Why did his wife take his Tefilin around to Batei Medrash?

Maharal: One who wears Tefilin will live a long life - "Hash-m Aleihem Yichyu" (Menachos 44a).

Rav Elyashiv: Also, Tefilin is equated to Talmud Torah - "Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha" (Kidushin 35a). Also this merit should have helped him!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Birkas Yakov (Berachos 24a): Tefilin gives life. One might have thought that he did not wear them, for a Mechilta brought in Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 17a) exempts one who engage in Torah from Tefilin. Why did she say that he learned much? It suffices to say that he wore Tefilin! It says in Menachos (44a) that one who wears Tefilin merits great wealth. Perhaps one merits wealth or long life, and he merited wealth. Likewise, Torah is "Chayecha v'Orech Yamecha" - we could explain that it gives wealth or long life. Therefore, she showed that he had Torah and Tefilin, so he should have merited also long life.

Maharsha: It was for grief, to arouse people to his death.

Iyun Yakov #1: Anyone who has Tefilin on his head and arm, Tzitzis on his garment and Mezuzah on his doorway, he is firm that he will not sin - "veha'Chut ha'Meshulash Lo vi'Mherah Yinasek." She took his Tefilin, for the Tzitzis were buried with him and the Mezuzah was attached to the doorway. This answers the question of Tosfos (Chagigah 5a)- perhaps he was among "bi'Kdoshav Lo Ya'amin"! Since he had all three, surely he did not sin.

Iyun Yakov #2: It was lest people say that she lies, to mock Divrei Torah and Chachamim, because her husband died in an evil way. This is like it says in Berachos (39b) 'I am wearing Tefilin' (it is evident that I accepted the authority of my Master over me). She wanted only to arouse them for his eulogy and Neshamah.

Iyun Yakov: It says about Resha'im "Lo Yechetzu Yemeihem." All their actions and hope is for this world, to fulfill their desires. One does not fulfill half his desire in his lifetime. Therefore, they die before half their [proper] lifetimes, for it is proper to be half for Hash-m and half for yourself. Tzadikim are totally for Hash-m, even their eating and drinking is so they will have strength to serve Hash-m. Therefore, the widow was astounded that her husband, a Chacham, died in half his days.

What is serving Chachamim?

Rashi: They explain hidden matters in the Mishnah and its reasons, i.e. Talmud.

Was this Eliyahu ha'Navi?

Ramban (introduction, Perush ha'Mishnayos Zera'im): Tana d'Vei Eliyahu in the Gemara is not Eliyahu ha'Navi, rather, a Tana named Eliyahu.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. Simchah Kahana said that this it is Eliyahu [ha'Navi], and this is the widow who said to him "Basa Elai Lehazkir Es Avoni" (Melachim I, 17:18) - you came to mention my sin of not separating properly during the Yemei Libun. Over Orach (92) refuted him from the Rambam, who says that it was not Eliyahu. (NOTE: Rishonim brought after this say that it was Eliyahu! If it was not Eliyahu ha'Navi, how did he know that he died due to Nidah? - PF)

Ramban, Rashba and Ran (Kesuvos 61a): Yes.

What is the difference between Nidah and Libun?

Rashi: The seven days after first seeing blood are Nidah. A Zavah (one who saw three consecutive days during the days of Zivah) must count seven clean days before immersing. She wears white undergarments, so they are called days of LIbun.

Rav Elyashiv: Rishonim ask, if she was Zavah, all the laws of Nidah apply during Yemei Libun. The Rambam says that the Torah forbids Kirvah to her. Did he transgress a Torah law [to sleep with her b'Kiruv Basar]?! Also, Yemei Libun are included in Nidah - why did she say [during Nidah] 'he did not even touch my pinky'?

Ran: She immersed after the seven days of Nidah, and was Tehorah mid'Oraisa. This is why the Talmid was lenient about Kirvah without Bi'ah. R. Zeira taught that all Bnos Yisrael are stringent to count seven clean days before immersing, like a Zavah, after seeing any blood; he did not fulfill this.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though he was Shogeg, 'Shigegas Talmud Olah Zadon' (Avos 4:13).

Is it proper to bless Hash-m for killing a Rasha?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nishmas Chayim (YD 106:5): We find that R. Meir wanted to curse Baryonim that they will die. Bruriyah rebuked him - it says "Yitamu Chata'im Min ha'Aretz", and not Chote'im! However, if he intends [to curse them] for good, that they will be ashamed of this, there is no Isur. We find that Eliyahu blessed Hash-m for killing the Talmid. This was not a curse, rather, thanking Hash-m for the past - "uva'Avod Resha'im Rinah"

What do we learn from "v'El Ishah b'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav"?

Rashi: Until she immerses, she is still a Nidah.

What is the meaning of "He was not Nosei Panim to Torah"?

Kovetz Shitos Kamai citing R. Yehonason of Lunil: Hash-m did not show partiality due to the Talmid's Torah, to cover up for him. Rather, He revealed his disgrace.

Iyun Yakov citing Megilas Esther on Rambam's Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Lav 353: Hash-m did not esteem the Talmid's Torah; He punished him like a commoner.

Maharsha: The Talmid was not Nosei Panim to Torah to expound the inclusion "v'El [Ishah b'Nidas...]" to include Yemei Libun.

Iyun Yakov citing Hasagos ha'Ramban on Rambam, Lav 353: The Talmid was not Nosei Panim for Torah, to make a fence for it.

Rav Elyashiv: Surely one may not learn from here that one may question Shamayim's decrees. (NOTE: i.e. had the Talmid conducted properly, it would be appropriate to ask why he died young. - PF) Also, "Ki Adam Ein Tzadik ba'Aretz Asher Ya'aseh Tov v'Lo Yecheta"! Eliyahu came to appease her, according to her understanding. The Ramban inferred from here that Kirvah to Ervah is only mid'Rabanan. If it were mid'Oraisa, Eliyahu would have said 'blessed is Hash-m who killed him for transgressing Torah law!' The Ramban must hold that once Chachamim decreed, it is as if she is Nidah mid'Oraisa.

Anaf Yosef citing Beis Levi: Maseches Nidah ends with 'one who learns Halachos every day is a Ben Olam ha'Ba.' Maharsha - why was this taught here? Due to R. Zeira's stringency (every Nidah must count seven clean days), the distinctions between Nidah and Zavah do not apply. Even so, these are still Gufei Halachos, and one who learns them is a Ben Olam ha'Ba. The Talmid belittled Torah, and felt that we must learn only what is relevant nowadays. He was Chayav Kares for "Devar Hash-m Bazah" - he was not Nosei Panim for Torah, to appreciate its intrinsic importance.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Minchas Yitzchak 1:50:5: In Megilah (28b), 'one who learns Halachos every day...' is taught next to R. Zeira's stringency. The Talmid learned investigations in Torah, but he did not Halachos, e.g. R. Zeira's teaching, therefore he stumbled in it. (NOTE: If he did not know it, why did he refrain from Bi'ah during Yemei Libun? Minchas Yitzchak must hold that he was aware that mid'Rabanan, Bi'ah is forbidden until the second Tevilah, just he thought that fences from Bi'ah do not apply. Minchas Yitzchak should have explained this, and that he was considered Mezid because 'Shigegas Talmud Olah Zadon.' - PF)

What is the significance that he had one bed?

Rashi: It was a wide bed, so they did not touch each other. He thought that this is permitted.

What Sinar separated them?

Rashi: She wore a belt from the loins and below.

What is Megilas Ta'anis?

Rashi: it is a list of days when one may not fast [or eulogize] due to miracles done for Yisrael. It was forbidden to write oral Torah. This was written, therefore it is called Megilah.

Why were afflictions dear to them?

Rashi: They appreciated the miracles done to save them from the afflictions.

Maharsha: The afflictions themselves were dear to them, like we say 'are afflictions dear to you?' (Berachos 5b). Therefore they make a Yom Tov when they are saved, to remember the affliction, which was dear. Just like we bless on good tidings, so we bless on bad tidings (ibid. 60b).

Etz Yosef citing Maharshal: They endeared afflictions and justified that they were proper to receive them. Therefore, when Hash-m did miracles for them and saved them, they made a Yom Tov to praise Hash-m.

Iyun Yakov: If someone was not afflicted for 40 days, he already received his world to come (Erchin 17a).

Why would we not suffice to write out afflictions?

Rashi #1: They occur constantly.

Rav Elyashiv: Acharonim argue about whether this is only for the Tzibur, or even for an individual, who feels his affliction. In practice, an individual cannot make a Yom Tov to forbid eulogies and fasting, but it is proper to thank and praise Hash-m on the day.

Rashi #2: We cannot make every day a Yom Tov.

What is the meaning of 'a lunatic is not stricken'?

Rashi: He does not recognize afflictions. We do not know many of the miracles done for us!

Maharsha: This is a Mashal - we became used to afflictions, and do not feel them, to make a Yom Tov when we are saved from them.

What flesh of a Mes is discussed?

Maharal: This is not flesh in front of us. Rather, it is of a buried Mes that will be revived later. It says about the bodies of Tzadikim "Yavo Shalom Yanuchu Al Mishkavosam", and about their Neshamos "v'Haysah Nefesh Adoni Tzerurah bi'Tzror ha'Chayim."

Here we say that dead flesh does not feel the knife [that cuts it]. In Berachos (18b), it says that worms hurt a Mes like a needle hurts live flesh!

Iyun Yakov (Berachos 18b): The Gemara here retracted to say that dead flesh of a live person does not feel the knife [but flesh of a Mes feels it]!

Sefer Chasidim 1169: The Mes does not feel physical pain. The Neshamah is pained over the disgrace to the body.

Iyun Yakov (Berachos 18b): It seems that the Rashba (Teshuvah 369) agrees, and therefore he permits to put lime on a Mes to consume the flesh. However, if so, what forced the Gemara to retract and say that dead flesh of a Chai does not feel? In Shevus Yakov (2:94) I resolved the Rashba.

Rav Elyashiv (Berachos 18b): The Mes is pained only via worms, for so Hash-m decreed to afflict him. Radvaz says that Shabbos 13b could have answered this. Since it was discussing dead flesh of a Chai, it gave that answer.

Daf Al ha'Daf: It says in Avos (2:7) 'one who increases flesh, he increases worms. The Bartenura explains, worms hurt a Mes like a needle hurts live flesh. Tosfos Yom Tov brings from Midrash Shmuel that the Mes does not feel. Rather, anyone with sensitivity will be pained while alive over the disgrace he will have after death. Therefore, he will guard himself from increasing flesh. Tosfos Yom Tov asked, why is he pained over disgrace that no one will see? Rather, Nefesh ha'Mes mourns. "Besaro Alav Yich'av" does not mean pain. Rather, Ibn Ezra explained that it is destruction. The Gemara said 'worms pain a Mes like a needle pains live flesh' - they did not say that worms pain Besar ha'Mes! Kol Bo says that the Mitzvah of burial is because the Nefesh is pained over seeing the body in disgrace, like Chazal said that worms pain a Mes like a needle pains live flesh.

Rav Elyashiv: Our Gemara implies that the Mes' flesh is pained. If only the Neshamah is pained, what was the question against 'flesh of a Mes does not feel...'?

What is dead flesh of a live person?

Rashi: It grows due to a wound or burn

How does Sefer Yechezkeil contradict the Torah?

Rashi: E.g. "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochelu ha'Kohanim" implies that Yisrael may eat them! "V'Chen Ta'aseh b'Shiv'ah va'Chodesh..." - where does the Torah hint to such a Korban?! In Menachos (45a), the Gemara resolved them. Because Kohanim may eat Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, he needed to warn them not to eat Melikah of Chulin.

Rav Elyashiv: There was a Havah Amina that Kohanim are permitted [any] Neveilah (Menachos 45a). "La'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" shows that it is not proper for any person! Really, there was no Havah Amina that Kohanim may eat any Neveilah, only like Chatas ha'Of brought on Safek. Really, we do not eat it (if really, there was no need to offer it, it is forbidden).

Iyun Yakov: We infer from here that if we find in a Sefer matters that contradict Torah, the entire Sefer should be buried, even if it has proper matters, even if the author was established to be a Navi. However, before burying it one must contemplate - perhaps the reader does not understand due to his limitations! This is why great authors write about earlier Chachamim 'I did not understand the depth of his intent' or similar expressions, in the way of humility. Recently, some authors aggrandize themselves and disgrace earlier Chachamim. We should learn from Chananya, who resolved Divrei Yechezkel even though they seemed to contradict Torah!

Why did they want to bury the entire Sefer? They could bury only the problematic verses! One may write a partial Sefer due to "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha." This is better than removing a Sefer from Tanach!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Igros Moshe (YD 3 115): Since great Chachamim could not resolve parts of Yechezkel, they were concerned lest commoners err about other parts of the Sefer, even though Chachamim did not see other problems. Once they resolved the difficulties, they were not concerned; people will believe Chachamim that there are no problems in the Sefer. A Perush on the Torah attributed to R. Yehudah ha'Chasid, heretics added to it matters of Kefirah. The entire Sefer must be burned; it is not enough to remove the Kefirah, lest we miss other matters that must be removed.

Rav Elyashiv: Yechezkel was established to be a Navi Emes. Why should they bury his Sefer, even if we do not know how to resolve it with Torah? Rather, since it seems to contradict Torah, there is concern lest people come to stumble. It would not help to bury the matters that contradict, for it is one Sefer; people will stumble via the matters that contradict. (NOTE: Perhaps he means that even if we bury the matters that contradict, and from now and onwards people will not write them in Sefer Yechezkel, we are concerned for existing copies. People will think that since the Sefer was accepted, they may rely on everything in it. - PF)

What were the barrels of oil used for?

Rashi: They were for light, to enable learning at night, and for consumption.

What is the significance of sitting in the attic?

Iyun Yakov: It is proper to learn difficult matters while sitting, like it says in Megilah (21a). The attic is tall, and has good air, which makes one wise.