What was the question 'R. Akiva learns from a Gezerah Shavah'?

Rashi: The Torah did not cover it up. It is as if it is explicit!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why did R. Yehudah ben Beseira say that R. Akiva will be punished? He had a tradition for the Gezeirah Shavah! In Tanchuma, he said 'anyone who says 'Tzlafchad [was the Mekoshesh]' will be punished. He did not discuss one who has a tradition.

Who had no tradition for the Gezerah Shavah?

Rashi: R. Yehudah ben Beseira.

Tosfos: He should have learned it from R. Akiva, who had a tradition for it! They had a tradition for the number of Gezeirah Shavos; R. Yehudah ben Beseira already had the full amount, so he could not accept another.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Also R. Akiva had no tradition! He said so as an Asmachta. He said 'and so it says...' When there is a Gezeirah Shavah, the Gemara says 'it says here... and it says there.'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Whenever the Torah does not specify the deeds of a person or his father, and his lineage is traced to his father, he is a Tzadik ben Tzadik. If so, how can R. Akiva say that he was warned about Chilul Shabbos, and transgressed? Perhaps since we tell one who is executed to confess, he has a share in the world to come, so he is considered a Tzadik.

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps R. Akiva holds like Tosfos (Bava Basra 119a) brings from a Midrash, that the Mekoshesh intended l'Shem Shamayim! R. Yehudah holds that the Torah did not want to reveal it, even though he was l'Shem Shamayim.

Maharsha (Bava Basra 119a): Targum Yonason (Bamidbar 15:32) says that people did not know the punishment for Chilul Shabbos. He wanted to teach them which Misah it is. Even though this was Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (he did not need the wood), the witnesses did not know; this was Devarim sheb'Lev, so they properly executed him. Rav Elyashiv - Moshe needed to ask Hash-m about his Misah. Since Hash-m knew that it was Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, why did Hash-m say to kill him? One can resolve this. Rav Elyashiv, first version - why is it defaming to say that he was the Mekoshesh? He did not transgress the Torah; Beis Din killed him according to their mistake! Perhaps R. Yehudah ben Beseira obligates for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Rav Elyashiv: Hash-m decreed that Dor ha'Midbar will not enter Eretz Yisrael. People thought that the Torah is only for Eretz Yisrael, so they need not guard Shabbos. (NOTE: He could have asked Moshe to tell everyone! He held that knowing that someone was executed for this would make a greater impression on them. - PF) The Mekoshesh was Moser Nefesh to refute them, a good intent. Why is this worse than the Mapilim, who defied Hash-m's will? Ohr ha'Chayim says that also the Mapilim intended l'Shem Shamayim - however, they did not intend for Mesiras Nefesh. This shows how severe is Chilul Shabbos, even l'Shem Shamayim! (Hagahah - elsewhere, Rav Elyashiv said (like Kos Yeshu'os Bava Basra 119a) that R. Yehudah holds that the Mekoshesh was not l'Shem Shamayim.)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Once, a Chasid's fence was breached. He decided to fix it. He remembered that it is Shabbos, and resolved never to fix it. A miracle occurred, and a Tzlaf bush grew there to seal the breach (150b). The Chida and Chasam Sofer bring from the Ari. Zal that he was a Gilgul of Tzlafchad; he returned to fix his Chilul Shabbos. His name is like Tzlaf Chad (one caper bush). Daf Al ha'Daf (150b, citing Kerem Shlomo 11:1 p.30) - Tzlaf is the most brazen tree (Beitzah 25b). Rashi. did not know how it is brazen. We can say, via it, it is known that Tzlafchad was the Mekoshesh. The Torah covered up his identity!

What was the question rather, why did Tzelafchad die?

Rashi: It says "v'Chet'o Mes" - according to R. Yehudah ben Beseira, for which sin did he die?

Maharsha: "V'Chet'o" implies that it is explicit in the Torah.

What is the significance of 'he was among "va'Yapilu"'?

Rashi: He did not sin so severely, to be Mechalel Shabbos.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Yehudah criticized R. Akiva for revealing what the Torah concealed - we can ask similarly against him! Since it says "v'Chet'o Mes", we may expound that he was among the Mapilim, but we should not attribute to him Chilul Shabbos, which is very severe - it is like transgressing all Torah Mitzvos!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefas Emes: He died b'Chet'o (Shogeg) - the Mapilim were Mezid! Ohr ha'Chayim says that they erred about what to do. The Tur and other Rishonim point out that the Gematriya of "va'Yapilu" is the same as of Tzlafchad - the Torah did not conceal it so much.

What was the answer 'that merely alludes to anger'?

Maharsha: Aharon did not get Tzara'as. Only Miryam did, for she began to discuss Moshe. She normally did not speak in front of Aharon, only now. Also the one who says that Aharon got Tzara'as but was healed, it is because he did not begin. The three signs that Hash-m gave to Moshe hinted to his sin of suspecting Yisrael. The snake is a sign of Leshon ha'Ra; Tzara'as - he was bodily afflicted. Water turning to blood is a sign that he will be stricken at Mei. Merivah "Ya'an Lo He'emantem."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Surely "va'Yichar... Bam" can mean mere Nezifah (Niduy)! Why did R. Akiva expound that Aharon got Tzara'as? Presumably, since they were taught together, both received the same punishment. It is unreasonable that Miryam receive Tzara'as and Niduy - Kam Lei. bid'Rabah Minei! Rather, both of them got Tzara'as. R. Yehudah argues - since the Torah did not say that Aharon got Tzara'as, we say that they received different punishments.

What is the significance of 'he turned away from his Tzara'as'?

Rashi: He was healed from his Tzara'as [before he looked at Miryam's].

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This is not revealing [the detriment of Aharon]. Just the contrary, it shows his level, that he was healed immediately! Perhaps Reish Lakish holds that also Aharon was stricken bodily for suspecting Moshe. Therefore, his teaching was brought after this.

Iyun Yakov: They were equal in the sin - "va'Tdaber Miryam v'Aharon." Surely they were punished equally - is there favoritism?! Do not say like Rashi, that she was punished more, for she spoke first - the verse mentions her first. Perhaps she is mentioned first because she was older! Erchin 15 brings an opinion that Torah cures Leshon ha'Ra. Another opinion holds that there is no cure. The latter opinion holds that therefore, also Aharon needed to suffer the punishment. The former opinion holds that Aharon was exempted from Tzara'as due to engaging in Torah.

Rav Elyashiv: In Zevachim (102a), we ask who declared Miryam to be Tamei. A relative cannot rule about Tzara'as! Rather, Hash-m did. In Sanhedrin 39a, a heretic asked, how was Hash-m Metaher Himself after burying Moshe. Tosfos said, He was Metamei. Himself, for "Banim Atem la'Shem Elokeichem." If so, He is a relative, and He cannot rule about Tzara'as! We do not ask from Drush (Agadah). Alternatively, R. Yehudah holds that Yisrael are called Banim only when they do Hash-m's desire. Tzara'as is when they do not do His desire, so He could be Metamei. and Metaher her. (NOTE: Surely He was Metaher her after Teshuvah, and she resumed to be His Bas! - PF)

Why do we bring a Beraisa to support R. Akiva? He himself is a Tana!

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Admor of Tzanz answered, this answers R. Yehudah's objection 'the Torah concealed it.' "Va'Yifen" implies from his own Tzara'as - the Torah did not conceal it.

If one suspects Kesherim, why is he stricken bodily?

Maharal: This is like one who throws a rock at a wall. If it is a stone wall, it does not accept it; it bounces back on him. A mud wall accepts it, and it does not bounce back on him. So one who suspects his colleague - if it is accepted (true), it does not return on him. If it is not accepted (he suspected falsely), it returns on him. This is like Edim Zomemin (they receive the punishment that they sought to inflict).

Iyun Yakov: It says 'one who suspects Kesherim', and not Chavero, to hint to one who comes from a Kosher drop of semen (Yisrael). Just like their fathers were Ma'aminim, surely also they are Ma'aminim. One who comes from a Pasul drop, there is no faithfulness among them. Hash-m does not strike mortally initially - this refers to Yisrael, who have Chezkas Kashrus. If Hash-m strikes their money, they will repent. For others, Hash-m strikes mortally initially. One who suspects Kesherim, and does not put them on Chezkas Kashrus, so he is treated!

What was Moshe's sin for requesting a sign? People do not believe every Nevu'ah that they hear! And what was the proof from "va'Ya'amen ha'Am" - that was after Moshe did the signs in front of them!

Maharsha: Rashi. on Chumash bring a Midrash that Hash-m told Moshe that Yisrael have a Siman, that the redeemer will say "Pakod Pakadti", and He said "v'Sham'u v'Kolecha." 'They are Ma'aminim Bnei. Ma'aminim', i.e. hey will believe due to a tradition from their Avos. Even though it says "va'Ya'amen ha'Am" after he did the signs, "va'Yishme'u Ki. Fakad Hash-m" implies that they believed due to their tradition [about "Pakod Pakadti"], even before the signs.

Iyun Yakov: The lowest of Yisrael did not believe until after the signs. The Zekenim and Chachamim believed immediately due to "Pakod Pakadti."

How do we learn from "va'Yotzi'ah v'Hine Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg" and "va'Yotzi'ah me'Cheiko v'Hine Shavah ki'Vsaro"?

Rashi: After he removed his hand, it was stricken. When it healed, "va'Yotzi'ah me'Cheiko v'Hine Shavah ki'Vsaro" - it already healed before it left.

Why did Hash-m say 'in the end, you will not believe'?

Rav Elyashiv citing Chasam Sofer: We cannot say that Moshe did not believe! Rather, Moshe's claim was that the Avos did not train Yisrael enough in Emunah, therefore Yisrael will not believe. Hash-m said, 'they are Ma'aminim Bnei. Ma'aminim' - the Avos trained them enough. In the end, Moshe will not train them enough (he did not talk to the rock)!

Why does Midah Tovah act faster than Midas Pur'aniyos?

Maharal: Midah Tovah is intrinsic. It is proper that good come to the world, for Hash-m is good and Rav Chesed - He always leans towards Chesed. Midah of punishment is the opposite. Hash-m blocks it from coming, therefore it is slower.

Maharsha: Here it had to be quicker, so people will know that it is from Hash-m, and not via witchcraft, like Pharaoh claimed about the Makos.

Iyun Yakov: Punishments are due to sin. Hash-m does not rejoice over the fall of Resha'im. He wants to them to repent. Therefore, he delays punishments. He is quick to bring good, lest prosecution block it.

What was the miracle amidst a miracle?

Rashi: After Aharon's rod become a snake and returned to be a rod, it swallowed the Egyptians' rods.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why was this brought here? It pertains to 'Midah Tovah acts faster than Midas Pur'aniyos.' It should have said that Aharon stretched his hand, and held it, and it became a rod [again], like it says about Moshe. (NOTE: Our text learns from Moshe's hand returning to normal. Rif implies that we learn [also] from the snake returning to be a rod. - PF) Why does it say "va'Yhi. l'Sanin; ... va'Yivla Mate Aharon Es Matosam"? Rather, becoming a snake is punishment, so this was only after he threw it. Returning to a rod is Midah Tovah - this was before he took it. Rather, it returned before it swallowed the Egyptians' rods.

Iyun Yakov: Why did the Egyptians' rods return to be rods? It would have been a bigger miracle had Aharon's staff swallowed snakes! I. answer, the Egyptians would have said that one of theirs swallowed them. Since they switched from rods to snakes, it was not clear which was initially Aharon's. Rather, they reverted to rods, and everyone recognized his rod, and then Aharon's rod swallowed theirs.

Maharsha: Tanchuma says that it is not a miracle at all for a snake to swallow other snakes. Rather, one miracle was that it swallowed the others. The other was that it did not become thicker. 'A miracle amidst a miracle' supports this - the latter miracle (not becoming thicker) was in it. According to Rashi, it should have said 'two miracles'!

Iyun Yakov: It says "Matosam", and not Mateihem, to teach that it swallowed them all at once, and it did not become thicker.