Why should your clothing on Shabbos be unlike your weekday clothing?

Maharal: Shabbos is Kodesh. Everything Kodesh is separate from physical matters, just like Shabbos is separated from Melachah. Melachah is carrying out in practice, physically. Physical matters do not deserve Kavod; spiritual matters deserve honor. We honor a Zaken who acquired Chochmah, for it is not physical.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the She'eltos: One must make Shabbos pleasurable with food and drink and quality garments. Also the Zohar, Rambam and R. Efrayim b'Ribi Shimshon say that Kevod Shabbos applies also to clothing.

Why do we expound "V'Chibadto" to discuss clothing, and not eating and drinking?

Iyun Yakov: Below (119a) we expound "Li'Kdosh Hash-m Mechubad" to refer to Yom Kipur, on which we do not eat or drink; we honor it with clean clothing.

Why did R. Yochanan call his garments 'Machbedosai'?

Rashi: They honor me.

Maharsha: Below (114a) we learn about changing garments from Aharon. Bigdei Kehunah are "l'Chavod ul'Sif'ares."

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps only R. Yochanan called his garments Machbedosai, for he lacked Hadras Panim, i.e. a beard (Bava Metzi'a 84a), which is the Hidur and honor of Chachamim. Therefore, he honored himself with the honorable clothes of Chachamim.

Etz Yosef, Daf Al ha'Daf citing She'eltos: He called only his esteemed Shabbos garments Machbedosai, but not his inferior weekday garments.

What is the consequence of 'your desires are forbidden, but those of Shamayim are permitted'?

Rashi: This is like it says in Eruvin (38b), one may not go in his field on Shabbos to see what it needs [after Shabbos]. One may pledge Tzedakah and arrange marriages.

Why are Shamayim's desires permitted?

Maharal: Shabbos is removed from physicality. Shamayim's desires are not physical, therefore they are permitted. We forbid speech [about your desires], for it is like partially carrying out in deed, i.e. physical. Thought is permitted - it is not at all physical.

How should your talk on Shabbos unlike on a weekday?

Rashi: Do not discuss business and calculations.

Tosfos: We already excluded this from "mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rashi explains that "mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha" forbids going in his field on Shabbos to see what it needs; here we forbid talking about business [even if it does not pertain to him]. What forced Rashi to say unlike Tosfos, that mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha forbids business? It seems that it was the Gemara's question 'do not walk on Shabbos like on a weekday' - how should it be different? We should say that it forbids going in his field to see what it needs, and mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha forbids business! Rather, "mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha" forbids going in his field, "v'Daber Davar" forbids talking about business, and "me'Asos Derachecha" forbids big steps.

Tosfos: It is like Vayikra Rabah (34) brings, that R. Shimon's mother was speaking too much. He told her 'it is Shabbos', and she was quiet. This implies that on Shabbos one should speak less than on a weekday. The Yerushalmi says that with difficulty, they permitted to give Shalom on Shabbos.

Maharsha: The prefix Mem in "me'Asos Derachecha" applies also to "v'Daber Davar." Speech about Melachah on Shabbos is considered an action. In Ma'ase Bereishis, it says "va'Yishbos mi'Kol Melachto Asher Asah", and it says "bi'Dvar Hash-m Na'asu." (NOTE: Hash-m's speech created the world. Does a Gezeirah Shavah teach that also man's speech is considered action? - PF)

Anaf Yosef: R. Shimon objected only because she talked greatly. She did not discuss calculations and business, rather, matters needed for Shabbos, and even so he objected! (NOTE: Perhaps they were idle words! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sefas Emes says, idle words are forbidden even during the week. We must say that on Shabbos, one must minimize even necessary words! He wrote also that one does not forget what he learns on Shabbos. Forgetting came from Chet ha'Egel - Yisrael's crowns were taken from them. The Ari Zal says that on Shabbos, the crowns are returned to them. Perhaps forgetting does not apply to those who learn the entire week like on Shabbos, i.e. they speak only in Torah. Ha'Grid Soloveitshik says that also Dibur on Yom Tov must be minimized, but not as much as on Shabbos. We find that we say Avinu Malkeinu on Yamim Nora'im, unless they fall on Shabbos. The request about dreams said at the time of Birkas Kohanim on Yom Tov, most places do not say it on Shabbos. Many places switch some of the Piyutim for Chazaras ha'Shatz of Shacharis of Rosh Hashanah to Musaf when it falls on Shabbos; the only reason is to distinguish Dibur of Shabbos from of Chol.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Perhaps Sefas Emes means that via idle words one cannot engage in Torah, but there is no Isur of idle words.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. Zalman, the brother of R. Chaim of Volozhin, concluded that where one may not speak Torah, he may say idle words. In the bathhouse he asked about current events. Mishbetzos Zahav (307:1) says that women may speak idle words. In such cases, it is permitted during the week and forbidden on Shabbos.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nofes Tzufim: Why was it difficult to permit giving Shalom on Shabbos? Is it like idle words - or, is it amidst concern lest one be drawn to say idle words? Pnei Moshe and Korban ha'Edah on the Yerushalmi and Igeres ha'Vilna Gaon hold that the concern is for Shalom itself. It seems that Terumas ha'Deshen (2:155) agrees, for he permits telling matters that one delights to tell - this is Oneg Shabbos! If so, there is no concern lest he be drawn to discuss other matters! However, perhaps there is concern lest one discuss matters without pleasure. It is not clear how Terumas ha'Deshen holds.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nofes Tzufim: Terumas ha'Deshen (1:61, 2:155) forbids discussing matters that another enjoys, if he gets no pleasure, and so rules the Rema (307:1). This is Chesed. Such speech should be permitted like for other Mitzvos, e.g. Shiduchim and teaching a trade! Mishnah Berurah says that one may not transgress for the sake of another. Why is this called transgressing? It is a Mitzvah of Chesed! Magen Avraham forbids saying 'I will do matter Ploni or buy merchandise Ploni tomorrow', even for the sake of a Mitzvah. Sha'arei Teshuvah brings that Eliyahu Rabah permits for a Mitzvah, and so implies Birkei Yosef. Mishnah Berurah brings Eliyahu Rabah, and says that l'Chatchilah one should not speak such words. This implies that he holds that really, it is permitted.

What thoughts do we expound to permit?

Rashi: I need to spend this amount for this field.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We infer from the double expression "v'Daber Davar" that thoughts are permitted.

Anaf Yosef: Shulchan Aruch (OC 306:8) permits thinking about one's business, but it is a Mitzvah to refrain due to Oneg Shabbos. He should consider that all his work is finished.

Rav Elyashiv: Ravina and Rav Chisda argue about whether or not thought is like speech (Berachos 20b). R. Yonah there rules that it is unlike speech, for here we forbid speech and permit thought! And below (150a), we ask that here, thoughts are unlike speech, but R. Yochanan forbids thinking about Torah in a privy, i.e. it is like speech! We answer that there, we require "v'Hayah Machanecha Kadosh." This implies that everywhere else, thought is unlike speech. All Rishonim rule like this, for Keri'as Shma, Birkas ha'Mazon and other Berachos. However, Sha'agas Arye (6) says the Rambam holds that thought is like speech, except for where it says Dibur; he rules that if one blessed in his heart, he was Yotzei. He also permits thoughts on Shabbos, and forbids speech! Rather, he holds that Ravina and Rav Chisda argue only about Keri'as Shma, for it says "v'Dibarta Bam", but all agree that thought is like speech for Berachos and Birkas ha'Mazon.

Rav Elyashiv: The Shulchan Aruch permits only thoughts that do not cause worry, sadness and pressure, which contradict "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg."

What is a big step?

Rashi: It is more than one Amah; one Amah is normal.

Maharal: A bigger step than normal is a deviation. Shabbos is for Menuchah (rest), and not for physical motion!

How do big steps remove one part in 500 of sight?

Maharal: Excess motion is the opposite of the eye. It is total action. Berachah is only in something hidden from the eye (Bava Metzi'a 42a), for Berachah is constant increase. Something seen was already carried out in deed - how can it be blessed?! A big step is carrying out in deed, so it nullifies [the eye,] a matter of deed. The eye rules over (sees) the entire world, from east to west and from the land until Shamayim, which is a journey of 500 [years].

How is lost sight restored at Kidush of Shabbos night?

Rashi: It is via drinking from the wine.

Iyun Yakov: Nerves of the eye depends on the heart (Avodah Zarah 28b). The wine of a Mitzvah (Kidush) gladdens the heart, and Hash-m repairs the damage to the eye. The Rema (OC 271:10) says that one puts his eyes on the cup and the Neros.

Maharal: We are Mekadesh Shabbos to cease (rest) on it - the opposite of motion of a big step.

Rav Elyashiv: Kidush must be where one eats. The custom is to say Kidush in Beis ha'Keneses was for guests who ate there. Nowadays, guests do not eat there. The custom persists, so Aniyim [who have no wine and make Kidush on bread] can taste the wine, to cure the eyes. Beis Yosef (OC 269) brings an opinion that the cure is via putting from the wine on the eyes.

Big steps are forbidden on a weekday. What is the Chidush that they are forbidden on Shabbos?

Ritva: Sight lost for big steps on Shabbos is not returned at Kidush, unless he was going to a Mitzvah. One may run to Mitzvos, even on Shabbos (Berachos 6b).

Anaf Yosef: Rif (on the Ein Yakov) explains, during the week there is only danger, so it is returned. On Shabbos there is also an Isur, so it is not returned.

Maharsha (113a): On a weekday it is forbidden only due to danger (it weakens sight). On Shabbos, there is also an Isur of Shabbos ("me'Asos Derachecha"). Here we do not expound 'Derachecha are forbidden, Darchei Shamayim are permitted', for there is danger [even for Darchei Shamayim].

Anaf Yosef: One may take big steps and run to a Mitzvah even on Shabbos. Surely there is no danger - "Shomer Mitzvah Lo Yeda Davar Ra"!

Iyun Yakov: We already know that Darchei Shamayim are permitted from "Nirdefah Lada'as Es Hash-m" and "Acharei Hash-m Yelechu" - it is a Mitzvah to run to Mitzvos, even on Shabbos.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Shulchan Aruch (301:2) permits youths to jump and run if they enjoy this, or to see something that delights them. The Bach, Magen Avraham and Vilna Gaon permit running in order to see something that delights him; Taz forbids, for he does not delight while running. One should always strive to run to see kings; Chachamim permitted Tum'ah mid'Rabanan to Kohanim for this (Berachos 9b, 19b). The text of Rif, Rosh and Shulchan Aruch 224:9, omits 'run'. It seems that 'always' means even on Shabbos. Even Taz can agree, for the running itself is a Mitzvah (NOTE: according to our texts of the Gemara, which say 'run' - PF).

Iyun Yakov: There was a Havah Amina that on Shabbos one should take bigger steps to minimize the number of steps.

Ben Yehoyada: Rebbi asked [and accepted the answer] only regarding Shabbos. Rebbi permits during the week and forbids on Shabbos.

Why did Rebbi ask if one may eat earth on Shabbos?

Rashi: This refers to a certain kind of earth. Is it forbidden due to healing?

Why is eating earth of Bavel like eating one's ancestors?

Rashi: They died there in Galus.

Maharsha: Rashi did not say those who died in the flood, for we do not descend from them, rather, from Noach! This is why we ask 'they dissolved!' only against the one who says that it is like eating Shekatzim u'Rmashim from the flood. I say that in Eretz Yisrael there is no concern for eating one's ancestors, for we mark graves and we are Metaher [all other places]. Chazal decreed Tum'ah on the ground of Chutz la'Aretz, but not on the air (Nazir 19a, for they do not mark all graves there); they did not decree in Eretz Yisrael.

Rav Elyashiv: They did not decree in Eretz Yisrael, to aid settlement of Eretz Yisrael, which is a Mitzvah. For a Mitzvah we are lenient even for Kohanim in Chutz la'Aretz (YD 372:1)! The decree about Chutz la'Aretz was primarily lest people go to Chutz la'Aretz. They attributed the reason to Mesei Mabul. Some of them became mixed in mud, and did not dissolve (Zevachim 113b).

Maharal: Bavel is called "Shin'ar", for all who died in the flood Nin'aru to there. Even though much time passed, since Bavel is prepared to receive Mesim of the world, it always keeps this name. Since eating earth harms the body, and it is a deviation from normality, it is considered like eating one's ancestors or Shekatzim u'Rmashim. If it were not harmful, we would not decree, for surely the dead dissolved.

Etz Yosef: Mesei Mabul descended to Bavel, for it is the lowest place.

Why do we expound "Simlosayich" to be Shabbos clothing?

Rashi: Surely she was not naked! Rather, it is special clothing, i.e. of Shabbos.

Etz Yosef: Midrash Rus says so.

Maharsha: We expound the plural - she did not say Simlasech.

Etz Yosef citing Shevet Musar 35: He hinted to her about acquiring, via Mitzvos and good deeds, the supreme garments in which the Nefesh is clothed, in the world [to come] that is totally Shabbos.

What was the Chochmah of going to the granary first?

Rashi: People should not see her adorned and suspect that she is a harlot.

Maharsha: She wore weekday clothing, and took with her Shabbos clothing, and put it on only in the granary. This was Na'ami's intent. This is why she said "v'Samt [Simlosayich]", and not v'Hilbasht. "Ten l'Chacham v'Yechkam Od" - Na'ami taught Rus not to dress in her Shabbos clothing until the granary, and Rus understood that the same applies to bathing and anointing.

Iyun Yakov: The Targum is ornaments. This is why it says "v'Samt", and not v'Hilbasht. The primary Chochmah is fear - "Reishis Chachmah Yir'as Hash-m." Also Rus did so due to fear, lest people stumble with her, to think that she is an adorned Zonah. Also Shmuel did so amidst fear of pride - he was not sure that the Shechinah would speak to him.

Etz Yosef: It says "va'Ta'as k'Chol Asher Tzivatah" with the prefix Kaf, for she did not do exactly like commanded - she changed the order.

Why did Shmuel omit "Hash-m"?

Rashi: Perhaps it was not Hash-m. (He should not say His name in vain!)

Maharsha: How is this "Ten l'Chacham v'Yechkam Od", which implies that Eli taught a matter, and Shmuel added to it? The first three times, Shmuel thought that Eli called to him. Eli taught him that Hash-m called to him. Shmuel accepted this, and added to omit "Hash-m", lest it is not Hash-m.

Why did the Gemara not apply "Ten l'Chacham v'Yechkam Od" also to Betzalel? Moshe told him to make the Aron and Kelim, and afterwards the Mishkan, opposite to what Moshe told him!

Rav Elyashiv: Because he totally deviated, this is not called "v'Yechkam Od."

Who were the proper people to go with them?

Rashi: They were harvesters.

Maharsha: He did not explain that she found proper Aniyim to collect with them - why should she be concerned for this? However, surely she should be concerned for proper harvesters. (NOTE: Perhaps improper are prone to contest and say 'what you tool was not Leket or Shichechah. - PF) Also, the verse do not mention that others took Leket with her; it does mention harvesters.

Iyun Yakov: Rashi infers so, for initially she said "I will collect with whom I find grace in his eyes." Afterwards, she did not check in whose field she goes! Rather, she found proper harvesters. "Moshel Makshiv Al Devar Sheker Kol Mesharsav Resha'im" implies that if one's servants are Tzadikim, he is a Tzadik. Since his harvesters are proper, their master is a Tzadik, and I will find grace in his eyes.

How do we learn from "va'Telach va'Savo va'Telaket ba'Sadeh"?

Maharsha: Did she collect after she returned?! Rather, she went and came until she found proper people.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): From va'Telach va'Savo va'Telaket we expound that she was wise not to burden herself without need, to collect while going to the end of the field. Rather, she collected only when returning. However, it should have said ba'Sadeh after va'Telach. Why does it say ba'Sadeh at the end? This teaches [also] that she went and came until she found proper people.

Why would she take two sheaves, but not three?

Rashi: Two adjacent sheaves that fell during harvesting are Leket; three are not considered Leket.

Maharsha: So we rule, like Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai hold that three are Leket, but four are not. What was her Chochmah? The Yerushalmi explains that Beis Hillel learn two from "le'Ani vela'Ger [Ta'azov]", and Beis Shamai learn three from "la'Ger la'Yasom vela'Almanah." Since Rus was a convert, Oni and widow, one might have thought that Beis Hillel agree that she may take three. It was Chochmah not to consider herself to be downtrodden in three ways. (NOTE: Surely a harvester who drops three need not ask whether someone from three of these groups will come to collect! Even so, perhaps such an Oni is entitled to take them. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rashbam (Bava Basra 72) says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about whether or not three is called a stack. Mat'amei Yakov (p.207) says that even according to Maharsha, it is not clear why if one is an Oni in three ways, he may take three.

Leket does not apply to what is attached!

Rashi: She gathered Shichchah (attached sheaves that Bo'az forgot).

Rashash: Rashi omitted Leket, for he holds that Leket does not apply to what is attached, unlike the Rambam.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi said that Bo'az forgot, for Shichchah depends on the owner; it is not enough that the workers forgot. Regarding Leket, he wrote that it fell from the workers.

Why did we ask 'did Bo'az normally cling to girls?!' He told her to cling to his girls!

Maharsha: We ask because he used an expression of 'Divuk', which is usually between man and woman - "v'Davak b'Ishto", "va'Tidbak Nafsho b'Dinah."

Bach: The text should say 'did Bo'az normally speak with girls?!'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said only Tidbakin. Why did he say "v'Cho Tidbakin"? Rather, "do not pass from this" [man in whose field you are - i.e. me, Bo'az], "and so you will cling" with him. "Im Na'arosoi" - you will cling to him with the other girls who clung with him.

How does "va'Tishak Orpah la'Chamosah v'Rus Davkah Bah" show that one may cling to her?

Iyun Yakov: If Rus were forbidden to Bnei Yisrael, Na'ami would not have agreed to convert her.

Iyun Yakov citing Sotah 42: The sons of the one (Orpah) who kissed her mother-in-law will fall to Rus, who clung to her - "v'Oyvai Tatah Li Oref." He inferred that Malchus Beis David will come from her. This is why right after this, we expound about Malchus Beis David!

How could he hint to her about Malchus Beis David or Menasheh? How did he know?

Rashi: He had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

What is the connection of "Halom" to Malchus Beis David?

Maharal: Halom refers to place. Kingship is called Halom, for place applies to level and attribute - 'he fills his fathers' place.' David said, "who am I, that You brought me to Halom" - this level. Bo'az told Rus "Goshi Halom" to hint that she will approach the place (level) of kingship.

Maharsha: The word Halom is extra. He should have said only Goshi v'Achalt! Rather, he hinted to Malchus Beis David, about which it says "Havi'osani Ad Halom." Also, one who is proper for Malchus Beis David, the crown is Holamto (Avodah Zarah 44a). (NOTE: i.e. there is a ridge in his head, into which a protrusion from the crown fits.)

How do we infer that vinegar is good in hot weather?

Maharsha: If not, what is the Chidush? Surely bread dipped in vinegar is normal for workers to eat!

Etz Yosef: Vinegar calms thirst, strengthens the stomach and opposes decaying matters.

Why did he hint to her that Menasheh will descend from her, that his deeds are as bitter as vinegar?

Maharal: Menasheh served idolatry, because Malchus Beis David came from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, from a nation of idolaters. When Rus came to cling to Yisrael, and to produce Malchus Beis David, he hinted to her what will come from Malchus Beis David.

Maharsha: We expound that he hinted about Menasheh, for no king of Yehudah was as evil as him and reigned as long as him (55 years). This is like vinegar - the more it ages, the harsher it is. (NOTE: This is like the opinion that Menasheh did not repent. Sanhedrin 103a favors the opinion that he repented in his last 33 years! - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Also, he was judged with afflictions as harsh as vinegar, until he repented.

Rav Elyashiv: Was the Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to pain her? Even if she did not understand it, what was the reason for the hint? Rather, in the end Hash-m dug a tunnel under Kisei ha'Kavod to accept his Teshuvah. This was Yeshayah's rebuke of Chizkiyah, who refrained from marrying because he saw via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that he would father a Rasha. This is why he descended, for due to the Teshuvah that he will do, Yeshayah was able to convince Chizkiyah to marry! Also the hint that Malchus Beis David will split was for good - even though it will split, Beis David will continue to have kingship. (NOTE: Without the hint, she would assume that the kingship will always rule over all of Yisrael! The hint helped convince Chizkiyah to marry. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Menasheh did deeds worse than all Malchei Yisrael, and later repented. Vinegar hints to this - first it spoiled and became vinegar. Afterwards, it is used to season, and we benefit from it - it improves foods. This vinegar was not 'harsh to the teeth.'

What is the significance of "mi'Tzad ha'Kotzrim"?

Rashi: She was not amidst the harvesters, nor by him. Rather, the harvesters separated between them. This hinted that Malchus Beis David, which will come from the two of them, will split.

Maharal: Had she been amidst the harvesters, they would have been Batel to her. Rather, she was on the side. He hinted to her that Malchus Beis David will be Niktzar (harvested, or shortened) and divided into two, just like harvesters divide the grain into two.

Maharsha: These words are extra, to hint that Malchus Beis David will not be amidst Yisrael, rather, to their side - they will have another kingdom.

Iyun Yakov: Surely she sat by the women. The verse should have said so! Rather, it hints that Malchus Beis David will split.

To whom does the Drashah about "va'Tochal...", "va'Tisba" and "va'Tosar" apply?

Rashi: This teaches about the wealth of some of her descendants. All kings used to bring gifts to David, Shlomo and Chizkiyah.

Maharal: David fought nations, and defeated them. In the days of Shlomo there was Shalom. His kingship was complete, from one end of the world to the other. In the days of Chizkiyah, even though Malchus Beis David already began to wane, Hash-m did miracles to sustain it. "Va'Tosar" hints to remaining, but it was not at the primary level of David and Shlomo. The second opinion holds that we do not divide David from Shlomo - "va'Tochal" applies to both of them. "Va'Tisba" applies to Chizkiyah - Hash-m did great miracles for him. Rebbi was after the Churban - even so, the esteem of Malchus Beis David was seen in him.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though Chizkiyah ate only Yerek, and a small amount, "va'Tosar" applies, for all engaged in Torah, and did not esteem worldly matters.

Maharsha: "Va'Tochal" is extra (NOTE: for it says also "va'Tisba")! It refers to Rus herself. She was alive in the days of Shlomo - "va'Yasem Kisei l'Em ha'Melech" was for Rus, the mother of the kingly line (Bava Basra 91b).

What is their Kavod, and what is Tachas their Kavod?

Rashi: R. Yochanan holds that Kavod is their (Sancheriv's army's) garments; Tachas (under) their Kavod is their bodies. R. Elazar agrees that only their bodies burned, but he expounds Kavod to be their bodies; they burned Tachas (in lieu of) their clothing. (NOTE: Why were their garments more proper to be burned than their bodies? - PF) Also R. Shmuel bar Nachmani holds that Kavod is their bodies; he explains Tachas to mean under, like R. Yochanan; the Neshamos burned.

Maharsha: R. Elazar agrees that Kavod is their garments. He argues only about Tachas. He holds that their garments were burned, and Tachas (in place of) them will be ashes - "ki'Ykod Esh." R. Yochanan holds that only their bodies burned, R. Elazar holds that only their garments burned, and R. Shmuel bar Nachmani holds that only their Neshamos burned.

Iyun Yakov: According to both Rashi and Maharsha, R. Elazar is unlike he taught in Sanhedrin 94a! Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ohr ha'Yashar - there, R. Elazar says like R. Shmuel bar Nachmani here. We must say that they argue only about how to expound the verse in Yeshayah.

Maharal: There are three opinions. R. Yochanan holds that only their bodies burned, but not their clothing. R. Elazar holds that both of them burned - both are called Kavod. (NOTE: He did not explain why it says Tachas. - PF) R. Shmuel bar Nachmani holds that only the Neshamos were burned.

Why were the bodies or garments spared?

Rav Elyashiv: According to R. Yochanan, the garments were spared, so Yisrael could take them for spoils. According to R. Shmuel bar Nachmani, the bodies were spared, for Yisrael's animals to eat. The Vilna Gaon (YD 349) brings so from the Yerushalmi, unlike the Shulchan Aruch, which forbids benefit from Mesim. Pischei Teshuvah brings opinions that Mesei Nochrim are forbidden only mid'Rabanan. Mishneh l'Melech (Sof Hilchos Evel) elaborated greatly; in the end, he brought the Yerushalmi.

Rav Elyashiv: Midrash Agadah (Bereishis 9:23) says that their garments were spared in the merit of Yefes, who covered Noach. How did this help them? Yisrael benefited from their garments - this was a Tikun for them. We can say also according to the opinion that only the Neshamos burned, their bodies were spared because Yefes was concerned for the honor of his father's body. Rashi on Chumash wrote that this is why Gog and Magog will merit burial. Why is Sancheriv's camp compared to Bnei Aharon?! Rashi in Yeshayah said that the garments were spared to reward [Bnei] Shem, who properly honored Noach. (NOTE: Perhaps they are compared to Bnei Aharon to teach that also they got a Tikun, like Bnei Aharon. - PF)

What was the question 'what is the Torah source for changing garments'?

Rashi: What is the source that this shows honor to Hash-m?

Maharsha: This refers to Bigdei Shabbos. One should not mix a cup for his master (Kidush) in the same garments he wore while cooking food [on Erev Shabbos].

Rav Elyashiv: Even though only Rashi holds that Kidush over wine is mid'Oraisa, there is a hint [not to make Kidush in the same garments in which he cooked].

How do we learn from "u'Fashat Es Begadav v'Lavash Begadim Acherim"?

Rashi: The Torah obligated wearing inferior garments when taking ashes outside, which is a less esteemed Avodah, lest his esteemed garments, used for Haktarah and Nisuch, get dirty.

Iyun Yakov: If there were no source in Torah, perhaps it would be forbidden to change to nicer garments, for this is like a man wearing women's garments. We asked the Torah source, for surely there is a source in Nevi'im - "Hikon Likros Elokecha Yisrael", and "v'Chibadto" - your clothing on Shabbos should not be like your clothing on a weekday (113a). The Torah source is not a full proof - perhaps Kedushah of Kehunah is different.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi holds that inferior garments must be worn when taking ashes outside, for there are many, but not for Haramah (taking ashes off the Mizbe'ach), which is a small amount. The Rambam requires inferior garments also for Haramah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Over Orach (211) says that R. Naftoli Hertz questioned why he wears a beautiful Talis only on Shabbos. He should wear a beautiful Talis the entire week, due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu! Even though Shabbos garments should be superior, that is for garments worn the entire day, but not for a Talis worn only for Tefilah! R' Z. Istrinski said that the Gemara said that the Tzitzis should be beautiful, not the Talis! However, Rashi (Bava Kama 9b) said 'a beautiful Talis and beautiful Tzitzis.' Some old texts said only 'a beautiful Talis'; others said only 'beautiful Tzitzis.' It seems that printers put both together.

Why is it disgraceful for a Chacham to go out with patched shoes?

Rav Elyashiv: It is not honorable for the Torah. The Me'iri says, just like a Chacham is distanced from others in his Chochmah, he must distance from all lowliness. This includes any bad Midah. It is extremely despised in a Chacham.

What is Revav?

Rashi: It is a stain of fat or Chelev.

Rif: It is of wax or pitch.

Why is he Chayav Misah for Revav?

Rashi: He must be [and appear] important and proper, for the honor of his Torah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Avodas Eliezer and R' S.Z. Auerbach citing the Kotzker Rav): Revav has the same Gematriya as Tzadik. His virtue must not be only on his garment, but not internally!

What is the consequence of reading "Kol Mesan'ai Ahavu Maves" like 'Masni'ai'?

Rashi: Chachamim who make themselves repulsive in people's eyes cause them to despise people who learn, and hate Torah.

Maharsha: The entire Parshah discusses Torah. "Motze'i Matza Chayim" is a Chacham. If he is Masni'ai (makes people despise Torah), he loves death, and will not find life.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Mesan'ai cannot mean those who hate Hash-m. If so, it should have said Son'ai! Rather, we read "Mesan'ai" like 'Masni'ai' - they cause people to hate Torah, for they see people who learn appearing repulsive. R. Yochanan found it difficult - why is a Chacham who goes in patched shoes merely disgraceful, but if a stain is found on his garment, he is Chayav Misah? Therefore, he brought "ka'Asher Halach Avdi..." - Yeshayah was in worn out garments and patched shoes. If "Kol Mesan'ai Ahavu Maves" applied to these, Hash-m would not have commanded him to do so for a sign for Egypt and Kush! Rather, it is only disgraceful.

Anaf Yosef: Rif answered according to the text of Ein Yakov. According to our text, there is no proof from Yeshayah - his shoes were not patch on top of a patch! With difficulty, we can say that indeed, his shoes had patch on top of a patch, like the way of exiles, for a Siman for Egypt's exile. Hash-m commanded Yeshayah to do something disgraceful; He would not command him to do something with a Chiyuv Misah.

Rav Elyashiv: Even a patch on top of a patch is a problem only on top of the shoe, but not under it (it is not visible - Berachos 43b).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashi (Avodah Zarah 16b) says that Chachamim are normally pained over their learning, and do not launder their garments (therefore, they are black)! R' C. Grainemen, citing the Chazon Ish, said that only a wet stain is forbidden, for then people do not cling to him, lest their garments become stained. I disagree. Rashi here holds that Masni'ai applies only anything dishonorable, e.g. worn out clothing! Ohr Yisrael (4:4 p.205) answers that R. Yochanan forbids only Revav, but the Mishnah in Mikva'os forbids any stain, and so Rashi holds. (NOTE: How can R. Yochanan argue with the Mishnah? - PF) R. Yochanan put a cloth on his garments lest they get dirty (Yerushalmi Kil'ayim 9:2). Alei Tamar explains, he was stringent to be concerned for any stain. Or, perhaps there will be Revav, and he will not notice, or will need to delay before he can change clothing.

Chashukei Chemed: R' N. Karelitz said in the name of the Chazon Ish that there is no shame to be an Oni or have an old hat. To wear a dusty hat is laziness and shameful - he could easily brush it!

What was the answer 'one discusses the outermost garment, and one discusses an inner garment'?

Maharsha: This is like it says (77b, an outer garment is called) Levushah - Lo Bushah. A cloak is called Gelima - it makes one like a Golem. Man's Midos are his garments - "b'Chol Es Yihyu Begadecha Levanim." Midos that come due to physicality are like a Gelima - it is made via the Golem and physical matter. Midos that come via the form are called Levush - the physicality receives a form - Lo Bushah (there is no shame for them). Tzadikim will rise (be revived) in their Levushim (Sanhedrin 90b). It did not say Bigdeihem; they will rise in white garments that receive form, and they will not be shamed. Resha'im will be shamed - they will rise in Gelima.

What is the source that Yeshayahu was naked, i.e. in worn out garments, and barefoot, i.e. in patched shoes?

Maharsha: Surely he was not truly naked and barefoot for three years! Even though worn out garments... is Masni'ai', Hash-m commanded him so.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Masni'ai' applies only to a stain; patched shoes are merely disgraceful.

Iyun Yakov: Only a patch on top of a patch is disgraceful! Perhaps Yeshayah did not go like that. Even though Hash-m commanded him to remove his shoes, perhaps He meant his proper shoes, and he should wear patched shoes.

Anaf Yosef: Just like surely he was not truly naked, he was not truly barefoot.