What is similar to passing over a bridge?

Rashi: It is any place of danger, e.g. a leaning wall or going on the road.

Why would a Nochri be punished?

Ha'Kosev: It is for not keeping one of his seven Mitzvos.

Iyun Yakov: This is like it says in Chulin (95b), Rav would check via the ferry. If it was ready for him, he considered this a good Siman. He would not go with another nation, lest this change the Siman. Shmuel was not concerned for this. He would check via a Sefer (asking a child what verse he is learning - ibid.)

How can Shmuel say that the Satan does not rule over different nations at the same time? There were different nations on the boat that Yonah took, and it was about to sink!

Maharsha: It ruled only over Yonah. The boat was going to sink only due to him, in order that they will throw him off, like the verses say!

Rav Elyashiv: In Ta'anis (21b), R. Yochanan decreed a fast due to a plague among pigs, for their intestines resemble people's. Tosfos said that the same applies if there is a plague among Nochrim, which resemble Yisrael more. The Ran and others disagree, for here it says that Yisrael and Nochrim are not punished together.

How would R. Yanai check a ferry?

Rashi: He would inspect that there are no leaks.

How do we learn from "Katonti mi'Kol ha'Chasadim umi'Kol ha'Emes"?

Maharsha: The Ramban (on Chumash) asked that Katonti is diminished quantity. 'His merits were reduced' is qualitatively. Also, the verse does not mention merits! I answer that Katonti means that I became small and lowly, like "Ki Katan Yakov va'Dal." When my merits were great, I was great and esteemed in my eyes. Now that they were reduced via miracles, I was lowered. Conversely, we find "Ki Atem ha'Me'at" - you diminish yourselves.

If a miracle is done for him, why does it diminish from his merits?

Maharal: A miracle is out the natural order. Also merits are not natural; they are guarded for him for the world to come, which is not natural. If a miracle is done in this world, he is being paid here something that should have been paid in the world to come.

Rav Elyashiv: It is not merely good counsel not to endanger oneself. It is forbidden! We are more stringent about danger than about Isur and Taharah (Chulin 10a, regarding exposed liquids). Some say that something dangerous is not Batel even in 60 parts. Tevu'as Shor asked, if one forgot Al ha'Nisim in Birkas ha'Mazon on Chanukah, afterwards he says 'ha'Rachaman Hu Ya'aseh Lanu Nisim...' Our Gemara says that if Hash-m does miracles, this diminishes one's merits! Why should one pray for this? He says that one may request for a Tzibur, for their miracles cause Kidush Hash-m. This does not reduce merits. He also distinguished based on whether or not it leaves the natural order. (Hagahah: if an individual will publicize his miracle, this is a new matter; it does not pertain to the past (NOTE: to say that the miracle itself was Kidush Hash-m - PF).)

Why wouldn't R. Zeira go between date trees on a day when the south wind was blowing?

Rashi: It topples walls and uproots trees.

Here it says that one should always pray not to get sick. Afflictions are dear (Bava Metzi'a 85a, Sanhedrin 101a)!

Iyun Yakov: There it teaches that if afflictions already came on a person, he should accept them with love, and not resent them, or one who accepts afflictions on himself to atone for his sins, like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon (Bava Metzi'a 84b). One who does not need this should pray not to get ill. It seems that it depends also on what we said above, that one should not go in a place of danger, expecting a miracle, lest a miracle not be done for him. And even if a miracle is done, it diminishes from his merits. The miracle done for a Choleh (who recovers) is greater than the miracle that was done for Chananyah, Michael and Azaryah (they entered mortal fire - anyone could extinguish it. The fire of a Choleh is from Hash-m. Who can extinguish it?! - Nedarim 41a). Afflictions are dear - they cleanse a person from all his sins (Berachos 5a). Even so, one should not enter himself into Safek danger. It says 'always' to include in his youth, when he can bear afflictions more than in his old age. Even so, he should pray not to get ill.

Why does one who is sick needs merits to be cured?

Maharal: One who is in the natural order, he is amidst the Klal of the world, which conducts normally. He does not need merits. One who leaves the Klal, for he is ill, he needs individual merits.

Iyun Yakov: 'Mimenu' implies that he needs his own merits; others' merits will not help him. Therefore, Chizkiyah prayed in his own merit - "Zechor Na... veha'Tov b'Einecha Asisi", and it was granted. However, Hash-m attributed it to others' merit. This is unlike the Gemara in Berachos (10b) implies [that even a Choleh should request in the merit of others]!

What is the difference between before he is sick, and after? If his merits afterwards do not suffices to be saved, why will they help before he gets sick?

Anaf Yosef citing Zichron Yitzchak: Beforehand, Hash-m compares him to his generation. If they are worse than him, this is a merit for him. After he is ill, he needs his own merits to be saved.

What proof is required from one who falls?

Rashi: It is proof that he merits to be saved.

Maharal: Since he fell, he left the Klal, so he needs his own merit not to die from this fall.

Maharsha: "Mimenu" refers to ha'Nofel just before it (proof is required from him), and not to "Gagecha" earlier in the verse.

What is the source that accidents were decreed from the creation?

Rashi: "Korei ha'Doros me'Rosh" - the generations are revealed in front of Him, and their deeds and punishments.

What is the source that he is called 'ha'Nofel' even before he fell?

Rashi: He fell after the Torah was given.

Maharsha #1: Even though many verses discuss the future, when we can expound, we expound.

Maharsha #2: Yipol ha'Nofel implies that he already fell. We answer that it is because he is proper to fall.

Why does it say that [Hash-m] brings good things via virtuous people? It would have sufficed to say that bad things come via the liable!

Iyun Yakov: This teaches that if one made a Ma'akah (wall) around his roof and one was saved via it, do not say that this is not a merit for him, for he was not proper to fall from the six days of creation. It is considered a merit!

Why does it say that bad things are brought via the liable?

Rashi: The owner of the house did not fulfill the Mitzvah of a Ma'akah around his roof.

Maharsha: "Mimenu" refers to the Ba'al ha'Bayis (the fall is attributed to him), and not to "Gagecha" earlier in the verse.

Etz Yosef citing Minchas Yehudah: This is a great disgrace for him. People will say that the Ba'al ha'Bayis who did not build a Ma'akah is liable, and this is why someone fell from his roof. Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not expound "Mimenu" like Mar Ukva, for "ha'Nofel" is extra. Surely ha'Nofel will fall!

One who is executed, why does he confess?

Rashi: It is in order to get a share in the world to come, like we find regarding Achan (Sanhedrin 44b).

How do we learn about a Choleh about to die from one who is executed?

Maharsha: It is logical that the same applies to a Choleh about to die.

What is a Sardiyot?

Rashi: It is a judge.

Kovetz Shitos Kamai citing R. Perachiyah: It is one who serves in front of the king.

Etz Yosef citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: It is a warrior.

Why is one who goes in the market as if he was handed over to a Sardiyot?

Rashi: Quarrels are common there, and Nochrim and Yisraelim can oppose him.

Maharal: One who is in his house, he is guarded. In the market, other forces rule there. Therefore, he is like one handed over to another's Reshus. The Gemara does not mean that one must also stay in his house. Rather, he should contemplate Torah and Mitzvos - this is called in his house, for 'Beiso' is by Hash-m, the place of everything. Turning to other affairs is called going in the market.

Iyun Yakov: This refers to one who feels weak, so he strolls in the market, so the air and walking will restore his health. If he still has a headache [he should consider that there is a noose around his neck].

What is Gardom?

Rashi: It is where they try the most serious offenders for execution; great merits are needed to be saved from it.

Etz Yosef citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: It is steps, in Roman. It was a place in Romi from where they cast down people, and their bodies broke into dissected limbs.

'He is saved only if he has great advocates' implies that there are small advocates. What are small advocates?

Anaf Yosef citing Binah l'Itim: There are advocating angels in Shamayim that seek to make Hash-m pleased with Yisrael - the Klal and individuals. This is amidst their good Midah. There are better advocates - anyone who does a Mitzvah, he acquires an advocate (Avos 4:11). The angel created is his acquisition. It is a strong advocate, for it was created only due to him.

Etz Yosef: "Ki Mal'achav Yetzaveh Lach Lishmarcha b'Chol Derachecha" - amidst Chesed, Hash-m gives to everyone two angels to guard him. They entice him to do Mitzvos, and warn him not to transgress. They love him, and advocate for him. Bigger advocates are those created via his Teshuvah and good deeds.

Why does one advocate out of 1000 suffice?

Maharal: Existence overrides lack.

What is the source that if that advocate has 999 reasons to condemn, and one reason to acquit, he will be saved?

Rashi: Since it says Mal'ach, this implies that one angel out of 1000 advocates. Since it says - "Mal'ach Melitz Echad...", and not Melitz Mal'ach, this implies that even that angel is [only one part in 1000 advocacy, and] mostly prosecution.

Maharsha: Our Gemara supports Mekubalim, who say that anyone who does a Mitzvah, Hash-m creates an advocating angel, and anyone who does a bad deed, He creates a prosecuting angel. (NOTE: Avos 4:11 teaches that anyone who does a Mitzvah, he acquires an advocate. It could mean that the Mitzvah itself advocates; R. Yonah and Me'iri there imply like this. Our Gemara explicitly says that an angel advocates. - PF) However, according to this, how can we explain that one angel is 999 parts prosecution, and one part advocacy?! One can resolve this.

Anaf Yosef: This angel was created via a Rasha's Mitzvah. It cannot advocate for him unless it raises great obligations against him, for surely what he did would not be considered a Mitzvah if a Tzadik did it. Only for a Rasha, who does all Aveiros in the world, it is considered a Mitzvah. Merits are weighed for Resha'im according to their evil. It is considered a merit for Nochrim that they do not write Kesuvos for homosexual couples, and they do not sell human flesh in the market (Chulin 92b). The angel must elaborate about his evil in order to make his deed considered a Mitzvah.

Yishuv ha'Da'as: Sometimes a deed has good sides and bad sides. E.g. Pninah intended l'Shem Shamayim (to get Chanah to pray from the depths of her heart), and also the Mekoshesh Etzim (wanted to make Yisrael realize the severity of Chilul Shabbos), and also David (could have overcome his Yetzer, just he did not want people to say that the slave overcame his Master - Sanhedrin 107a). (NOTE: How were Pninah and David saved? Eight of Peninah's sons died, and her last two were saved only due to Chanah! David was punished via calamities to four of his children and became a Metzora for six months! We can say that they themselves survived. There is no question from the Mekoshesh; merits do not exempt from Misas Beis Din. Also, he wanted to die for the sake of Shabbos! - PF)

If the advocate has 999 reasons to condemn, and one reason to acquit, why will he be saved?

Anaf Yosef: Even if one did a Mitzvah, and there were many aspects of it unlike Hash-m's desire, the good part can make the entire Mitzvah considered a merit.

What is the meaning of 'women die young'?

Rashi: They die due to these sins, even not at the time of birth.

What is the significance of laundering their children's excrement on Shabbos?

Rashi: He holds that they die young.

Maharsha: What forced Rashi to say so? Perhaps they die at the time of birth, for it is a time of danger! It seems that since they have children who sully them with excrement, they are young. Rashi did not explain so about calling the Aron Kodesh 'Arna', for that could also be at the time of birth. (NOTE: Does Maharsha mean that only young women have infant children? If so, only young women give birth! Perhaps older women are experienced, and can keep themselves clean from excrement; only young women get filthy. - PF)

Maharal: Lowliness is found in women more than in men. Even on the Kadosh Shabbos day, the purpose of creation, when they have an extra Neshamah, they engage in lowliness.

What is wrong about calling the Aron Kodesh 'Arna'?

Rashi: So they called their chests.

Tosfos: We do not discuss the Aron that Betzalel made. It was hidden a long time ago, in Bayis Rishon - why would they discuss it? Rather, it is the Aron in a Beis ha'Keneses. Even though it is usually called Teivah, sometimes it is called Aron, e.g. 'nine men and the Aron join' (Berachos 47b).

Etz Yosef citing Machatzis ha'Shekel: Arna is merely Arame'ic for Aron. Even so, it was used only for chests, so it is disgraceful. Aron is not only for chests.

Etz Yosef citing Magen Avraham (154:14): One must call it Aron Kodesh, and not just Aron. In many places, Chazal called it just Aron! We must say that engaging in Torah is different, for everything is Kadosh.

Maharal: This shows that they do not have the level of Divine Chochmah. A woman's Chochmah is only spinning (Yoma 66b). For them, it is Stam Aron without Divine Torah. She dies young when she lacks the level of Divine Chochmah.

What is wrong about calling the Beis ha'Keneses 'Beis Am'?

Maharal: Also the body has Kedushah due to the intellect, which clings to the body. This gives Kedushah to the body; it is called Beis ha'Keneses. An Am ha'Aretz leans to physicality. The Sechel is not Mekadesh his body. His body is like Beis Am - a gathering without Kedushah.

Maharsha: 'Beis ha'Keneses' does not specify who gathers. Rather, it includes Yisrael and Hash-m, like 'Kol Kenesiyah she'Hi l'Shem Shamayim' (Avos 4:11). We learn that Hash-m is found in the Beis ha'Keneses from "Elokim Nitzav ba'Adas Kel" (Berachos 6a). 'Beis ha'Am' implies that it is special for the needs of the Am; Hash-m has no share in it.

Melo ha'Ro'im: The same name is used for theatres.

Chachmas Mano'ach: They do not attribute the Beis ha'Kneses to [Keneses Yisrael, which alludes to] the Shechinah, rather, to people.)

What are Badkei Misah?

Rashi: They are sins that are Bodek (check) them at a time of danger. This is like the opinion that they die in childbirth.

Maharsha: This is like "Bedek ha'Bayis", an expression of breakage, i.e. at the time of birth.

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: This is like Badka b'Ar'a (Bava Basra 41), Badkei d'Maya (Eruvin 21), Badka Shitfa (Bava Metzi'a 67). Also here it is flooding rivers. They kill only one who lacks strength to rise from them. So the three Aveiros kill only a woman, whose strength is weak and her Mazal was weakened, like the opinion that they die in birth.

What are Davkei Misah?

Rashi: They cling to death and cause it to come prematurely. This is like the opinion that they die young.

Maharsha: This is like I explained above (DH Reishis), that three Nefashos (Nefesh, Ru'ach and Neshamah) are Dovek (cling) to each other. Via these Aveiros, they die, and the Nefashos separate prematurely.

In what way was Hekdesh handed over to Amei ha'Aretz?

Rashi: Any person can make his items Hekdesh. We should have been concerned lest someone was Makdish his Metaltelim, and retracted, but the Torah trusts him.

Maharsha: This was taught here, for Amei ha'Aretz die due to this. Chaverim rely on them, and stumble in Gufei Torah. According to Rashi, the Chaver transgresses Me'ilah. (NOTE: The Am ha'Aretz says that it is Chulin, even though he did not redeem it nor ask to permit his Hekdesh. If there is concern for Me'ilah, Chachamim should have decreed not to trust Amei ha'Aretz, just like they are not trusted about Ma'aser and Taharas Terumah! Had they decreed, a Chaver could not benefit from any items of Amei ha'Aretz! Perhaps they refrained due to Darchei Shalom. - PF) Rashi did not say 'he said that he was Makdish a Korban, and really he was not, and brings Chulin b'Azarah', for this is not a Michshol for Chaverim.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi says that we should have been concerned lest someone was Makdish his Metaltelim. What is the reason? Most Metaltelim are not Hekdesh, and the Chazakah is that initially it was Chulin! Perhaps this forced Maharsha to explain that the Am ha'Aretz is punished when he causes a Chaver to transgress. Why would he sell what he was Makdish? I answer based on the Agudah, who says that if one swore to do something within a set time, and on the last day he could not fulfill due to Ones, he is liable for not fulfilling earlier. (Others exempt.) The Am ha'Aretz was Makdish, but in the end due to Ones he needed to sell it. He holds that Ones exempts him; really, he is liable, like Agudah says. (However, those who argue with the Agudah would exempt him.) He is more liable for causing the Chaver to transgress than if he himself ate it, for the Chaver knows that Ones does not exempt (just he does not know about the Hekdesh). Perhaps death can result only if the Am ha'Aretz transgressed and also made another stumble.

Rav Elyashiv: Why did Rashi specify Metaltelim? The same applies to land! Perhaps Rashi discusses a normal case. It is common to be Makdish Metaltelim, for one can give them to Hekdesh; he is not concerned lest he stumble and sin with them.

Rashi citing his Rebbeyim: They are believed about Kodshim, e.g. to say that wine is Tahor for Nesachim.

Rashi: This is difficult. If it means that Chachamim believed them about Kodshim, it should not have been taught with Terumah and Ma'aser, for mid'Rabanan they are not believed [about Taharas Terumah and separating Ma'aser]!

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: Rashi did not say that he is believed to say that he was Makdish his Churban; if he was not, it is Chulin b'Azarah! This is because the Tana would not call this Hilchos Hekdesh, for the concern is lest he was not Makdish, and it is Chulin!

In what way were Terumos and Ma'aseros handed over to Amei ha'Aretz?

Rashi: The Torah did not instruct Beis Din to appointed overseers. Every person is believed about them. Chaverim (people meticulous about Mitzvos) may eat others' bread, and rely that they separated Chalah, Terumos and Ma'aseros. Even though the Torah trusts people, Chachamim decreed about Demai (produce bought from an Am ha'Aretz; we are concerned lest Ma'aseros were not separated).

For which vows is a man's wife prone to die?

Rashi: They are vows to Hekdesh [that he does not fulfill].

Maharal: If a man does not fulfill the debt that he obligated himself, Hash-m takes his acquisition - his wife.

Iyun Yakov: He does not offer his obligations, as if the Mikdash was destroyed. Therefore, his first wife dies - this is as if the Mikdash was destroyed in his days (Sanhedrin 22a).

Rav Elyashiv: Turei Even asked, in the Sugya of Bal Te'acher (delaying vows), we expound (Rosh Hashanah 6a) "Becha Chet", and not in your wife - she is not punished for her husband's vows! He answers, that is for delaying; here discusses one who decided not to fulfill at all. Hash-m knows his intent! He similarly explained that the Ra'avad (Hilchos Milah 1:2) holds that an adult who does not circumcise is Chayav Kares every day, i.e. if he decided that he will not never circumcise.

What is the source that the verse teaches that his wife dies due to vows?

Maharsha: If "Mishkavcha" were literally your bed, why will it be taken more than other Kelim in the house? Rather, it is your wife. The verse cannot discuss an Arev, like the previous verse - a creditor does not take the Arev's wife! Rather, it discusses vows; she dies if he does not pay.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If it discussed an Arev, it would have said 'Im Ein Lecha Leshalem Yikach Mishkavcha.' Why does it say "Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha"? Rather, it is an Asmachta for one who vows. [The previous verse says] "Al Tehi v'Soke'ei Chaf", i.e. those who swear and vow.

Etz Yosef citing the Vilna Gaon: "Al Tehi v'Soke'ei Chaf", to vow to do something, e.g. offer a Korban or afflict himself; "Ba'Orevim Masha'os" - to vow to learn several Masechtos. Do not do so regularly, for if you do not fulfill, even if it is because you lack [money] to fulfill, "Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha" - your wife will die.

Why are children prone to die due to their father's vows?

Maharal: If one was Oser (forbade) a matter to himself via a vow, and he does not fulfill it, also his children are not sustained. They are Asurim and tied to him more than anything! The one who says that his wife died, it is because she is tied to him. Man is Molid (begets) his speech, just like he fathers children.

Why should children die due to Bitul Torah of their fathers?

Maharal: Fathering children is a great level. It pertains to intellect. A man who begets, he is an individual. Every individual is physical. Power to beget is a Klal. Also intellect is a Klal - it understands Klalim, and not Peratim. The eye sees individuals. When one is Batel from Torah, he is not connected to the Klal, only to individuals. It is not proper for him to have a power of the Klal, i.e. children.

Iyun Yakov #1: Children are guarantors for [their fathers'] Torah, like it says in Shir ha'Shirim Rabah on "Mashcheni Acharecha Narutzah"; "va'Tishkach Toras Elokecha Eshkach Banecha Gam Ani."

Iyun Yakov #2: It is proper to learn Torah, which is the inheritance that Hash-m bequeathed to His nation Yisrael with dearness, Simchah and love, yet he despises it, and does not learn it. Therefore, his primary dearness and Simchah is taken from him - "Nachalas Hash-m Banim."

Rav Elyashiv: Perhaps it is because they nullify "v'Limadtem Osam Es Beneichem", and not only the fathers' own obligation to learn. Also minor children die.

Why do we need "v'Chibel Es Ma'ase Yadecha" - the handiwork of man is his children? We already know that it discusses children from "Besarecha"!

Etz Yosef citing Maharsha (Kesuvos 72a): Here it teaches that the children will die. "V'Al Tomar Lifnei ha'Mal'ach Ki Shegagah Hi" - do not tell the Gizbar of Hekdesh that you erred to vow, and you will not pay (Rashi on the verse). The Targum implies that it is literally an angel that comes to punish him. Do not say, I transgressed the vow b'Shogeg. Why should Hash-m be angry due to your voice, that you vowed and transgressed "Tov Asher Lo Tidor"?

How does Rebbi learn from "la'Shav Hikeisi Es Beneichem Musar Lo Lakachu"?

Rashi: Did I strike your children for naught?! No - it was because they did not learn. "Lo Lakachu" is an expression of Lekach.

Rav Elyashiv: Lekach is Torah - "Ki Lekach Tov Nasati Lachem Torasi Al Ta'azovu."

Why must we say that Rebbi retracted to hold like R. Elazar? Perhaps he holds that they die also due to Bitul Torah, like we say below (33b)!

Tosfos: In the first Beraisa, he does not add to the first Tana's words. (The first Tana taught why a man's wife dies.) If Rebbi held that children die also due to Bitul Torah, he should have said so!

Maharsha: Below, we say that the one who says that children die due to Bitul Torah, he expounds based on the previous verse, and the verse before it. (All the more so he says that they die due to Mezuzah, the previous verse; he adds to the Tana before him.) We cannot say so for Rebbi, for he does not add to another Tana; he holds that they die only for Bitul Torah.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi said 'after he heard from R. Elazar, also Rebbi said so.' i.e. he said that they die also due to Bitul Torah; he did not retract from saying that they die due to vows.

Rebbi learned from "Al Titen Es Picha..." This was after he accepted R. Elazar's opinion. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak holds that R. Elazar learns from "la'Shav Hikeisi Es Beneichem"!

Maharsha: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak holds that if R. Elazar learned from "Al Titen Es Picha", he should have cited it, like Rebbi did. Rather, R. Elazar and R. Yehudah ha'Nasi (before he retracted) both learned from "la'Shav Hikeisi", therefore they did not need to cite it. (NOTE: He explains that Rebbi agreed to R. Elazar's law, but not about its source. - PF) Also below, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that R. Meir and R. Yehudah learn from the same verse "Gam bi'Chnafayich... Lo va'Machteres", so they did not need to cite it.

How does it depend on expounding based on only the previous verse, or also the verse before the previous verse?

Rashi: It says "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Ymei Veneichem." The previous verse discusses Mezuzah, and the verse before that says "v'Limadtem Osam Es Beneichem."

Iyun Yakov: The first opinion holds that "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Ymei Veneichem" refers to only to Mezuzah in the previous verse. The latter opinion holds that "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem" refers only to Mezuzah in the previous verse, and "vi'Ymei Veneichem" refers only to Talmud Torah, two verses above.

Why should children die for not fulfilling the Mitzvah of Mezuzah?

Maharal: Children are called Beiso. When he sins with his house (does not fulfill Mezuzah), his Bayis (children) die.

Iyun Yakov: Mezuzah is a guarding lest the destroyer enter his house. Without a Shomer, the destroyer can enter.

Is one punished if he does not wear a garment obligated in Tzitzis?

Tosfos: No. Only in the days of the Gemara, that they wore garments of four corners, they were punished for not fulfilling Tzitzis, like the angel told Rav Katina (Menachos 41a). Nowadays, people do not normally wear four cornered garments, so one need not buy one. However, it is good to buy a Talis and bless on it every day.

Rav Elyashiv: Tosfos holds that one is punished [even] for intending to wear a garment without four corners in order to exempt himself. R. Yonah disagrees. It is different from all Mitzvos, for it is to remember all the Mitzvos. Anyone who does not fulfill is punished, for he lacks Tzitzis to remind him of all the Mitzvos.

Rav Elyashiv: The Mordechai permits to wear on Shabbos a four cornered garment without Tzitzis, since he cannot affix Tzitzis on Shabbos. Why is this unlike one who lacks earth to cover blood? He may not slaughter a bird or Chayah on Yom Tov, for he cannot fulfill Kisuy ha'Dam (Beitzah 7b)! There is different, for the blood will be absorbed before Yom Tov ends. (NOTE: One may not slaughter at the very end of the day. Enough time must remain in the day to roast and eat from the meat). The Mitzvah will be totally lost. Here, after Shabbos he can affix Tzitzis.

Maharal: Tzitzis are branches that come out of a garment. Children are branches that come out of one's body. "U'Farasta Chenafecha Al Amasecha" - marriage is called spreading the corner of his garment over her. "B'Vigdo Bah" is once he spread his Beged over her (Kidushin 18b). Tzitzis (children) come from the corner (marriage). All of these - Talmud Torah, Tzitzis [on] corners of garments and Mezuzah - have one reason. When one is not careful about something that is tied to man, his children do not endure. When one fulfills a Mitzvah, he clings to Hash-m. This causes long life. Torah is man's; it lengthens the life of his children, who are his. When one sins in one of these Mitzvos, clinging departs and children die.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Over Orach: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak stresses that also Tzitzis is learned from the same verse, to teach that also one who seeks ways to exempt himself from Tzitzis will be punished; see the angel's rebuke of Rav Ketina (Menachos 41a). In Berachos (35b), we say that later generations are unlike earlier generations. This implies that it is not such a Isur, just he did not do a Mitzvah, However, according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, also if he was obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, and seeks strategies to exempt himself, he will be punished.

How do we learn from "Gam bi'Chnafayich Nimtze'u Dam Nafshos Evyonim Nekiyim"?

Rashi: It is due to being Batel from the Mitzvah on your [garments'] corners. "Dam Nafshos Evyonim Nekiyim: are minors, who did not sin. (NOTE: Also, this is written shortly after "la'Shav Hikeisi Es Beneichem..." - PF)

Maharsha: Rashi expounds Evyonim like Av u'Vanim. The verse attributes mortal blood to the fathers - their children died because the fathers did not fulfill Tzitzis.

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: Letters of the word 'He'emantiv' are sometimes added to a noun to diminish it. Aleph, Yud and Vov are among them; they were added to Banim to make Evyonim. Our verse calls minors poor, for they cannot buy or sell.

What is the meaning of 'they made their opening like tunnels'?

Rashi: A tunnel does not have beams (doorposts on which to affix a Mezuzah).

Rav Elyashiv: Or, the opening is horizontal, e.g. an opening in the roof of a cellar. Or, they made a regular (vertical) opening like a cellar opening, via not putting a Mitzvah on it.

Why does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak say that he learns from "Lo va'Machteres Metzasim", and not from the Torah "u'Chsavtam Al Mezuzos Beisecha...; Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Mei Veneichem"?

Maharsha: The Torah promises that one who fulfills Mezuzah, he and his children will live "Al ha'Adamah" (in Eretz Yisrael) a long time, the opposite of what it said above "va'Avadtem Meherah." We may not infer that if he does not fulfill it, his children will die before adulthood.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Over Orach: Perhaps the Torah discusses only one who has a house obligated in Mezuzah, and he does not affix one. "Lo va'Machteres..." teaches that even if he has no opening obligated in Mezuzah, children are prone to die.

What is the source that "Yachaziku Asarah Anashim... bi'Chnaf Ish Yehudi..." means that he will have 10 slaves from every nation?

Maharsha: We cannot explain literally, that 700 people will hold the corner of his garment! Rather, it teaches that due to the corner, he will have so many servants.

Why will one who zealously fulfills Tzitzis have 10 slaves from every nation on every corner of his garment?

Maharal: The end of the Talis serves man and is drawn after him. When he has the supreme Mitzvah of Tzitzis on the corner, servants are drawn after him.

Rav Elyashiv: It is a Berachah to have so many servants, even though it is not clear why he needs so many. (NOTE: If a woman brought four slaves into the marriage, the only reason for her to work is that idleness leads to Zenus or lunacy (Kesuvos 5:5). - PF)

Maharsha: Tzitzis is great, for it is a reminder of all the Mitzvos, and it shields from sin, like the episode in Menachos 44a.

What is groundless hatred?

Rashi: He hates him, even though he did not see him transgress.

Rav Elyashiv: If he saw him transgress, it is a Mitzvah to hate him - "Mesan'echa Hash-m Esna"! However, see Tosfos Pesachim 113b (who says that even though it is a Mitzvah to hate him, the Torah commands to help him to load to overcome his Yetzer ha'Ra, for it is common to come to total hatred).

Why do quarrels increase?

Rashi: This is Midah k'Neged Midah.

Maharal #1: Because he hates without reason, in his house, there is hatred and envy in place of love.

Maharal #2: Hatred is in the heart, which is considered a Bayis. Therefore, hatred in his heart (his intellectual Bayis) causes ruin and quarrel in his actual Bayis.

Why does Sin'as Chinam cause miscarriages?

Maharal #1: Sin'as Chinam has no Mamash (substance, i.e. reason for it). Therefore, his wife becomes pregnant, but does not produce a viable child.

Maharal #2: Hatred is in the heart, which is considered a Bayis. Also his wife is considered his Bayis.

Why do his children die when they are minors?

Rashi: What he loves is taken from him. Also this is Midah k'Neged Midah.

Maharal: Sin'as Chinam has no Mamash. Therefore, his children have no Mamash, and do not reach adulthood. This is even if he did not act due to his hatred, for he is prone to come to terrible deeds.

Iyun Yakov: "V'Ahavta l'Re'echa Kamocha" is a great Klal in Torah. Sin'as Chinam is equated to idolatry, Arayos and murder (Yoma 9b), therefore even an individual gets these three punishments (quarrels, miscarriages, and death of minor children).

What is Mechunas?

Rashi: It is storehouses of wine and oil.

Maharsha: Berachah normally comes to it; Berachah rests on what is hidden from people's eyes (Bava Metzi'a 42a).

Maharal: It is dough, which is gathered and kneaded together. Hash-m commanded to give Chalah, so the dough will be blessed. Even though Ma'aser is not obligatory until [the produce] enters the house, the Chiyuv starts earlier, just it is not finished until it enters the house. The dough is not [normally] made until it enters the house; it depends on Mechunas. When there is no Berachah in Mechunas, people seed but do not gather into the house, for others take it.

Why does not separating Chalah withhold Berachah in Mechunas?

Maharal #1: Chalah is the last Mitzvah from grain, after it became dough. When people sin in it, there is no Berachah in every final matter of produce, e.g. gathering, which is after seeding and reaping.

Maharal #2: Mitzvas Chalah is via man's deed (kneading). Therefore, if the Mitzvah is omitted, there is no Berachah in Mechunas, which is man's deed. Also, there is no Berachah in prices, which man fixes.

What is the meaning of "v'Hifkadti"?

Rashi: This is like "Lo Nifkad Mimenu Ish." I will diminish what you already gathered.

Maharsha: Shachefes and Kadachas are in the same verse as v'Hifkadti. We should say that also they come due to not separating Chalah! If you will say that the Gemara did not need to say so, for the verse explicitly says so, why did it say 'people plant, and others reap it'? Also that is explicit in the verse! Perhaps Shachefes and Kadachas apply to eradication of grain; they are included in 'there is no Berachah in Mechunas.' (NOTE: Rif (on the Ein Yakov) left this difficult. - PF)

Why do we read "Behalah" like 'b'Chalah'?

Maharsha: It should have said Es ha'Behalah, like "Es ha'Shachefes v'Es ha'Kadachas." Since it did not , we expound like 'b'Chalah'; Hei and Ches are interchangeable.

What Berachah comes for separating Chalah?

Maharsha: "Lehani'ach Berachah El Beisecha" refers to the wife, like it says in Yevamos (62a), for the Mitzvah is primarily on her.

What Schar is lost?

Rashi: People do not profit.

Maharsha: There is no source for this from the verse!

Maharsha: It is workers' wages. There is no work in the fields, for the land does not produce!

How do people run after income and not attain it?

Maharsha: Aniyim do not find Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah in the fields. All this is based on what the verse explicitly said (that you will not consume produce of the field).

What did Hash-m command specifically in summer?

Rashi: Terumos and Ma'aseros (crops are harvested in summer).

Maharal: This is unlike Chalah, which is via man's deed. Terumos and Ma'aseros are via what Hash-m gave. Therefore, [when people do not give them], Hash-m takes what he gave. Dew and rain are withheld, prices rise. People cannot earn money; people run after income and do not attain it; wages are from Hash-m, and He takes them back. Berachah departs from the world.

Maharsha: Where did the verse say that people did not fulfill these? "Yigzelu" applies [to what follows it, and] also to "Tziyah Gam Chom" (what was commanded in summer)

"U'Vechanuni Na ba'Zos" permits testing Hash-m with Ma'aser of Peros. Does this apply to Ma'aser Kesafim?

Rav Elyashiv: If Ma'aser Kesafim were mid'Oraisa, it would. However, it is not mid'Oraisa. Poskim say that the Torah's promise of a bumper crop in Erev Shevi'is does not apply to Shevi'is mid'Rabanan. The Berachah for giving Ma'aser is not from the Torah, rather, from Divrei Kabalah (Ezra and Mal'achi).

Why did we ask about "Ad Bli Dai"?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We do not find that someone said 'enough' to a Berachah. Here it hints to so much rain that you will need to say 'Dai'! They told Choni ha'Mag'il 'just like you prayed that rain fall, pray that it depart, for we have enough (too much) rain' (Ta'anis 3:8).

Iyun Yakov: You will say Dai, for one who has more property has more worry (Avos 2:7); "Rash va'Osher Al Titen Li."

Why does it say that your lips will wear out from saying Dai? The letter Dalet is pronounced with the teeth, and Yud is guttural. One does not use his lips to say Dai!

Etz Yosef citing Bigdei Yesha: The Yerushalmi (Berachos 9:5) says that you will be saying 'Dayeinu Berachos' (the verse said 'Berachah Ad Bli Dai); the lips are used to pronounce the letter Beis. Our Gemara said only 'Dai' for brevity.

Why are locusts the punishment for robbery?

Maharal #1: Gezel is taking by force. Hordes of locusts come, and take with force and cruelty, like the Midah of robbers. People come to eat the flesh of their children, which is cruelty.

Maharal #2: People take what is not proper for them, so locusts come, and take what is not proper for them. There is inflation, and people come to eat the flesh of their children, which is not proper for them.

If women eat and do not work, is this theft?

Rashi: This is theft from their husbands (Chachamim enacted that a man feed his wife, and she works for him)! Also, because they are accustomed to eat and drink [more than necessary], they cause their husbands to steal.

The three verses "Yochal ha'Gazam...", "Yeser ha'Gazam Achal ha'Arbeh..." and "va'Yigzor Al Yamin" are in three Nevi'im (Amos, Yo'el and Yeshayah). The latter two do not mention Gezel!

Maharsha: Perhaps because they prophesized at the same time, like is explicit in the Nevi'im, our Gemara understands that Amos revealed that the Nevu'os in Yo'el and Yeshayah were due to Gezel. Yo'el added to Amos' Nevu'ah, that what Gazam leaves over, other species of locusts will eat it, but did not say what will result. Yeshayah explained that that amidst hunger, people will eat their children's flesh.