Rebbi Yochanan himself extols 'Legimah' even more than Rebbi Yossi ben Kisma (whom he just quoted). When he describes it as 'Merachekes es ha'Kerovim', he is referring to the above case of Amon and Mo'av, who failed to provide Yisrael with food in the desert (as Rebbi Yossi ben Kisma explained). And by 'Mekareves es ha'Rechokim - he is referring to Yisro, who merited that his descendents sat in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (as members of the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol), because their grandfather invited Moshe to "come and eat bread".

In light of what we just said, the problem with explaining that 'Kerovim' refers to Amon and Mo'av because they are relatives (sons of Lot) is that - Midyan, who was Avraham's son from Keturah, was a closer relation than they, yet his descendents are referred to as 'Rechokim'.

Rebbi Yochanan must therefore refer to them as 'Kerovim' and Midyan as 'Rechokim' - because they were geographically closer than Midyan.

Based on the Pasuk in Sefer Shoftim ("u'B'nei Keini Chosen Moshe ... "), the 'Keinim' mentioned in Divrei ha'Yamim were the descendents of Yisro ...

... and the Pasuk is referring specifically to the Tzadik Yonadav ben Reichav (a descendent of Yisro), whose sons and descendents merited sitting in the Sanhedrin in the Lishkas ha'Gazis.

Rebbi Yochanan continues 'u'Me'alemes Einayim min ha'Resha'im' (He hides His eye from the wicked) with reference to Michah, as we explained earlier. 'u'Mashreh Shechinah al Nevi'ei ha'Ba'al' applies to the friend of Ido ha'Navi, who earned prophesy - by providing Ido with a meal.

After luring Ido to Beis-Eil for a meal buy means of a false prophesy, he prophesied that - Ido would not be buried in the family sepulcher ...

... and indeed - no sooner had Ido left Beis-El, than he was killed by a lion).

Rebbi Yochanan concludes 'and his Shogeg is considered Meizid' with reference to David's close friend, Yonasan ben Shaul, to whom Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ascribes the mistake of - sending David away without giving him provisions for the journey.

Besides the destruction of Nov Ir ha'Kohanim and the death of Do'eg ha'Edomi, the third outcome of Yonasan's mistake was that - King Shaul and his three sons (including himself) fell in battle. (All of these would all not have occurred if Yonasan had provided David with just two loaves of bread).

According to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba, the Tana'im did not list Achaz among the kings who have no portion in Olam ha'Ba, because 'he was placed between two Tzadikim' - Yosam his father, and Chizkiyahu his son (whose combined merits saved him).

Rav Yosef ascribes it to the fact that - Achaz was ashamed of his sins in the presence of Yeshayah ha'Navi.

Hash-m instructed Yeshayah to take his son Sha'ar Yashuv to the edge of the upper pool by the path of 'S'dei Koveis'. Rav Yosef Darshens 'Koveis' in two ways; one of them turns the 'Sin' into a 'Shin', to mean that he hid his face ('Kavash Panav') before Yeshayah and left. The other that - he placed a holed vessel (used to launder clothes) over his head, so that Yeshayah should not recognize him and left.

The Tana'im omitted the wicked King Amon from the list of those who will not receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba - because the great merits of his son Yoshiyahu ha'Melech saved him.

Chizkiyahu did not save his son Menasheh from appearing on the list of kings who have no portion in Olam ha'Ba, because of the Pasuk in Ha'azinu "ve'Ein mi'Yadi Matzil - from which we learn that (even though a son can save his father from punishment), a father cannot save his son.

By the same token - Avraham could not save Yishmael, nor could Yitzchak save Eisav.

Now that we have discovered that a son can save his father from Gehinom - we can retract from the two reasons given earlier why Achaz does not appear on the list, attributing it instead to the fact that his son was Chizkiyahu Hamelech.

We already learned all about the evil deeds of Yehoyakim in 'ha'Nisrafin'. Nevertheless, he is not included in the list of those who have no portion in Olam ha'Ba - because he already received his atonement by the fact that a. he was not buried, and b. his skull was burned after his death.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Chizkiyahu's complacency (in declaring that he had done what was good in Hash-m's eyes) caused him to ask for a sign that he would recover from his illness (

... based on the principle 'Aveirah Goreres Aveirah' (One sin leads to another).

And as a result of that sin - he received the emissaries of Morach B'laden ben B'laden, King of Bavel, and dined them.

This resulted in the exile of his children, based on a statement of Chizkiyah (Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbe), who said that - someone who dines Nochrim and serves them, causes his children to go into exile.

Those descendants of Chizkiyah (Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah) who went into exile - became servants of the King of Bavel (as we learned earlier in the Perek).

Chizkiyah was happy to greet the emissaries of the King of Bavel (who brought the letters [which we discussed earlier and gifts]) and he showed them his silver and gold, his perfumery and his fine oils, as well as "Beis Nechosoh", which, according to Rav, means that he allowed his wife to serve them (thereby placing her on display) - based on the word 'Menakeh', which means 'missing' (because woman was created from the 'missing' limb that Hash-m took from Adam [see also Agados Maharsha]).

According to Shmuel, ''Beis Nechosoh" means his treasury (or spice-room), whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, it means - finely honed axes that could chop metal (as we explained earlier in the Perek in a different context).

According to Rebbi Yochanan ...

... as quoted by Rabah, Yisrael were smitten with the word "Eichah" - whose numerical value is thirty-six, because they contravened the thirty-six covenants in the Torah.

... Yisrael were smitten with the 'Alef Beis' (which comprise the first letters of the Pesukim of four of the chapters of Eichah) - because they transgressed the Torah, which was given with the twenty-two letters of the alphabet.

According to Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the connection between the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "Vayashken Yisrael Betach Badad Ein Ya'akov el Eretz Dagan ve'Tirosh Af Shamav Ya'arfu Tal" and "Eichah Yashvah Badad" (both of which contain the unusual word "Badad") is that - Hash-m intended to bless them with the former, but they chose the latter, instead.

Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains "ha'Ir Rabasi Am" to mean that they used to increase the birth-rate - by marrying a young girl to an older man, and an older girl to a younger man.

This is because when a young girl marries a young man, his seed is not yet ready to germinate, and her womb is too small to develop it. The application of the above method, where one of the partners was already more mature, tended to hasten the incidence of childbirth.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets the phrase "Haysah ke'Almanah" to mean that - Yerushalayim is compared to a straw-widow, whose husband has gone overseas and is destined to return, but not to a real widow, whose husband will never return.

Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets "Sarasi ba'Medinos" to mean that - even when in exile, wherever Yisrael go they become leaders.

The Beraisa relates a story of two Jewish captives, captured on Har ha'Carmel, who were walking in front of their captor. They knew that the camel that was ahead of them was ...

... blind in one eye - because it had only eaten grass from one side of the path.

... carrying two flasks, one containing wine, the other, oil - because the drops of liquid (which had seeped from the flasks) on one side had sunk into the ground (wine), whilst those on the other side, where still on the surface (oil).

... being led by two people, one a Yisrael, the other, a Nochri - because the excrement in the middle of the path was obviously from a Nochri, whilst that at the side was from a Yisrael (since Yisre'elim tend to be more modest in their ways).

His initial reaction to their assessment - was one of derision, referring to them as 'a stubborn nation'.

He discovered however, that it was totally accurate - after running to catch up with the caravan in question, and seeing for himself that they were right on every score.

He reacted to this discovery - by taking them home and arranging a feast in their honor, after which he danced before them. Then after praising the G-d who had chosen the children of Avraham, and who imparted of His knowledge to them, adding that wherever they went they became leaders, he set them free.

Yirmiyah (in the Book of Eichah) uses the double expression "Bachoh Sivkeh" - one for the destruction of the first Beis-Hamikdash, the other, for the second.

And when he added "ba'Laylah", he was referring to - the night mentioned in Ki Sisa "va'Yivku ha'Am ba'Laylah ha'hu" (referring to the night after the spies' return, the night of Tish'ah be'Av.

Hash-m responded to their weeping by telling them that - because they wept crocodile tears (when they had no reason to weep). He would give them something to weep about (the destruction of the two Batei-Mikdash and the manifold disasters that would occur on Tish'ah-be'Av).

"ba'Laylah" is also used because ...

... whenever someone cries at night-time, his voice can be heard from afar. The Navi is coming to teach us that - in spite of that, "Ein Menachem lah", there is nobody to comfort her (Yerushalayim).

... when someone cries at night-time, all the stars and constellations cry with him - and because when someone cries during the night, others invariably cry with him.

It happened once, when a widow, a neighbor of Rabban Gamliel, lost her son, her continued weeping during the night caused Rabban Gamliel to weep with her, to the extent that his eyelids drooped and folded over into his eyes.

When, the next day, Rabban Gamliel's Talmidim heard what had happened - they moved the widow to another area.

Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan commented on the Pasuk ...

... "ve'Dim'asah al Lecheyah" - 'like a woman who cries for the husband of her youth' (which she tends to do incessantly [so too, does Yerushalayim weep for the Shechinah]).

... "Hayu Tzarehah le'Rosh" that - 'Whoever oppresses Yisrael becomes a leader'.

Based on a Pasuk in Yeshayah, he also said that anyone who oppresses Yisrael - will never tire in his efforts to do them harm.

When Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, based on the Pasuk in Eichah "Lo Aleichem Kol Ovrei Darech; Habitu u'Re'u, Im Yesh Mach'ov ke'Mach'ovi", said 'mi'Ka'an le'Kuvlana min ha'Torah', he meant that - when a person relates his Tzaros to others, he should add the wish that the person to whom he is relating it should not suffer the same experience. 'Kuvlana' either means 'crying out' or 'corresponding' (referring to when he says that the Tzarah that he is suffering has nothing to do with the listener).

The Navi (representing the exiles of Yisrael) was speaking to - the descendants of Moshe or to the ten tribes whom Nevuchadnetzar did not send into exile.

When Rav Amram Amar Rav says 'As'uni ke'Ovrei al Das', he means that - Hash-m declared Yisrael to be worse than S'dom (see Agados Maharsha).

Even though Yisrael's sin was worse than that of S'dom, S'dom was destroyed, and not Yisrael (or S'dom was punished directly by Hash-m ["va'Hashem Himtir al S'dom"], whereas Yisrael was punished only through a Shali'ach ["Shalach Eish be'Atzmosai"]) - because Yisrael possessed the quality of mercy (as the Pasuk writes in Eichah, "Yedei Nashim Yaldeihem, hayu Levaros Lamo ... " [where we see that they even shared their dead children with each other in times of famine). Alternatively, it means that their terrible suffering at the time of the Churban, compared to the utopian lifestyle of the S'domians, rendered their overall suffering greater than that of S'dom, grantin thhem the right of survival.

We interpret the Pasuk "Silah Kol Abirai Hash-m, be'Kirbi" to mean that - Hash-m trampled Yisrael's bones, to destroy every limb, like one invalidates an outdated coin, rendering it useless.

Regarding the two Pesukim in Eichah "Patzu alayich Pihem ... Asah Hash-m asher Zamam", Rabah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains the 'Pey' before the 'Ayin' - as being reminiscent of the Meraglim, who reported (with their mouths) things that they had not seen (with their eyes).

And he explains the Pasuk "Ochlei Ami Achlu Lechem" to mean that - the Nochrim were only satisfied when they had eaten Yisrael's bread, deriving all the more pleasure because they had stolen it from them.

According to Rav, the continuation of that Pasuk "Osi Lo Kara'u" refers to the Dayanim, who caused this punishment with their perversion of justice. Whereas according to Shmuel - it refers to the Melamdei Tinokos (the children's Rebbes), who failed to teach their wards diligently ("Oseh Meleches Hash-m Remiyah").

It was the Anshei K'nesses ha'Gedolah who compiled the list of the three kings and four Hedyotos who lost their portions in Olam ha'Ba.

The fourth king whom they wanted to include in the list is - Shlomoh ha'Melech.

When the image of David came before them and pleaded with them to relent - they took no notice.

They did the same - when fire descended from Heaven and began to 'lick their benches'.

They even ignored Hash-m's initial plea (the bas-Kol), to the Chachamim to accept Shlomoh - who built the Beis-Hamikdash, and what's more, He gave it priority (completing it in seven years) over his own palace (which took him thirteen).

The 'bas-Kol's final message, based on a Pasuk in Iyov, was that - seeing as it was Hash-m who issued Olam ha'Ba to those whom He thought deserved it, surely the final decision lay with Him (and that it appears, was the last word on the matter, since Shlomoh does not appear on the list).

But Hash-m carried it still further, and the 'Dorshei Reshumos' extrapolate from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Li Gilad, ve'Li Menasheh ... " that - all those on the list (well, almost all) will receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba after all.

"Li Gil'ad" pertains to Achav who fell at Ramos Gilad, and "u'Menasheh " to King Menasheh ...

... "ve'Efrayim Ma'oz Roshi" then refers - to Yeravam (who was from the tribe of Efrayim) ...

... "Yehudah Mechokeki" - to Achitofel (who was from the tribe of Yehudah).

... "Mo'av Sir Rachatzi" - to Gechazi, who was punished when Na'aman bathed in the River Yarden (see Agados Maharsha with regard to "Mo'av").

... "al Edom Ashlich Na'ali" - to Do'eg ha'Edomi.

"alei P'leshes Hisro'a'i", according to the Dorshei Reshumos - describes a dialogue between Hash-m and the angels. When the latter asked Hash-m how He could possibly give Olam ha'Ba to Do'eg and Achitofel, who hated David, and who did everything in their power to topple his kingdom (so what will He tell David, who killed the P'lishti [Goli'as]), He replied that they could leave it to Him to make it up ("le'Hisro'a'i" from the word 'Re'a' friend) between them.

From the original list of seven, the Dorshei Reshumos omitted only - Bilam, the only one who, it seems, does not receive a portion in the World to Come.