What do we learn from "Leromem Es Beis Elokeinu"?

Maharal: Something non-physical is elevated over something physical. If a Chulin house is higher than something non-physical, this is opposite the proper order! Improper order is destruction and Bitul.

Daf Al ha'Daf (10b, citing Orach Ne'eman OC 151): Leromem is not only elevation. It is also importance. The verse is the source for the custom to beauty the Beis ha'Keneses. Magen Avraham (560) permits plastering it like palaces. It is forbidden only for residences. Pri Megadim says that one need not leave a square Amah without plaster. Daf Al ha'Daf - however, the Rambam implies that the verse teaches only about the height.

Since Masa Machsiya was destroyed, what is the significance that it was not due to houses being taller than the Beis ha'Keneses?

Rav Elyashiv citing Tevu'os Shor: In Berachos (58b), it says from the day of the Churban it was decreed that houses of Tzadikim be destroyed. In the future, Hash-m will resettle them. If they were destroyed due to being taller than the Beis ha'Keneses, they would not be resettled.

Why are we not concerned for buildings and towers?

Me'iri: The concern for is only for residential houses. Buildings and towers are to fortify the walls.

Etz Yosef citing Tosfos Yeshanim: We are concerned only for roofs that people use.

Why are we not concerned nowadays that the Beis ha'Keneses be taller than all houses?

Etz Yosef citing Tosfos Yeshanim: We are concerned only for roofs that people use. Nowadays people do not use the roof.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Eshel Avraham (15): The Me'iri says that the concern for is for houses made tall for grandeur, but not if they are tall to enable many to live in them. Even though I did not find other Rishonim say so, and the Rosh explicitly argues, we can rely on the Me'iri, for his words are very reasonable.

Rav Elyashiv: In Chutz la'Aretz, the roofs are slanted and cannot be used. Why are people not careful about this in Eretz Yisrael, where the roofs are flat? Some say that in Chutz la'Aretz, in any case the Nochrim's houses of worship are higher than the Beis ha'Keneses, so there is no reason to make the Beis ha'Keneses higher than houses. This is only in Chutz la'Aretz, where the kingdom decreed that their houses of worship must be highest in the city; this is like Ones. This does not apply in Eretz Yisrael!

Chashukei Chemed citing Michtam l'David (Pardo, 5): A case occurred in which a man relied on Be'er Heitev, who says that nowadays we are not concerned, for in any case Nochrim's houses are higher, and Shamayim punished him awesomely. Be'er Heitev discussed only when Nochri houses are near the Beis ha'Keneses, but not a Beis ha'Keneses in a Jewish neighborhood. Chashukei Chemed - he said so to be stringent, but it seems that also to be lenient, it suffices if the Beis ha'Keneses is highest in its neighborhood. Sefas Emes said that if there are many Batei Kenesiyos in the city, it suffices that the highest is taller than the houses. The Chazon Ish said that Yeshivos Ponovich and Slobodka save Benei Barak. The Mishnah Berurah (150:5) cites Be'er Heitev, and concludes that it is best that the Beis ha'Keneses be tallest in the neighborhood and city, to fulfill the Gemara simply.

Rav Elyashiv: If one made his house higher, Poskim argue about whether or not he must lower it (see OC 150:3 and the Poskim there). The verse refers primarily to the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Rav Elyashiv: The Me'iri implies that we are concerned for the hollow inside, and not for the roof. Seemingly, we are concerned for what is seen externally! It seems that people rely on this; we should be adamant that the interior of the Beis ha'Keneses be highest. (NOTE: I did not find so in our texts of Me'iri. - PF)

Which Nochri is discussed?

Rashi: He is of Edom; they are more evil than Yishmaelim.

Maharal 10b: There are three oppositions to Yisrael, from separate nations. Yishmael opposes Yisrael and they are together. Goy (Edom) is more opposite - when Yisrael rises, Edom falls, and vice-versa. Therefore, Edom wants to overpower Yisrael so they will be on top. In any case, if Yisrael submit to Edom, and Edom rules, they do not want more. Chaverim are Resha'im. There are three groups, that each member hates others in his group - one of them is Chaverim (Pesachim 113b). Being submissive to a Rasha does not help.

Maharsha citing the Aruch: It is a Stam Nochri.

Who is a Chaver?

Rashi: It is a nation descended from Persians.

Tosfos: They are a nation that came to Bavel.

Maharsha citing the Aruch: So the Persians called their priests. They were very evil, and afflicted Yisrael.

Etz Yosef: Mosaf ha'Aruch says that there is a country near Armenia called Chavri'a, and its residents are called Chaverim. Rashi (Beitzah 6a) says that it is an evil nation bi'Ymei (in the days of) the Persians. Erchei ha'Kinuyim says that the text of Rashi should say mi'Bnei ha'Parsiyim. Why should we attribute them to [the time of] the Persians? The Persians did not rule over the world! Also, did the Chaverim exist only then? Surely they were also before and after!

Why is it better to be under a Chaver than under a Chacham?

Rashi: If one angers a Chacham, he will punish him. (NOTE: A disgrace to a Chacham is a disgrace to Torah; it must be avenged. a Chacham who does not take vengeance like a snake is not a Chacham (Yoma 22b). - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Surely if one wants to serve a Chacham, he should not refrain due to this, just he should be very careful not to pain him.

Maharal: The power of Chaverim (or Yishmaelim or Edomim) is not of Divine Sechel, which does more; they have only bodies.

Maharsha citing the Aruch (Erech Chaver): People do not fear a Chacham. (NOTE: If not for fear of the kingdom, a man would swallow his colleague (Avos 3:2). - PF)

Why is it better to be under a Chacham than under an orphan or widow?

Rashi: They are prone to cry if afflicted.

Rav Elyashiv: The tears are not the problem. They merely show that orphans and widows are hurt and pained more than others. (NOTE: One should be careful not to pain his wife, for she is prone to cry, and the gates of tears were never locked (Bava Metzi'a 59a). This implies that tears arouse punishment! - PF)

Maharal: Hash-m is close to them - "Ani Eshkon Es Dacha u'Shfal Ru'ach." He will wage their feud!

Maharsha citing the Aruch (Erech Asi): People fear an orphan or widow even less than they fear a Chacham.

How are Choli, Ke'ev and Michush different?

Rashi: Choli is protracted illness; he gets weaker, like fever and head illness. Ke'ev is pain that comes and goes, like tooth-ache or a wound. Michush is a light temporary pain.

What is the significance of the intestines, heart and head?

Ha'Boneh: These are the primary limbs of man. An illness to one of them is worse than in other body parts.

Why is an evil wife worse than all of these?

Ha'Boneh: She afflicts the Nefesh more than all of them. "Ami Nogesav Me'olel v'Nashim Mashlu Vo" - taskmasters afflict My nation greatly, but it is like jesting compared to women who rule over it - "u'Motzi Ani Mar mi'Maves Es ha'Ishah."

Rav Elyashiv: Therefore one must check before marrying to ensure that she is not evil, for this is worse than intestinal illness!

What is Chalalah Shel Reshus?

Rashi: It is all that the kingdom must have in mind, for many Medinos - taxes, wars, and judgments, all in one day!

Rav Elyashiv: Why must we know this? Even though the Torah commands to appoint a king - "Som Tasim Alecha Melech", when Yisrael wanted to appoint a king in the days of Shmuel, he was angry at them. What is the reason? A king needs a Navi and Urim v'Tumim [to be appointed]. Yisrael did not want in this way, rather, "kChol ha'Goyim." A king must have so many things in mind - it is not possible without help from Shamayim (so he must be appointed k'Halachah)! (NOTE: 'Reshus' implies the kingdom, but "v'Lev Melachim Ein Cheker" implies that the king himself has all this in mind. - PF)

Maharal: The king is separate from the nation. Therefore, he has a non-physical attribute. Similarly, the heart is separate from the body. Therefore, "v'Lev Melachim Ein Cheker." Something physical is limited; something separate has no limit. Therefore, if all seas were ink... - physical matters have limits, but Chalalah Shel Reshus has no limit.

What is the comparison to fire consuming stubble?

Maharsha: Stubble is the worst part of flax. Fire burns it easily. So a fast the same day nullifies the evil of a dream.

Rav Elyashiv: When stubble burns, nothing remains. So a fast totally nullifies a bad dream.

Why did Rav Yosef teach that one may fast on Shabbos?

Rav Elyashiv: Even though it says "v'Karasa l'Shabbos Oneg", this is not only eating, even though it says "Achluhu ha'Yom." If he dreamed, it is his Oneg to fast and dispel his worry! The same applies to Yom Tov. Even though there is no Simchah without eating, not fasting to nullify the dream is a greater impediment to Simchah. Poskim argue about Erev Yom Kipur. They say in the name of the Chazon Ish that the Gemara said to fast only for certain dreams, so for other bad dreams he should do Hatavas Chalom, even though the Shulchan Aruch implies that this is not enough.

Mishnah Berurah (288:6): If Reuven dreamed something bad about Shimon, Shimon should not fast on Shabbos. If it was a weekday, he fasts. It seems that the one who dreamed, also he fasts if it is a weekday.

What is Eglah Tilsa?

Rashi: It was born third to its mother. It is good - a young animal is not in its full strength. Her first two calves are not so healthy and strong.

Rashi (Eruvin 63a): Every Erev Shabbos, R. Chanina and R. Oshaya would use Sefer Yetzirah to create an Eglah Tilsa (Sanhedrin 65b). It cannot be the third calf born from a cow!

Anaf Yosef: This is not difficult. We can say that it was as soft and good as the third calf born from a cow!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Mordechai Klein: Tanchuma (Yisro 10) says that [also] regarding people, the third is dearest - Shes was Adam's third son...

Anaf Yosef: In Eruvin (63a), Rashi explained that it is a third of its ultimate growth. Then it has its primary taste - 'we raise them until they are Meshulashin', 'your wage will be after a third' (Bava Metzi'a 68a, 69a). These show that the norm is until a third.

Anaf Yosef citing Tosfos (Shabbos 136): Tilsa is healthy and good, like "v'Shalishim Al Kulo", "Eglah Meshuleshes v'Ayil Meshulash."

Why may one 'borrow and repay later'? If he vowed to fast today, he is obligated mid'Oraisa!

Vilna Gaon (OC 568:2): If one accepted to fast BaHaB, or during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, and a Bris Milah occurred, it is clear that he did not accept with intent to miss Seudas Bris Milah. This is why one may borrow and repay! Mishnah Berurah (568:21) - some Rishonim say that even if he accepted the day before, he may borrow and repay. (NOTE: Here, Rav Ashi's household thought that R. Yehoshua had accepted to fast. Perhaps surely he would not accept with intent to miss eating with Gedol ha'Dor. The Gemara implies that they suggested to borrow and repay because they prepared Eglah Tilsa! Perhaps this was not the primary reason. - PF)

Beis Meir (ibid.): If he vowed to fast a number of days, and accepted 'tomorrow will be one of the fasts', he may borrow and repay, for he will still fulfill his primary vow. If he had not vowed before, just accepted 'tomorrow I will fast', he may not borrow and repay, for then he nullifies his vow.

Aruch ha'Shulchan (562:5): The Ramban, Ritva and Ra'avad hold that if one said 'I am [or will be] in a fast', this is not a Torah vow. He is obligated only mid'Rabanan; Rabanan said that he may borrow and repay. If he said 'Hareini b'Ta'anis' or 'Konam Alai eating and drinking', this is a Torah vow; he cannot borrow and repay later.

Rav Elyashiv: The case is, he vowed to fast three days, but did not fix when. He began to fast today. (NOTE: If one did not accept a fast the previous day, it is not a fast (Ta'anis 12a, Mechaber OC 562:5). It does not count towards days that he vowed to fast (Rema ibid.)! - PF)