Why does Zechus of a Mes help more than Zechus of a Chai?

Maharal: A Mes is removed from sin and from the body. He is closer to Hash-m, like an angel. A Chai has sin - this prosecutes.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Here we discuss 'Mesim who already died', i.e. it is as if they died while alive. Avraham entered the furnace, and called himself "Afar v'Efer." Yitzchak's Neshamah departed at the Akeidah. Yakov encountered an angel that is totally fire. (NOTE: How is this considered as if he died? Do not say that he should have died, and was saved miraculously. Also Moshe, "va'Yatzileni me'Cherev Pharaoh"! Why did he not explain about Yakov "Amusah ha'Pa'am" -he will not die in the world to come (go to Gehinom)? We expound similarly about Moshe "v'Shamah Lo Sa'avor", but that promise was at the end of his life, after he prayed for Yisrael. - PF)

What Tefilos did Moshe say to save Yisrael before he requested in the merit of the Avos?

Rashi: He requested in his own merit.

Maharsha: Moshe prayed for Yisrael for 40 days. He was answered only after, when he said "Zechor l'Avraham..." "Ba'Es ha'Hi" - at the end of the 40 days, Hash-m was appeased. It seems that initially, Moshe prayed in his own merit. This is unlike we say in Berachos (10b), Moshe requested in others' merit - "Zechor l'Avraham...", and the pardon was attributed to Moshe - ("Lehashmidam Lulei Moshe..."). Chizkiyah requested [in his own merit, and it was granted in others' merit - "Lema'ani u'Lema'an David"]! Also Moshe asked in his own merit, until he saw that he was not answered! One can resolve this.

Hora'as Sha'ah: Initially Moshe prayed Stam, without mentioning anyone's merits. When he was not answered, he did not request in his merit, rather, in the merit of the Avos. Because it was a great sin, he was not answered in his own merit (Stam), only when he requested in the merit of the dead.

Iyun Yakov: Moshe did not request in his own merit, due to humility. There were other Tzadikim in the generation. Shevet Levi and elders did not sin with the Egel. Even so, Moshe was not answered in their merit, until he requested in the merit of the Avos, even though his own merit was greater - "Lo Kam k'Moshe."

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps Hash-m answered in the merit of the Avos because He swore to them! In any case, this shows the superiority of the dead - he swore only to them.

Rav Elyashiv: The Avos were not greater than Moshe. Their merit was greater only because they were dead. Moshe did not request in the merit of his father Amram. Even though Amram is one of the four who died without any sin, and the Avos had some sin, the Avos' merit was greater.

What is the significance that decrees of a Mes endure?

Maharal: Do not think that a Mes is totally lacking. Their decrees endure, so it is as if they still exist. They are separated from sin and physicality - in this way, they are Divine!

What enactments did Moshe make?

Rashi: He enacted that Yisrael ask and expound matters of the day (e.g. Pesach) on the day.

Maharsha: Rashi felt forced to say so, for the rest of the Torah Moshe said based on Hash-m's word. However, the Gemara said that he made many enactments!

Maharsha: This refers to the entire Torah. It has Chukim - they are called decrees (for they are above our understanding) and Muskalos (Mitzvos that we understand a reason for them) - they are called enactments. All of them endure like he said them in the name of Hash-m.

Why did David request a sign [that will embarrass his enemies]?

Iyun Yakov: They intended to embarrass him. They would ask him 'which death penalty is given for Bi'ah with a married woman?' (Bava Metzi'a 59a) Also, they came to his window and said 'when will the Beis ha'Mikdash be built?' (Midrash, Yerushalmi). Therefore, David requested a sign to build the Beis ha'Mikdash via himself, so people will see that the Shechinah rests on his handiwork. Hash-m answered that it will not be built in his days, due to the reason I wrote above, and because he spilled blood like it says in Shmuel II, Perek 17, or so his sin will always be in front of him. (NOTE: Hash-m told David that he will not build the Beis ha'Mikdash (Shmuel II, 7:12-13), but no reason is given there. Divrei ha'Yamim I, 22:8 says that it was because he killed; Shlomo said that it was due to wars (Melachim I, 5:17). - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: He wanted a sign for the honor of Shlomo and his entire family.

Why did Hash-m refuse to give a sign that He forgave David in his lifetime?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Some say that his sin entailed Chilul Hash-m, which gets Kaparah only after death - "Im Yechupar ha'Avon ha'Zeh Ad Temusun."

Rif: This is wrong. If so, the pardon should have been only after death. Hash-m told him in his lifetime that He pardoned him!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Hash-m knew that Shlomo will finish building the Beis ha'Mikdash in Cheshvan, and the Shechinah will not descend until Tishrei, in which Avraham was born. People will scoff, and say 'how can Shechinah rest in the building of Bas Sheva's son? Even though Hash-m pardoned David, this is because he could have overcome his Yetzer. He sinned lest people say that the slave defeated the Master. However, Bas Sheva has no excuse! Therefore, Hash-m caused that the gates opened only after Shlomo requested in the merit of David, and then all understood that the Shechinah delayed until the month in which Avraham was born, to honor him. (NOTE: Kesuvos 9a-b says that Bas Sheva she was considered Ones (enticement of a minor is considered Ones - Yevamos 33b). Or, her husband had divorced her! Would all understood that the Shechinah delayed until the month in which Avraham was born? Some say that he was born in Nisan (Rosh Hashanah 11a). And even if he was born in Tishrei, would commoners know to attribute the delay to this?! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: This is like Rashi wrote (Bereishis 28:13), that Hash-m does not put His name on live Tzadikim, for "Hen bi'Kdoshav Lo Ya'amin" - man has choice (even if now he is a great Tzadik, he could sin).

Which gates stuck together?

Rashi: The gates of Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.

Etz Yosef: Rashi inferred that he entered the Aron to the Heichal, just he could not enter it to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. If the gates of the Heichal stuck together, it should have said 'he sought to enter it to the Heichal'! This is unlike Shir ha'Shirim Rabah (8) and Tanchuma (Vayera).

Rav Elyashiv: Why did he tell the gates to rise? The Aron was two and a half Amos long, one and a half Amos wide [and the same height]. The gate of Kodesh ha'Kodoshim was 30 Amos tall (Bava Basra 3a)! (NOTE: The Kodesh ha'Kodoshim was 30 tall, but all gates of Beis ha'Mikdash were 20 Amos (Midos 2:3). Perhaps that was in Bayis Sheni, but in Bayis Rishon, the gate had a different height. - PF) The Gemara says that the gates stuck together. He needed to pray that they open, but not to rise! See Shemos Rabah 8:1. (NOTE: It says that Shlomo's Aron was 10 Amos tall, like the opening. It could not fit through, especially since it is carried on poles.) Bava Basra 99a implies that it was Moshe's Aron!

Maharal: These are not physical gates, rather, gates of Kedushah. They did not want to accept the Aron until Yisrael will merit in Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. Until the Aron enters, Kodesh ha'Kodoshim is potential; after it enters, it is in deed.

What 24 praises to Hash-m did Shlomo say?

Rashi: There are 24 occurrences of Rinah, Tefilah and Techinah [in his Tefilah].

Rashi: Some say that they are the 24 Berachos on a Ta'anis (the usual 18, and an additional six).

Rashi: This is wrong.

What are "Pischei Olam"?

Maharal: They are the Beis ha'Mikdash, which is Sha'ar ha'Shamayim. Yakov said "Zeh.. Beis Elokim v'Zeh Sha'ar ha'Shamayim."

Etz Yosef: The repetition "v'Hinas'u Pischei Olam" is because there is a Mikdash above corresponding to the Mikdash below. Via the gates below opening, the opening above will be elevated, for Melech ha'Kavod will come over the Aron; His honor is there.

Why did the gates want to swallow Shlomo?

Rashi: They thought that he called himself Melech ha'Kavod.

Maharal: It did not suffice to say Melech ha'Kavod Hash-m Tzevakos, for perhaps he considers also himself Melech ha'Kavod. He needed to say "Hash-m Tzevakos Hu Melech ha'Kavod" - only Hash-m is Melech ha'Kavod.

Etz Yosef: Even though Shlomo may not enter Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, just like the gates erred to think that he calls himself Melech ha'Kavod, they erred to think that he wants to enter. (NOTE: Normally, only the Kohen Gadol may enter Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, and only on Yom Kipur wearing Bigdei Lavan. We carry the Aron via poles; to enter the Aron, at least two people in front must enter Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. Surely we do not require two Kohanim Gedolim! Rather, a Kohen Hedyot, or perhaps even a Levi or Zar may do so. If a Zar may not, surely he may not even enter the Heichal. If Shlomo guarded this Halachah and stayed outside the Heichal, why did the gates think that he intended to enter Kodesh ha'Kodoshim?! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Seemingly, this proves like Tosfos (12b) leaned to say, that angels do not know people's thoughts. However, perhaps his words implied that he refers to himself, so they needed to protest, in order that he will clarify his words.

Did the gates literally say 'who is Melech ha'Kavod'?

Iyun Yakov citing Toldos Noach #1: No. Shlomo understood the languages of animals, birds and date trees. He understood the gates' movements, that they thought so.

Iyun Yakov citing Toldos Noach #2: No. Since they went to swallow him, he understood that they thought that he refers to himself.

Why did he say "Zachrah l'Chasdei David Avdecha"?

Iyun Yakov: David did Chesed even with those who did evil to him e.g. Sha'ul. One who is Ma'avir Al Midosav, all his sins are removed. "Avdecha" hints that he sinned lest people say that the slave defeated the Master (Sanhedrin 107). Hash-m did not want to pardon him in his lifetime, lest he sin more, and then he will be punished also for previous sins - "Hen bi'Kdoshav Lo Ya'amin." The sign [of pardon] will be after death. "Lo Yitzdak Lefanecha Kol Chai" - since You did not inform the sign of my pardon in my lifetime, this shows that there was not a full pardon in my lifetime.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Imrei Emes: The fact that Shlomo was able to build the Beis ha'Mikdash, this itself proved that Hash-m pardoned David. If not, his son would not have been able to build it! Sefas Emes explained that Moshe said that Korach will be swallowed, for had he died normally, he would have had a bad influence on is descendants, and Shmuel ha'Navi could not have descended from him. (NOTE: Imrei Emes must explain that the proof is from a miracle done in the Bayis that Shlomo built. Our Gemara implies that the pardon was known because Shlomo was not answered until he requested in the merit of David! - PF)

Who are the haters of David?

Rashi: Mishpachas (the family of) Sha'ul, Shim'i [ben Gera] and similar people.

Iyun Yakov: Shim'i was already dead, for Shlomo married Bas Pharaoh only after he died (Berachos 8a), and he married her before he built the Mikdash - "va'Yikach Es Bas Pharaoh va'Yvi'eha... Ad Kaloso Livnos... Beis Hash-m"! (NOTE: Surely, he died before Shlomo began building the Mikdash in his fourth year of kingship. David commanded Shlomo to kill Shim'i, and not let him die naturally. Surely in his first year, he warned Shim'i 'if you leave Yerushalayim, you will die!' Shim'i transgressed and died three years after the warning! - PF) The text of Rashi should say 'Mishpachas Sha'ul v'Shim'i.' Rav Elyashiv - we need not change the text, just 'Mishpachas' applies also to Shim'i.

What is the significance of "va'Yelchu l'Ohaleihem..."?

Maharal: After Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash, Yisrael clung to the level of Kedushah, which is removed from Tum'ah and powers of Tum'ah. Therefore, their wives were Tehoros. They all gave birth to males, which are a higher level. Just like Beis ha'Mikdash is the Binyan and existence of the world, males are the Binyan of the world and its endurance. 'Ben' is from Binyan; he is total existence, which is called Tov (they were "Semechim v'Tovei Lev"); in creation, it says "va'Yar Elokim Ki Tov."

Etz Yosef: "Tovei Lev" implies boys - "Ashrecha v'Tov Lach; ... Banecha ki'Shilei Zeisim."

Iyun Yakov: Since they guarded the days of Nidah, they merited males, like the Midrash (Reish Tazri'a). They were "Semechim v'Tovei Lev", for all are happy when a boy is born (Nidah 30). (NOTE: The simple meaning is that they were happy at the time, and not nine months later when the boys were born! - PF)

What was the sin of Yom Kipur?

Rashi: Yisrael ate and drank on Yom Kipur due to Chanukas ha'Bayis - "Es ha'Chag Shiv'as Yamim v'Shiv'as Yamim" (Mo'ed Katan 9a).

Maharal: Yom Kipur is Kadosh Eloki - "li'Kdosh Elokim Mechubad" (119a). When Beis ha'Mikdash was completed, they reached a higher level, therefore the sin of Yom Kipur was pardoned.

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps they rejoiced that Hash-m pardoned David, for his Aveirah was Lishmah (lest people say that the slave defeated the Master), so also they will be pardoned for transgressing Yom Kipur Lishmah (to honor Hash-m at Chanukas ha'Mizbe'ach).

Rav Elyashiv: Why was this considered a sin? Shlomo expounded a Gezeirah Shavah to permit (Mo'ed Katan 9a)! Surely the Sanhedrin consented! Really, there was no sin; the 'Kaparah' was beyond the letter of the law. Or, perhaps the Sanhedrin retracted. Chanukas ha'Mishkan overrode Shabbos for Korbanos themselves. We cannot learn to permit eating on Yom Kipur for the sake of Simchah! Even though they ate b'Heter until the retraction, they did not fulfill Inuy due to what they ate before the retraction.

Was David's sin pardoned now?

Maharal: Yes. It was proper that David reach this level after death, especially via Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash, which is called on his name, and is separated from physicality. Sin is due to physicality. The Beis ha'Mikdash is called Levanon, because it is Melaben (whitens) Yisrael's sins.

What are "Kitzi", "Midas Yamai" and "Meh Chadel Ani"?

Rashi: These are, respectively, what will happen to me in the future, how long I will live, and on which day [of the week] I will cease from the world.

Etz Yosef: Alternatively, "Chadel" refers to when I will cease from Torah and Mitzvos, i.e. when one dies, he is Batel from them.

Maharal: Kitzi is the number of my years. David lived 70 years, and this became standard for man. Everything about David was intended. David was Shabbos (cessation) for the world. Man's days were decreasing until David, and then they were fixed to be 70, and so it remained forever. It is appropriate that he died on Shabbos!

Maharsha: Kitzi is how long it was decreed for him to live, at the time of birth. This includes the month and day that he will die. Midas Yamai is the length of the day when he will die (i.e. will it be a long summer day, a short winter day, or an average day of Nisan or Tishrei). If one knew this, he would repent each year, but only in the season when he will die. Rather, "Lo Yeda Adam Es Ito." He asked which day of the week he will die. Hash-m consented, for then he will repent every week.

Etz Yosef: "Midas Yamai" is how long it was decreed for him to live, at the time of birth. Sometimes Hash-m adds years to a Tzadik who overcomes his Midos. David overcame his Midos - he had opportunities to kill Sha'ul, and did not! Also, he did not kill Shim'i! Therefore, he thought that Hash-m will add to his days. He thought that Hash-m would tell him the decree, for since he can live longer, he would not refrain from building and planting. Hash-m refused, lest one slacken from repenting before the end of his allotted years.

Why did Hash-m decree that man not know how long he will live?

Maharal: Life is existence; death is absence. These two cannot be joined.

Maharsha: It was so he will constantly repent.

Etz Yosef: If man would know when he will die, he would constantly be pained, and be lazy about building and planting, and the world would be desolate.

Why did David want to know his Ketz? It is better not to know, so he will constantly repent!

Maharal: Via knowing his years, he would know his level. Also the day of the week on which he will die teaches about his level.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo (2:7 p.44, citing R. Y. Holander): We do not find that other Tzadikim asked when they will die! Ya'aros Devash (2:4) asked, David raised Teshuvah. Repent one day before you die; since one does not know when he will die, he will repent every day. Why did David want to know when he will die? He wanted to know whether the episode with Bas Sheva was in the first or second half of his life. If it was in the first half, perhaps he truly sinned. Really, it was in the second half (he was in Yerushalayim at the time; he reigned in Yerushalayim the last 33 of his 70 years). "Raglei Chasidav Yishmor" - if one did not sin in the majority of his life (past half his years), he will not sin. In truth, he sinned only to teach the ability of an individual to repent, like it says in Avodah Zarah (4b). David should have been a miscarriage. Adam ha'Rishon should have lived 1000 years ("b'Yom Achalcha Mimenu Mos Tamus" - Hash-m's day is 1000 years). He gave 70 years for David, and lived only 930. The Zohar says that Avraham should have lived 180 years, and Yakov 175, like Avraham, and Yosef 147, like Yakov. They gave, respectively, five, 28 and 37 of their years to David, another 70 in all. (NOTE: Midrashim give others reasons. Avraham died five years early lest he see Esav sin. Yakov should have lived to be 180; he died 33 years early, due to telling Pharaoh "Me'at v'Ra'im Hayu Yemei Shnei Chayai", and Yosef died before his brothers because he conducted with authority. Had David asked 'did I already live more than half?' and Hash-m answered 'yes', he would still feel urgency to repent each day. However, if Hash-m would not tell him, David would suspect 'He does not want to tell me, for I have more than 50 years remaining...'- PF) He should have lived 140 years. However, normally people sleep at night, and it is as if they are dead. David barely slept, so it is as if he lived twice 70 years. (NOTE: I did not see any source that one sleeps half his life. The Rambam (Hilchos De'os 4:4) learns from "Yashanti Az" that it is proper to sleep eight hours per night. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: It was in order to know when to rebuke Bnei Yisrael. Moshe waited until before he died to rebuke Yisrael. How did he know when he would die? Ohr ha'Chayim (Devarim 31:1) says that 40 days before death, shadows flee. The greatest people know such matters.

Hash-m already said that He decreed that a person not know when he will die. Why did David ask "u'Midas Yamai Mah Hi"?

Rashi: The first question was, what will happen to him in the rest of his life; this question was how long he will live.

Maharsha: Even if he knows which day of the year he will die, he would still be motivated to repent every year.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ya'aros Devash: (He knew that he will live 140 years.) Now he asked if his day is considered 24 hours, like others (and he will truly live 140 years), or only 12 hours, for normally people are awake only 12 hours, so he will live only 70 years. Via this, he will know whether his sin was in the first or second half of his life.

Why did David ask to die on Sunday?

Rashi: It is so people can take care of my body and eulogize me.

Iyun Yakov: If so, why is this not listed (in Kesuvos 103b) among good and bad days to die (Shabbos is bad, for people cannot take care of the body and eulogize him)? Also, then the Mes must be left overnight! (NOTE: Nowadays, with electric lights, we can do all needs of burial at night and bury the body on Motza'ei Shabbos. Perhaps in earlier times, it was not feasible. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Also if he died on Shabbos, they could eulogize him! If he is not eulogized immediately, this disgraces his honor. A king is obligated to oversee the honor of his kingship; a Chacham must oversee the honor of his Torah.

Iyun Yakov: It is very harsh for the body when the Neshamah leaves. On Shabbos, there is an extra Neshamah. It is harsher when two Neshamos must leave! (NOTE: This does not answer Iyun Yakov's question, why Kesuvos 103b did not list Shabbos among bad times to die! - PF)

Why did Hash-m say that David cannot live another day, lest he usurp a day of Shlomo's reign? Shlomo was already anointed king in David's lifetime, when Adoniyahu tried to become king!

Rav Elyashiv: From when he was anointed, he served together with David. This is less esteemed than ruling alone. David cannot diminish the time that Shlomo must rule alone.

Why did David ask to die on Friday?

Etz Yosef: It is good to die on Friday (Kesuvos 103b), for he goes immediately to Menuchah. Hash-m refused, for "Tov Yom ba'Chatzerecha..." - the Torah you learn each day is dearer... This is like 'one moment of Teshuvah and good deeds in this world is better than the entire life in the world to come' (Avos 4:22).

What was the answer 'the Torah that you learn each day is dearer to Me than 1000 Olos that Shlomo will offer...'? Also Shlomo learned!

Rav Elyashiv: David's learning was at a higher level.

Why did Hash-m not say that David cannot die earlier, lest he diminish his own reign?

Rav Elyashiv: This shows that a king can pardon his reign.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes: We are concerned for a king usurping another's kingship only if both of them are in the world, but not if one of them already died.

Why did David learn Torah the entire day on Shabbos?

Rashi: It was so the angel of death would not be able to overcome him. Torah protects from death (Sotah 21a).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes: This cannot be. Hash-m said that he will die on Shabbos. "Ein Chachmah v'Ein Tevunah v'Ein Etzah l'Neged Hash-m"!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes: He was concerned lest this is his last day of his life. He wanted to engage in Torah as long as he can. One moment of Torah (our text - Teshuvah) and good deeds in this world is better than the entire life in the world to come' (Avos 4:22).

Why did the Gemara record the question about the dogs?

Iyun Yakov: When the angel of death comes to the city, dogs cry. Shlomo was concerned lest they cry also because they are hungry. As long as David was alive, they threw leftovers and bones from the king's table to dogs - now that he died, they are hungry! (NOTE: He died in the afternoon. They already received leftovers from the morning meal. On a normal day, there is only one meal during the day, and one at night! - PF)

Ben Yehoyada: This is a parable. 'Dogs' refers to people who used to taunt David about the episode with Bas Sheva; he humbly bore their insults. If I (Shlomo) do nothing, they will speak more, now that he is dead! Chachamim told him to kill them, and publicly justify his father (prove that Bas Sheva was already divorced).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Chochmas Adam (b'Sof , question 6) asked, it is improper to ask about David and the dogs together. Also, the Sanhedrin should not have answered first about the dogs! Also, David died at Minchah. The dogs ate all day. Why were they hungry? Surely Shlomo was not concerned lest the body rot. Rather, it must be guarded from dogs, like all Mesim, like David prayed "mi'Yad Kelev Yechidasi." However, because it was in the sun, people could not sit there to guard it. (NOTE: He did not explain why there was no concern lest it rot. If he died late in the afternoon, this is understood, but I do not know a source for this. Was it impossible to guard it due to the sun? Since he was permitted to move it via a loaf or child, it was in a place where one may carry. Guards could carry sheets to shield themselves from the sun! - PF) Tzitz Eliezer (6:34) brings from Toras ha'Mitzvah that since David learned the entire Shabbos and did not eat, he did not need to feed his animals. Tzitz Eliezer asked, surely he must feed his animals due to Tzar Ba'alei Chayim!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Masa di'Yrushalayim: Kevod ha'Beriyos overrides mid'Rabanan laws. Kohanim may become Tamei for the honor of a mourner (Berachos 19b). Shlomo knew that honor of David's body overrides Isurim mid'Rabanan. He was unsure if first he must feed the dogs, because Tzar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa. The Sanhedrin answered that the dogs come first. Since he can guard David's body without transgressing Muktzah, he must do so; if there was no solution, it would override the Isur of Muktzah.

Why did Shlomo say "l'Chelev Chai Hu Tov Min ha'Arye ha'Mes"?

Rashi: This refers to laws of Shabbos. For the sake of dogs, he may move the Neveilah normally. David's body could be moved only via a loaf or child (for it is Muktzeh).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): A loaf or child was needed. The body could not be moved along with the clothes, for a king's garments are Asur b'Hana'ah, and they must be burned. (NOTE: Shulchan Aruch (OC 311:4) permits moving a clothed Mes. Bi'ur Halachah brings those who disagree, for the Gemara requires a loaf or child to move a Stam Mes (43b). Does it discuss a naked Mes?! - PF)

Rashi citing his Rebbeyim: They answered about the dogs before about David.

Maharal: A live dog exists; a Mes does not exist. Anyone without existence is Muktzah (cast off) from people. Only for a Tzadik, there is an advantage of death - as long as he is alive, physicality blocks him from the highest level.

Maharsha: It seems that this is not limited to dogs. Rather, even the lowliest Chai is better than the most esteemed Mes. We could have explained like above, that once someone dies, he is Batel from Torah and Mitzvos. However, we prefer to explain dog and lion literally, because kingship is from Yehudah, who is called Gur Aryeh.

How did R. Tanchum derive that it is better to extinguish a mortal's Ner to preserve the Ner of Hash-m?

Rashi: Really, we learn from "va'Chai Bahem." The Agadah was to draw the hearts of women and ignoramuses who came to hear.

If they wanted to bury Koheles due to contradictions in it, why should they refrain, just because it begins and ends with Divrei Torah? If they can resolve the contradictions, this suffices by itself!

Iyun Yakov: Mere contradictions are not a reason to bury it, unless they can lead people to err and transgress, e.g. if they think that Hash-m's anger against Resha'im in the world to come is better than His laughter with Tzadikim in the world to come, or His laughter with Resha'im in this world is praiseworthy. If so, one might make this world primary! However, since they saw that it begins and ends with Divrei Torah and Musar, clearly the intent is to make people fear Hash-m.

Does Koheles begin and end with Divrei Torah, but the middle is not Divrei Torah?

Rashi: All the more so, there are Divrei Torah in the middle.

Above (13b), we said that they thought to bury Yechezkeil, for it seemingly contradicts Torah. We did not say that because it begins and ends with Divrei Torah, they did not!

Maharsha: Yechezkel was established to be a Navi. All his words were Nevu'ah. However, [most hold that] Koheles is not Metamei hands, because it is merely the wisdom of Shlomo (Megilah 7a). Therefore, if not that it begins and ends with Divrei Torah, they would not have expounded to resolve the contradictions. Also Mishlei, we can say that they expounded to resolve the contradictions only because they already found that Koheles can be resolved. Also Mishlei, we wanted to say there that it was his Chochmah, and not Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. However, the conclusion was unlike this.

What is Kodem ha'Shemesh?

Rashi: Torah, it is which preceded the sun.

Maharsha: According to Rashi, Tachas ha'Shemesh refers to toil.

Maharsha: It is Gan Eden, which was created before the sun. The gain and reward of his toil in Torah is not Tachas ha'Shemesh (in this world), rather, Kodem ha'Shemesh - in Gan Eden.

Maharsha: In Koheles, Rashi explained Tachas ha'Shemesh to mean in place of Torah, which is called Ohr. I do not know why he explained unlike our Gemara.

What do we learn from the three teachings - the entire world was created Bishvil him, he is worth as much as the entire world, and the entire world was created Letzavas l'Zeh?

Ha'Kosev (Berachos 6b): The first teaches that the rest of the world has no importance. It was created only because there cannot be only a Yarei Shamayim. It is like shells for the Yarei Shamayim; he is the fruit. R. Aba says that the others have importance, just the Yarei Shamayim is worth as much as all of them together. Ben Azai says, the rest of the world is in order to serve the Yarei Shamayim - to bake his bread, make his clothes... This is like Ben Zoma said, blessed is He who created all of these to serve me (below, 58a).

Maharal: Hash-m has in His world only Yir'as Shamayim - "veha'Elokim Asah she'Yir'u mi'Lefanav." The world was created only for this; everything else was not created for itself. Hash-m desired only one with Yir'as Shamayim, just such a person cannot be alone. Therefore, He created others, just like He created animals due to man. The Yarei Shamayim is separated from the Klal; he is not part of it. Therefore, he is equal to [the Klal, i.e. the rest of the world]. Ein Bor Yarei Chet (Avos 2:5). A Bor (crude person) is physical; Yir'as Chet is a level separated from physicality. The one who says Letzavas l'Zeh holds that the world has a connection to a Yarei Shamayim, even though it is separate, just like the body has a connection to the Neshamah, even though it is separate.

Maharsha (Berachos 6b): They discuss three different worlds. The entire world of angels was created Bishvil man, who has choice. Man is worth as much as the middle world (Heavenly bodies) - Moshe's face was like the sun, Yehoshua's was like the moon, "veha'Maskilim Yazhiru k'Zohar ha'Raki'a [u'Matzdikei ha'Rabim] ka'Kochavim." The rest of the world (the lower world) was created Letzavas l'Zeh - to serve him, like Ben Zoma said.

Iyun Yakov (Berachos 6b) #1: "Reishis Chachmah Yir'as Hash-m" - Hash-m created the world with Chochmah, for the sake of Yir'as Hash-m - "veha'Elokim Asah she'Yir'u mi'Lefanav."

Iyun Yakov (Berachos 6b) #2: It says in Mechilta that "Yarei Elokim" is one who makes compromise. Initially Yosef said that he will let only one of his brothers go. Later, he compromised and agreed to let all go, except for one - "Es ha'Elokim Ani Yarei." Compromise is mercy in Din, like Hash-m joined them when He created the world. The world stands on Din, Emes and Shalom (compromise). Man is a small world, when he does Hash-m's will.

What is the contradiction between "Tov Ka'as mi'Sechok" and "li'Schok Amarti Mehulal"?

Rashi: Mehulal is praiseworthy. (Surely what is praiseworthy is better than anger!)

Maharsha: Why did the Gemara assume that Mehulal is praiseworthy? Perhaps it is like Holelus (folly and madness), like the Targum! It seems that if so, the verse should have omitted Mehulal, and said about Sechok and Simchah together "Mah Zeh Osah"?

Maharal: Anger is good when it is not for itself. The anger that Tzadikim have (punishments that they experience) in this world is not for itself, rather, to clean them from sin to bring them to the world to come. 'Ka'as' is their rebuke. Also the Sechok for Resha'im in this world is not for itself, rather, to deprive them of the world to come. It has no substance, mere frivolity. The Sechok which is for itself (Tzadikim reward in the world to come) is better than Ka'as for itself (Resha'im's punishment in the world to come).

Why is Hash-m's anger against Tzadikim in this world better than His laughter with the Resha'im in this world?

Rashi: He rewards Resha'im [for their Mitzvos] here, to deprive them of the world to come.

We could have explained the verse simply - anger is better than Sechok in this world, and Sechok will be Mehulal in the world to come! One may not fill one's mouth with laughter in this world -- "Az Yemalei Sechok Pinu" (Berachos 31a)!

Maharsha #1: We did not, for "Tov Ka'as mi'Sechok" concludes "Ki v'Ro'a Panim Yitav Lev" (there is benefit from anger)!

Maharsha #2: It is hard to explain simply, for anger is the worst Midah - it makes one lose his Nevu'ah or Chochmah (Pesachim 66b), and one who gets angry, it is as if he serves idolatry, and all kinds of Gehinom rule over him (Nedarim 22a).

What are Sechok and Kalos Rosh?

Rashi: Sechok is laughter without a settled mind, even if it is not frivolity. Kalos Rosh is frivolity.

We could have asked a contradiction earlier in the Sefer! It says "v'Shabach Ani Es ha'Mesim... Min ha'Chayim", and "l'Chelev Chai Hu Tov Min ha'Ari ha'Mes"!

Maharsha: Rav Yehudah did not refer to that. If so, he should have said that Shlomo contradicts what his father wrote "Lo ha'Mesim Yehalelu Kah."

Why do we say that the Shechinah rests only amidst Simchah of a Mitzvah?

Maharal: When man has Simchah, his Nefesh has perfection. We explained this in many places. When it is Simchah of Mitzvah, it is Divine perfection. This is praiseworthy! Physical perfection is not Divine. It is lack, that he is drawn after the physical. Shechinah does not dwell on something lacking, only on what is complete.

Etz Yosef: It does not say v'Shibachti Ani Es ha'Mitzvah, rather, "v'Shibachti Ani Es ha'Simchah." We expound that this is Simchah of a Mitzvah. If he does a Mitzvah with laziness or sadness, Shechinah does not dwell on him. Laziness greatly nullifies Avodas Hash-m. Sadness is a bodily illness. When one is ill, he cannot serve Hash-m properly (R. Yonah). Great Simchah in a Mitzvah is a Simchah of the Nefesh. Once, Rav Beruna was Somech Ge'ulah to Tefilah, and did not cease smiling the entire day (Berachos 9b).

Etz Yosef: I praise Simchah, that there is no good in it under the sun. It is as if it says 'I praised Simchah, but not all Simchah - only Simchah in which man has no good in it under the sun, only in the spiritual world. Even though it does not say "Bah" (in it), it is as if it says it. The only good is eating and drinking in which spiritual Simchah is mixed in, i.e. eating of good deeds and drinking of Simchah. This is not under the sun, rather, above the sun, in the world of Neshamos. It is the good that accompanies man.

What is the Simchah that one has in a Mitzvah?

Rashi: E.g. bringing a Kalah to Chupah.

Maharsha: Simchah Tachas ha'Shemesh is not good - "Mah Zeh Osah." I praise Simchah Kodem ha'Shemesh, i.e. of a Mitzvah, based on Torah, which was Kodem ha'Shemesh. This is eating and drinking, which in Koheles, always refers to learning Torah.

Why does Shechinah not rest amidst sadness... only amidst Simchah of a Mitzvah?

Maharsha: The Mitzvah puts Shechinah on the one who does it.

Is "v'Hayah k'Nagen ha'Menagen..." Simchah of a Mitzvah?

Rashi: Yes - it was in order to put the Shechinah on him.

Maharsha: The music was needed to dispel the sadness and anger, which remove Nevu'ah. The other matters that dispel Shechinah (laziness, Sechok, Kalos Rosh, conversation and idle words) are known from reasoning, and not from a verse. And so we say in Berachos 31a that one may not pray amidst sadness...

Iyun Yakov: Eichah Rabah says that the harp played by itself to arouse people to Torah and praises of Hash-m. See what I wrote in Berachos (31a, that even though one may rejoice in a Mitzvah, it says "v'Gilu bi'R'adah." The Simchah may not be complete until the complete Ge'ulah in the future. One should learn from his Maker - from the day of the Churban, there is no laughter in front of Him (Avodah Zarah 3b).

What is the meaning of 'the same applies to a matter of Halachah'?

Rashi: One must begin with something amusing.

Maharal: Torah is Divine. It connects only with the complete, but not with what lacks. It connects with a recipient only if he has perfection. Only then, he can receive the complete Torah.

What is the meaning of 'the same applies to a good dream'?

Rashi: If one goes to sleep amidst Simchah, they show him a good dream.

Maharal: This is because a dream is one part in 60 of Nevu'ah (Berachos 57b). Just like Shechinah rests only amidst Simchah, so a good dream. It is a higher level than a bad dream. Good is always a higher level than bad.

Why should a Talmid's lips drip with bitterness?

Rashi: This is amidst awe.

Why do we read "Shoshanim Notfos Mor" like 'she'Shonim Notfos Mar'?

Etz Yosef: It should have said Sifsosav ka'Shoshanim, like it says "Lechayav ka'Arugas ha'Bosem." Mor is a fragrance - it does not drip! Therefore, we read it Mar/

Why do we distinguish the Rebbi from the Talmidim?

Maharal: The Talmid receives Torah, and draws close to Torah. Therefore, his lips must drip with bitterness. The Torah is fire; it is proper that it resemble fire - anyone who approaches fire, he fears. The Rebbi already has Torah. He should have Simchah and perfection, so he will have Torah.

Why did Rabah make the Talmidim jovial?

Rashi: The Simchah opens their hearts.

Maharal: This is not a lack of Kevod ha'Torah, for he did not begin learning yet. When Torah leaves his mouth, it itself is fire, so he must fear. This is like one who approaches the king - initially he has Simchah, but when he is in front of the king, he should fear the kingdom. So a person should be b'Simchah; Shechinah dwells only amidst Simchah. When he is with Torah, he should have fear, due to honor of Torah.

The verses do not suggest any difference between answering a fool in Divrei Torah or other matters!

Etz Yosef, Divrei Eliyahu, Vilna Gaon on Mishlei: We learn from the Seifa of the verses. "Al Ta'an Kesil k'Ivalto Pen Tishveh Lo Gam Atah" is in worldly matters, e.g. the man who said that Rebbi is a Mamzer. Had Rebbi answered him, it would seem that he is a Mamzer (see Maharsha below). "Ane Chesil k'Ivalto Pen Yihyeh Chacham b'Einav" refers to Divrei Torah - if you do not answer him, he will consider himself to be a Chacham. Do not answer according to your Sechel, rather, "k'Ivalto". E.g. R. Gamliel's Talmid understood R. Gamliel literally - he answered him according to his mistake.

What is the consequence of 'your wife is my wife, and your children are my children'?

Maharsha: Really, I fathered your alleged (i.e. your wife's) children; they are Mamzerim.

Why did Rebbi give to him to drink, and not refute his words?

Maharshal citing R. Avraham of Prague: He intended for "Im Ra'ev Sona'acha... Hashkehu Ki Gechalim Atah Choteh Al Rosho" (Mishlei 25:21).

Maharshal: I disagree. That verse discusses the Yetzer ha'Ra, which is called a Chacham. Here we discuss a fool!

Maharal: A Tzadik humbling himself in front of a Rasha to the point that the Rasha benefits from this, it is called giving him to drink, it is like poison for the Rasha. This is when the Tzadik is forced to honor the Rasha.

Maharsha: Anyone who disqualifies others, he himself has that blemish (Kidushin 70a). Had Rebbi said so, people would say that he is a Mamzer - "Al Ta'an Kesil k'Ivalto Pen Tishveh Lo Gam Atah."

Iyun Yakov: Had Rebbi said that it is false, he would have denied it, and people would not know who speaks Emes. "Al Ta'an... Pen Tishveh Lo" - people will suspect that you lie, just like him. Rather, Rebbi pretended to thank him for informing him. The man was a Mamzer. [Unknown] Mamzerim do not live, therefore he died.

Whom did Rebbi's Tefilah save?

Maharsha: According to the text of Ein Yakov, both men came to Rebbi. Rebbi's Tefilah saved himself. According to our text, the latter man came to R. Chiya. Below, the text says 'he did not make Banei Mamzera', i.e. the first man did not make Rebbi's children Mamzerim [in people's eyes]. What protected R. Chiya? We say (Bava Metzi'a 85b) 'great is R. Chiya's deed!' (He caused that Torah will not be forgotten.)

What is the Tefilah to be saved from brazen people and from brazenness?

Rashi: Brazen people should not harm me, and save me from accusations of Mamzerus - a Mamzer is brazen.

Etz Yosef: We say in Kidushin that every brazen person does not have proper lineage.

Maharal #1: Brazen people are Stam Resha'im. Due to their evil, they are brazen against people. Brazenness is one who has the Midah of audacity.

Maharal #2: A gathering of Azei Panim, even if they do not have the Midah of audacity, since they have supporters, they are very brazen. (NOTE: i.e. a gathering of Stam Resha'im is a gathering of Azei Panim, for they will be very brazen, even if they lack the Midah of audacity. - PF) This is like 'since a witness supports her, this enables her to be brazen [and falsely tell her husband 'you divorced me'.' Normally, if she says so to her husband she is believed, for she could not be so brazen to lie to him about this.]' (Gitin 64b). A lone person cannot be so brazen. Azus Panim is one who is so brazen that he can be brazen even when he is alone.

Etz Yosef: Brazen people should not attribute a Pesul to me. I should not be brazen against others, for 'Az Panim l'Gehinom.'

Etz Yosef: Some explain, save me from brazenness - no Mamzer, who is brazen, should descend from me.

How will conception and birth be together?

Rashi: The day she becomes pregnant, she will give birth to another child.

Maharsha: Rashi did not explain that the day she becomes pregnant, she will give birth to that child, for we do not find so with hens. A hen lays an egg 21 days after it is formed (Bechoros 8b).

Ahavas Yonason (Haftoras Acharei Mos Kedoshim): According to nature, a baby cannot be born until six Mazalos and two days. (NOTE: Each Mazal is dominant for one month. Chazal (Rosh Hashanah 11a and many other places) learned from Shmuel that six months and two days suffice. Rashi (Shemos 2:3) says that Moshe was born after six months and one day. One opinion in Bechoros 20b says Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo regarding pregnancy. - PF) If he is born after nine Mazalos, he is Mezuraz. The sun traverses the world (and all the Mazalos) every day, from east to west, and additionally once each year, from west to east. It is forced to do the former, for it does not want to shine for evil Yisraelim. What is forced has no effect on lower beings. The latter it does willingly. In the future, all will be Tzadikim, so it will willingly traverse the Mazalos every day, so a baby can be born the same day.

Why did R. Gamliel prove to him from hens? He could prove from Kayin and Hevel, who were born on the first day, on which they were conceived!

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m formed Adam and Chavah; we cannot learn from them to others. Similarly, we cannot learn from trees in Gan Eden, which bore fruits on the first day, to trees that man planted.

Why did R. Gamliel show to him a caper bush?

Rashi: It bears three kinds of fruits. When one is there, the others are not.

Maharsha: Once one is picked, another starts growing immediately.

Ha'Kosev: The Talmid erred to understand R. Gamliel literally, that trees will bear fruit every day, and buns and fine wool garments will grow. R. Gamliel answered him according to his folly - "Ane Chesil k'Ivalto"! Really, R. Gamliel meant that at the time of Mashi'ach there will be success and abundance.

Maharsha citing Moreh ha'Nevuchim 2:28: "Ane Chesil k'Ivalto Pen Yihyeh Chacham b'Einav" - if R. Gamliel did not answer him, he would think that he is a Chacham and not a Talmid, for R. Gamliel was not able to answer him!

What do we learn from "Yehi Fisas Bar ba'Aretz"?

Rashi: "Fisas" suggests the size of Pas Yad (the hand), and Bar is grain, like "Lishbor Bar." Alternatively, "Fisas" suggests fine wool, like Kesones Pasim was fine wool, and Bar is clean - "Barah ka'Chamah."

Why did R. Gamliel show to him mushrooms and truffles, and shoots growing around bark?

Rashi: Overnight, mushrooms and truffles grow to be big and round, like buns. Shoots growing around bark resemble a fine wool garment.