azaryah? Are they not included in Tzadikim in every generation?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that they were liable for Mesiras Nefesh without need, since it was not idolatry, rather, a mere image.

What is the source that "u'Fduyei Hash-m" are Dor ha'Midbar?

Rashi: They were redeemed from Egypt.

Maharsha: The verse implies that they were Peduyei Hash-m even before coming to Tziyon.

What is the meaning of 'R. Akiva abandoned his Chasidus'?

Rashi: He usually expounds favorably for Yisrael, and here he says that Dor ha'Midbar has no share in the world to come.

What is the source that "Lechtech Acharai ba'Midbar" refers to Dor ha'Midbar?

Maharsha: These are those who died due to Chet ha'Meraglim; they were "b'Eretz Lo Zeru'ah", and never came to Eretz Yisrael.

Iyun Yakov: R. Akiva holds that it refers to those of Dor ha'Midbar on whom there was no decree, e.g. those who were less than 20 years old or above 60.

Why do we need "u'Fduyei Hash-m Yeshuvun..." and ".. Lechtech Acharai ba'Midbar..."? "Isfu Li Chasidai" should suffice!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps "Isfu Li Chasidai" refers only to future generations, and "u'Fduyei Hash-m Yeshuvun" is only for this world (they left Egypt). We need "Lechtech Acharai..." to teach that they come to the world to come.

To what will the 10 Shevatim not return?

Rashi: To their place, from when they were exiled. We say (Megilah 14b) that Yirmeyah returned them, i.e. some of them. (The rest will not return.)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rashi explained that R. Eliezer teaches that they will return to have a share in the world to come. R. Akiva did not discuss this! The text in Ein Yakov says that R. Eliezer holds that they have no share in the world to come. He said that in the future it will be light for them! Perhaps he means that it will be light for their seed, but not for themselves.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 4: Kisvei ha'Yesedos says that 27,290 people were exiled - the esteemed ones. The commoners remained in Eretz Yisrael and were appended to Yehudah and Binyamin. It says in Divrei ha'Yamim II, 30:10 that Chizkiyah wrote to Efrayim, Menasheh and Zevulun. Tosfos (Gitin 36) says that Sefer Ezra lists [a remnant from] all 12 Shevatim.

NOTE: It seems that he wrote before the 10 tribes were foully exiled. Divrei ha'Yamim II, 29:3 discusses Chizkiyah's first year. The verses imply that all of Perakim 29 and 30 were at that time. If this was shortly after Achaz died, it is understood why [Chizkiyah added a month before Pesach,] because the Kohanim did not have time to become Tehorim (ibid. 30:2-3). Chizkiyah sent "mi'Be'er Sheva v'Ad Dan...; El ha'Peletah ha'Nish'eres Lachem mi'Kaf Malchei Ashur " (ibid. 5-6). Rashi there says that since Melech Ashur ruled over [the 10 tribes] and would exile them if they rebelled, it is as if they were exiled. Koheles Rabah 9:3 says that first Melech Ashur exiled Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven, and afterwards [the rest of] the 10 tribes. Seder Olam (23) says that he exiled [Malchus Efrayim] in three stages; the last stage was in Chizkiyah's sixth year. (PF)

Maharal: They will not return to their initial place and level of closeness to Hash-m. It does not say that they will not come to the world to come at all. Surely this is only those who were exiled. Their children are not to blame!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5, citing R. David, Talmid ha'Ramban: They will not return to Eretz Yisrael, and have no share in the world to come. Rebbi argues and says that they have a share in the world to come, but he agrees that [most] will not return to Eretz Yisrael. Surely there were some Tzadikim among their seed. It says about them , "v'Lakachti Eschem Echad me'Ir u'Shenayim mi'Mishpachah v'Heveisi Eschem Tziyon."

What is the comparison 'just like a day passes and never returns...'?

Maharsha #1: Today and the past never return.

Maharsha #2: The Galgal (sphere on which Heavenly bodies are fixed) rotates, and the Mazalos are fixed in it (Pesachim 94a). "Yom" refers to daylight, i.e. the sun. It is not Chozer, rather, the Galgal returns it,

How does R. Eliezer derive that they will return?

Rashi #1: In (the beginning of) the morning it is dark, and it becomes light in midday. Alternatively, at night it is dark, and the next day is light. So the 10 tribes, the future will be light for them.

Rashi #2: Their children and grandchildren will return. The generation that was exiled, they were total Resha'im; they will not return. (NOTE: We explained according to Rif (on Ein Yakov), that "Lo" in the middle of Rashi is a misprint; it should say Lamed"Aleph (Lishna Acharina, i.e. Version #2). - PF)

What is the source that "va'Yitshem... va'Yashlichem" applies to the 10 tribes?

Rashi: "El Eretz Acheres" implies that they were exiled to one land. The 10 tribes were exiled to Africa (94a). The two tribes (Yehudah and Binyamin) were scattered to all lands. About them it says "Eshrekah Lahem va'Akabetzem."

Rashi: Some say that 'they have no share in the world to come' refers to Yemos ha'Mashi'ach. Mashi'ach will not accept them with the other exiles, for they spoke derogatorily about Eretz Yisrael (94b). Also the Meraglim were punished for this!

Iyun Yakov: Rashi explained that the two tribes were scattered to all lands, and they will be gathered. This is like it says "v'Shavta...; v'Shav Hash-m... v'Kibetzecha mi'Kol ha'Amim" (Devarim 30:2-3). Teshuvah will not help for those exiled to one place. Ba'al ha'Turim says that "va'Yashlichem" is written without a Yud, to teach that the 10 tribes will not be sent like this. (NOTE: This could refer to what came before (Hash-m will strike the land so nothing grows there), or after (Hash-m will return them). Either way, this is unlike our Gemara, which applies the verse to the 10 tribes. - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 6 and Daf Al ha'Daf, citing Be'er Sheva: How can Rashi say that 'the world to come' refers to Yemos ha'Mashi'ach? They are mentioned separately in many places, e.g. Nevi'im prophesized about Yemos ha'Mashi'ach, but the world to come, "Ayin Lo Ra'asah" (99a)! Also, the Meraglim lost the world to come, like I explained above; this opinion holds similarly about the 10 tribes.

What is the meaning of 'if not, they will return'?

Rashi: If their deeds will not be "ka'Yom ha'Zeh", rather, they will repent, they will return from Galus and come to the world to come.

Maharsha: This is like R. Eliezer, who holds that they will be redeemed only via Teshuvah (97b). Or, [it is even like R. Yehoshua. He agrees that] the 10 tribes will be redeemed only via Teshuvah.

Who are "ha'Ovdim b'Eretz Ashur veha'Nidachim b'Eretz Mitzrayim"?

Rashi: "Ha'Ovdim b'Eretz Ashur" are the 10 tribes; "veha'Nidachim b'Eretz Mitzrayim" are Dor ha'Midbar.

Maharsha: Melech Ashur exiled the 10 tribes to Ashur, but Nebuchadnetzar exiled Yehudah and Binyamin to Bavel.

What do we learn from "Shuvah Meshuvah Yisrael..."?

Rashi: All of Yisrael will return.

Maharsha: This verse must discuss the 10 Shevatim, for above it says "Bagdah Yehudah Achosah", and it prophesizes their return.

The Tana'im argue about children of Yisraelim Resha'im. Do they argue about the Resha'im themselves?

Rashi: No. All agree that the Resha'im themselves have no share - "Refa'im will not rise" are those who Rifu (slackened) from Torah (Kesuvos 111b). They argue about their minor children who did not sin.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 12 citing Be'er Sheva: How can Rashi say that surely, Resha'im have no share - all Yisrael have a share in the world to come (90a)! Surely it need not teach about Tzadikim! In Rosh Hashanah 17a, we say that total Resha'im who are mostly Aveiros, if they are not Poshe'ei Yisrael b'Gufan, e.g. they never wore Tefilin, they have a share in the world to come! In Kesuvos 111b, R. Yochanan established "the dead will not live" to discuss those who served idolatry. R. Elazar established it to discuss those who slackened from Torah, but his opinion was not brought here or in Rosh Hashanah. Surely the Halachah does not follow him!

What does R. Gamliel learn from "Shoresh v'Anaf"?

Rashi (according to Rashash): Both of them refer to minor children. They will not leave a root in this world, i.e. they will be miscarried, v'Anaf - they will not come to the world to come.

Why do they argue about children of Yisraelim Resha'im?

Maharal: R. Gamliel holds that a son is drawn after his father when he is young; he is secondary to his father. R. Akiva holds that Hash-m guards them - "Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m." He guards them more than adults, because they cannot guard themselves. They are not Batel to their father; it is as if Hash-m is their father.

Maharsha: "Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m" - Hash-m guards them from the future flame. The entire Mizmor discusses those who descend to Gehinom and rise from it (Rosh Hashanah 17a). David said about them "Ahavti Ki Yishma Hash-m... Dalosi v'Li Yehoshi'a..."

Maharsha: R. Gamliel holds that even a minor is not a Rasha, for he has no Da'as, if his deeds are evil, he is included in "v'Chol Oseh Rish'ah."

What does R. Akiva learn from "Ikar Sharshuhi b'Ar'a Shevuku"?

Rashi: Even though there is no solution for the parents - they have no share in the world to come, the children can be fixed.

Why does it say 'Hashem will not leave for them a single Mitzvah, and not the remnant of a Mitzvah'?

Rashi: He will not leave for them a severe Mitzvah nor a light Mitzvah. He pays all their reward in this world, to deprive them of the world to come.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15, citing Gilyon ha'Shas Avodah Zarah 3a: Why is a light Mitzvah called a remnant? It is a full Mitzvah, just it is light! Rather, 'Mitzvah' is the Mitzvah itself; Shiyurei Mitzvah are obligations of the Mitzvah that are not Me'akev, e.g. Semichah, Tenufah, pouring Shirayim of blood of Korbanos, and waving the Lulav (he fulfilled the Mitzvah itself by taking it). One is rewarded for shaking it, for this is a better fulfillment of the Mitzvah. However, Hash-m will not leave for these people the reward of a Mitzvah nor of Shiyurei Mitzvah.

Why should Shoresh refer to the Neshamah?

Rashi: It stands up the body, like the root stands up a tree.

Why do all agree about children of Nochri Resha'im? R. Akiva learns from "Ikar Sharshuhi b'Ar'a Shevuku" that the children can be fixed. We should learn from it about Goyim, for it discusses Nebuchadnetzar! This was in Daniel's dream; every dream has vain matters. We apply it to minor children of Yisrael - Shamayim does not show something utterly false.

All agree about children of Nochri Resha'im. Do they argue about Nochrim Tzadikim?

Rashi: Yes. R. Eliezer says, "Goyim Shecheichei Elokim" are Nochrim. R. Yehoshua says, it does not say b'Chol [Goyim, which would imply that all Nochrim have no share in the world to come]. Rather, it says "Kol Goyim Shecheichei Elokim", i.e. only the Resha'im among them (105a).

What do we learn from "Zera Ya'avdenu Yesupar la'Shem la'Dor"?

Rashi: Seed that speaks will serve Hash-m for all generations. It will return [to the world] and live.

Maharal: The world to come is the world of intellect. From when he speaks, he has Sechel of speech.

Iyun Yakov: This is like it says in Sukah 42, from when an infant begins to talk, his father teaches to him "Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe..." There is a great reward of Torah of children (for they have no sin)!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 17 citing Chidushei ha'Ran: Some say that here we discuss Techiyas ha'Mesim, and not the world to come, and so says the Yerushalmi in Shevi'is.

What is the reason for the opinion 'from the time that he is born'?

Maharal #1: Then his form is finished, Man was created b'Tzelem Elokim. Due to this, he is proper for the world to come.

Maharal #2: From then, the body went from potential to deed.

Iyun Yakov: Even though he has no merit of his own, in such a case, a father brings merit to his son.

What is the relevance of having a share from the time that he is conceived?

Rashi: Even if he was miscarried, he has a share in the world to come. This is like we say, "Nevelasi Yekumun" includes Nefalim (Kesuvos 111a).

Maharal: Seed come from the source of Berachah above.

What is the reason for the opinion 'from the time of Milah'?

Rashi: "Oni Ani v'Gove'a mi'No'ar" teaches that even though I am poor, my death is considered death. It is proper to say about me Gevi'ah. i.e. I will merit the world to come, like Tzadikim, about whom it says Gevi'ah. This is from when "Nasasi Emecha" (I bear Your fear). This is from the time of Milah, which we observe due to fear of Hash-m.

Maharsha: This is difficult. 'Geviyah' and 'Asifah' together refer to a Tzadik's death, but 'Geviyah' alone applies to Resha'im, e.g. Dor ha'Midbar! (Bava Basra 16b)

Maharal: From when he is circumcised, he has connection to Hash-m. Alternatively, from then he has a Bris with Hash-m.

Maharsha: "Oni Ani v'Gove'a mi'No'ar" - from when I was Nin'ar (moved) to leave my mother's womb, I am [destined for] Gevi'ah, death of Resha'im, who have no share in the world to come. This is unlike "Nasasi Emecha" - Milah, which man carries on his body.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 21: Menoras ha'Ma'or says that the Halachah follows this opinion. Be'er Sheva says that this is the source for the custom to circumcise a baby that died before Bris Milah. Chidushei ha'Ran (Mo'ed Katan 24b) heard that the Zohar says that angels circumcise him and put his Orlah on apostates, so they will appear Arel. Avudaraham brings from Rav Nachshon Gaon that we circumcise him - perhaps this will help for Techiyas ha'Mesim. Or Zaru'a says that we circumcise him and give to him a name, so he will be revived.

Why do we expound "Shomer Emunim"?

Maharsha: It says Shomer Emunim (plural), for we find in Tehilim "Amen Amen" - a hint to affirming in this world and in the world to come.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: It does not say Ish Emunim or Mevakesh Emunah. Emunah itself need not be guarded!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: Goy Tzadik is surely Ish Emunim! It is extra to expound it.

What is the significance of from when he says 'Amen'?

Maharal: From then he has Emunah in Hash-m. Connection and clinging to Hash-m are via Emunah in Him. This world was created with the letter Hei; via these five matters (the five opinions - from birth, conception, speech, Bris and Emunah) he clings to the world to come while in this world.

Maharsha: Amen is Kiyum of a matter, like it says in Nazir (66b), one who answers Amen is greater than the one who blesses. This child who answers Amen to any Berachah and sustains and affirms it, the gates of Gan Eden and the world to come are opened for him. 'Kel Melech Ne'eman' hints that he is Kel in this world, and Melech to judge everyone on Yom ha'Din in the world to come, and Ne'eman (faithful) to pay reward and punishment to everyone according to his ways.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 22 citing Sefer Chasidim 883: One who says Amen in this world merits to say it in the world to come - "Baruch Hash-m l'Olam Amen v'Amen" (Tehilim 89:53) - in both worlds. The Maharal's brother said that his father training him in Mitzvos brings him to the world to come, even though the son does not understand.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Perhaps from when he is born, he is amidst 'all Yisrael have a share in the world to come' (90a), but he has a greater share based on his deeds, e.g. from when he answers Amen.