What are the Simanim before and after Parashas "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a"?

Maharsha: They are backwards Nun's. According to the opinion that the Parshah was written here to separate between punishments, Nun is appropriate, for it hints to punishments. There is no verse in Ashrei beginning with Nun, for it alludes to downfall - "Naflah Lo Sosif Kum Besulas Yisrael" (Berachos 4b). The Nun's are reversed, to hint that the falling should be reversed to good - "Somech Hash-m l'Chol ha'Noflim" (ibid.) According to the opinion that the Parshah is a Sefer by itself, the Nun's hint that even though it has only two verses, it encompasses the Nun (50) gates of understanding. They are reversed, for the verses are the opposite of man's understanding - he cannot fathom their meaning. Even Moshe, who is mentioned in them, merited only 49 gates - "va'Techaserehu Me'at me'Elokim" (Nedarim 38a).

Iyun Yakov: The first Nun is backwards, to hint that they turned away from Torah and Mitzvos. The latter Nun is backwards, to hint to Mem (the previous letter in the Aleph Beis), for they complained about the manna. According to Rebbi, Nun stands for Nifsak (the Sefer ends here).

Rav Elyashiv: Some say that the Nun in "[va'Yhi] bi'Nso'a" is backwards, and also the first Nun after the Parshah, i.e. in "k'Mis'onenim." Noda bi'Yhudah and others say that this depends on the argument of Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Rebbi holds that the Parshah is a Sefer by itself - if so, the Simanim can be part of the Parshah itself. Also a Siman in k'Mis'onenim is fine, for it begins a new Sefer. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the Simanim show that the Parshah is out of place - if the Siman is in the word itself, it is as if that letter is lacking! Also, the Siman should not be in "va'Yhi ha'Am k'Mis'onenim." It seems that the Halachah follows Rebbi; we hold that 85 letters are considered a Sefer. If so, if the Nun in one of these two words was reversed, we leave it so. Perhaps l'Chatchilah it should be so!

What is the meaning of 'this is not the Shem'?

Rashi: This is not the reason for the Simanim. The Parshah is in the proper place, after Yisrael left Har Sinai!

How are there seven Seforim of the Torah according to Rebbi?

Rashi: He considers Sefer Bamidbar to be three Seforim - from the beginning of Bamidbar until "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a", Parashas "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a", and the rest of Bamidbar.

What is the significance of seven Seforim of the Torah?

Maharal: They correspond to the seven Kolos written at Matan Torah. The opinion that there are five Seforim, he does not count "v'Chol ha'Am Ro'im Es ha'Kolos", for it was before Matan Torah (Berachos 6b).

Maharsha: The Torah is in seven Seforim, for it is Hash-m's handiwork, just like He created the world in seven days - "va'Ehyeh Etzlo Amon." (NOTE: Hash-m created the world in six days! Rashi (Bereishis 2:2) brings an opinion that the world lacked Menuchah; this was 'created' on day seven. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: If a Sefer Torah has a mistake in one Chumash, one may read in another Chumash without a mistake. Tal Torah says, since we hold that Bamidbar is three Seforim, if there is a mistake only in the beginning (before Parashas "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a"), one may read in the end of the Sefer (and vice-versa).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Imrei Emes (Likutim on Sukah 52a) says that the seven Seforim are the spices to nullify the power of the Yetzer ha'Ra, which has seven names. The Simanim are in Parshas Beha'alosecha, which we always read after Shavu'os, to hint that Torah is acquired only via Simanim.

Four blank lines separate between Chumashim. According to Rebbi, why are there no blank lines before and after this Sefer?

Chodesh ha'Aviv: It is because it is a small Sefer.

Devir Zahav (on Yad Yosef): Because the [following] Sefer begins with the detriment of Yisrael, it should not be recognized via blank lines in front of it. (NOTE: Sefer va'Yhi bi'Nso'a is not the detriment of Yisrael. Why are there no blank lines before it? Then it would be recognized, and the third verse would be the detriment of Yisrael. - PF)

When will the Parshah be uprooted?

Rashi: When the Yetzer ha'Ra will be Batel, and there will be no more punishments.

How did they veer from Hash-m?

Rashi: They started lusting for meat.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If this was the first punishment, the interruption did not help, for after it, "va'Yhi ha'Am k'Mis'onenim" is written before "veha'Safsuf... His'avu Ta'avah" without a Hefsek in between! And according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, why was this Parshah chosen to separate between punishments? I say that it is connected. When the cloud folded, this showed that Bnei Yisrael will camp; Moshe would say "Shuvah Hash-m Rivevos Alfei Yisrael." For three days it did not fold, so Moshe did not say so. The Torah taught that fire consumed some of the complainers. Since they already received their punishment, even though another punishment is after, this is not considered consecutive punishments.

Iyun Yakov: This opinion holds that if the Parshah were a separate Sefer, it would be proper to put punishments adjacent to each other (Bava Basra 14b. Latter Nevi'im are ordered so each Sefer begins like the previous one ends. Melachim ends with Churban. At it we put Sefer Yirmeyahu, which is totally Churban, and afterwards Yechezkeil, which begins with Churban. If not for this, Yeshayah would have followed Melachim, for he preceded Yirmeyahu and Yechezkeil!) Why did Tzedah la'Derech leave this difficult? (NOTE: One can distinguish them. There, we merely chose an order in which we list Nevi'im. Here, even if they are separate Seforim, putting punishments together could be like a Chazakah! Normally, one should begin with Tov. Perhaps David commanded Shlomo to reward Bnei Barzilai (Melachim I, 2:7) between his commands to kill Yo'av and Shim'i, lest he put two punishments together! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chasam Sofer on the Torah: Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue about Chazakah, like they argue in Yevamos (64b). Rebbi holds that two occurrences make a Chazakah, so one interruption amidst the three punishments (leaving Har Sinai, complaining, and lusting for meat) does not help - there are still two consecutive punishments, which make a Chazakah! Rather, the interruption is because it is a separate Sefer. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that three occurrences make a Chazakah; via the interruption, there are not three consecutive punishments to make a Chazakah.

Anaf Yosef citing Maharam Shif: The order of Nevi'im puts punishments together. Tosfos (Sof Mo'ed Katan) says that this is why Yevamos was arranged after Mo'ed Katan. In both cases, they are similar punishments (Churban in the Nevi'im, death in Mo'ed Katan and Yevamos). 'We do not interrupt in the curses.' Here, they are two different punishments (they should be separated).

Tosfos: It is like Midrash Yelamdenu says - they quickly fled Sinai, like a child flees school, for they learned much at Har Sinai, and feared lest they get more Mitzvos. Hash-m did not want consecutive punishments, so He put Parshas "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a" in between.

Maharsha: We expound so, for only the Beis ha'Mikdash is called Har Hash-m, for its Kedushah was permanent. The place of Matan Torah is called Har ha'Elokim, Har Chorev or Har Sinai. We expound Har Hash-m - they traveled away from Hash-m, like a child flees school, in order to be Batel from Divrei Torah. They left their Beis Midrash to make gatherings of Amei ha'Aretz to pursue desires. The year that they were at Sinai, they did not sin (NOTE: except for the Egel; they were not proper to sin with it, just it was to show the power of Teshuvah (Avodah Zarah 4b). - PF) Immediately after leaving, they sinned with the complainers, Meraglim and others. It says that [after leaving Sinai] they went three days in the Midbar - they should not lodge the third night without Torah, lest they make a Chazakah of three days of Bitul Torah. The Aron went three days journey in front of them, because they veered from Divrei Torah for three days. This was the first punishment. Moshe prayed "v'Yafutzu Oyvecha" - the gatherings of Amei ha'Aretz should be scattered. Scattering of Resha'im is good for them, and for the world (Sanhedrin 90b). "V'Yanusu Mesan'echa" - Masni'echa, "Kol Mesan'ai Ahavu Maves" - these are Chachamim who sit in gatherings of Amei ha'Aretz (Pesachim 49b). Moshe added "Shuvah Hash-m" - put Your Shechinah on us again, at least on "Alfei Rivevos Yisrael" - the 22,000 Leviyim. They were not Mevatel Torah and did not distance from Beis ha'Sefer, i.e. Machaneh Levi. Moshe, the Luchos and Aron were close to them. The Leviyim were not among those who sinned in the Midbar, like Midrashim say.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Mikdash Mordechai (Beha'alosecha): The two punishments are connected. Because they left Sinai in this way, this led to the awesome descent and complaining. Abandoning Torah leads to all sins.

Rav Elyashiv: Why are Yisrael criticized for leaving Har Sinai? They always followed the cloud! Ba'alei Musar say, they should have left amidst pain, and not amidst Simchah. So we say in Avodah Zarah 3a, the Nochrim kick the Sukah when they are pained in it. Yisrael leave amidst pain [but do not kick it]. (NOTE: Alternatively, the cloud instructed them to leave because they wanted to leave, like a child... - PF)

What is considered 'the Degalim'?

Rashi: It is in Parshas Bamidbar [when the Shevatim were divided into four sets of three].

What are Sifrei Minim?

Rashi: The Minim wrote Seforim of Tanach for themselves, in Leshon ha'Kodesh.

Tosfos: They were found with a heretic. We burn Seforim that a Min wrote, like it says in Gitin (45b). It is difficult to say that there is like R. Tarfon, and unlike Chachamim and R. Yosi [for they do not burn even a Sefer that a Min wrote].

Rav Elyashiv: According to R. Yosi, how can we burn the Sefer (without the Azkaros) amidst Safek? If a Yisrael wrote it, "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem Elokeichem" applies! We can answer like the Rambam, that the Torah forbids only with the Azkaros; without them, it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. However, R. Tarfon would burn it with the Azkaros! The Kal v'Chomer proves like Tosfos. It discusses what was written in Kedushah. If a Min surely wrote it, it was not written in Kedushah! I say that even though "Lo Sa'asun Ken" applies, the Kal v'Chomer teaches that we burn it.

What is the meaning of Akape'ach?

Etz Yosef citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: This is like the Targum of "va'Arafto" - a mortal blow.

Why do idolaters not recognize Hash-m, and deny Him?

Rashi: So they were raised, and so their fathers taught to them.

Why may one enter a house of idolatry to escape a pursuer? One may not be healed via idolatry, even for Piku'ach Nefesh (Pesachim 25)!

Rav Elyashiv: This is like the opinion (in YD 155:2) that forbids only when the cure depends on idolatry. The Vilna Gaon (YD 157:26) proves like that opinion from our Gemara.

What do we learn from "v'Achar ha'Deles veha'Mezuzah Samt Zichronech"?

Rashi: You remember [Me] - you did not forget, just you cast Me in back of the door.

Maharsha: The verse ends "Ki me'Iti Gilis" - you cast Me in back of the door, in a hidden place, between the door and the Mezuzah. Zichronech is a euphemism - it means Zichroni (remembrance of Me).

How do Minim arouse envy and animosity between Yisrael and Hash-m?

Maharsha: They say that Hash-m switched Yisrael for another nation, due to hatred. We bring "Mesan'echa..." - it does not say Son'echa. i.e. they cause that it is as if You hate Yisrael - I hate them. "Uvi'Skomemecha" - those who stand against Hash-m in your Emunah, "Eskotat" - I will argue with them. "Tachlis Sin'ah Seneisim" - this is not Sin'as Chinam. "L'Oyvim Hayu Li" - they want to kill me, like an enemy. Once, Mar bar Yosef went, and was endangered via the argument!

What is the Kal v'Chomer that Azkaros of Minim should be erased? Regarding Sotah, Hash-m's name must be erased in order to make Shalom between man and wife. We could put Azkaros of Minim in Genizah and burn the rest of the Sefer, and this would make Shalom! And does R. Yishmael argue with R. Tarfon?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Tarfon said 'I will burn it with the Azkaros in it' - but if the Azkaros were cut out, he would not burn them. R. Yishmael learns a Kal va'Chomer. Megilah Sotah was written in Kedushah, with intent to erase it - therefore it is considered as if the Azkaros are Chulin. (NOTE: If try Chulin, whydo we strive to get her to confess, to avoid erasing Hash-m's name? Perhaps it is because it looks like erasing a Kadosh name. - PF) All the more so, Azkaros not written in Kedushah, one may erase or burn them, even if they are by themselves!

Rav Elyashiv: Teshuvas ha'Rema brings that they asked Rav Hai Gaon if one who swore to divorce his wife may keep her, for Shalom overrides the Isur of a false oath, just like it overrides the Isur to erase Hash-m's name. He forbade. It says "Abed Te'abdun... "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem Elokeichem" - erasing to make Shalom is not 'Ibud' (destruction). Similarly, Achitofel ruled that one may cause Hash-m's name to be erased in order to save the world, for it is not Ibud. We cannot learn to permit transgressing his Shevu'ah. I do not understand. Here the Kal v'Chomer permits burning Sifrei Minim for the sake of Ibud!

Do we save Sifrei Minim on a weekday?

Rashi: No.

Since we do not save them from a fire, what is the Chidush that we do not save them from a Mapoles (fallen house) or water?

Tosfos: If we permit saving from a fire, one might come to extinguish. There is no such concern regarding water. This is a Chidush according to Rabanan, but not according to R. Tarfon (who says that always, we burn them).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Igros Moshe (OC 4:39): R. S. Rapaport brought that a fire will disgrace Seforim. It is a bigger Chidush not to save them from a Mapoles, in which they are already disgraced. I say that in a fire, the Sefer is intact until the last moment. Once it catches fire, one cannot save the Sefer. In a Mapoles, the Sefer is in disgrace, and one can save it like initially. Alternatively, the only disgrace in a fire is that we are not concerned to save it. If a Min wrote it, we do not want it in the world! In a Mapoles, there is disgrace that Kisvei ha'Kodesh are there. Even so, we do not save it due to its Kedushah.

What are Seforim of Beis Avidan?

Rashi: They are Seforim that Minim wrote to debate with Yisrael. The place of the debates was called Bei Avidan.

Iyun Yakov citing Aruch: This was a known Chatzer of kings. It has Sifrei Chochmah of every nation. It has Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim in Leshon ha'Kodesh. R. Avahu was unsure, for it is not known whether or not a Yisrael wrote them.

Iyun Yakov: Alternatively, R. Avahu was unsure if we decree due to Beis Nitzrefei - there is idolatry there.

Rav Elyashiv: R. Avahu was unsure, for perhaps the Azkaros were not written l'Shem idolatry. They were written to debate with Jews! Even though the Sefer is Pasul due to the scribe, perhaps it is like a Sefer written in red ink, which is Pasul (NOTE: for Kri'as ha'Torah or ha'Haftorah b'Tzibur - PF), but we save it.

What is Beis Nitzrefei?

Rashi: It is the name of a particular idolatry.

Etz Yosef: Shmuel said (Avodah Zarah 48a), if they say 'the fruits of this tree will be for beer of Bei Nitzrefei', it is an Asheirah (a tree planted for idolatry).

Why did Rav not go to Beis Avidan?

Etz Yosef: Chachamim of all nations gathered there. They engage in the Chochmos and laws of each nation.

What is the Kal v'Chomer not to go to Beis Nitzrefei? The reasons are different! Rav would not go to Beis Avidan due to danger. He would not go to Beis Nitzrefei due to the Isur of idolatry!

Rav Elyashiv: Below, we find that it is good to disgrace Nochri courts. Similarly, there would be reason to go to Beis Avidan to prove the folly of their words, but it is forbidden due to danger. All the more so one may not go to Beis Nitzrefei, where they cling more to idolatry, due to danger. (NOTE: Since they cling more to idolatry, the danger is greater. - PF)

What is the significance of 'Dikla Ploni in the way'?

Maharal: This hints to one (Ploni) who hated him and opposed him. Therefore, Rava did not want to go. They understood and offered to uproot it, i.e. remove Ploni. Rava refused also this, for if Ploni is missing, the others will realize why he was removed and hate Rava, and he will be damaged via this.

Iyun Yakov: Shmuel went, without concern for danger. He was an expert doctor and astronomer, and esteemed in their eyes.

Maharsha: It hints to Torah. It is hard for me to transgress Torah. It has a semblance of a date tree - some say that 'Segulah' is a Sefer Torah, and some say that it is a date tree (Bava Kama 87b). The Min said that they will uproot it - in their argument, Torah was switched for another creed, like the Min judge said below. Rava answered, the place is difficult for me - I cannot accept your claim that there will be a replacement for Torah. Our Torah does not change!

What is a Pilosof?

Rashi: He is a heretic.

Gilyon ha'Shas: See Derech Eretz Rabah 3:2 (NOTE: In some editions, it is 5:3. Four Gedolei Yisrael including R. Gamliel went to the inner Malchus, and went to visit their Chaver, the Pilosof. Binyan Yehoshua there says, that Pilosof was not a Min - he would not be called their Chaver! I say, all must agree that Pilosof there is different - Gedolei Yisrael would not go to greet a Rasha who takes bribes! Also, it seems that that Pilosof did not live near R. Gamliel. - PF)

Tosfos #1: In Yevanis it is a pot of Chochmah.

Etz Yosef citing Mosaf ha'Aruch: In Yevanis and Roman it is one who loves Chochmah, and investigates the reasons for matters.

Tosfos #2: Some say that it is an expression of mockery.

Did the Min not take bribes? He took from R. Gamliel and his sister!

Rashi: He announced that he does not take; he took covertly.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 27:1) says that documents that Nochrim signed in their courts are Kosher, if Yisraelim testify that the witnesses and judges are not known to take bribes. The Rosh (Gitin 1:10) asked, 'who can testify about them? Our Gemara shows that Stam Nochrim take bribes! Rather, Stam courts do not take bribes.' Our Gemara discussed a Pilosof. It did not teach about Stam Nochrim! Korban Nesan'el (2) says that the Rosh means only that one cannot testify about the Nochrim, for even one reputed not to take, perhaps he takes covertly, like the Pilosof. Still, what is the source that all Nochrim are like the Pilosof? Also, the Rosh implies that Stam Nochrim take, and not merely that one cannot testify about them! Perhaps he holds that since the Pilosof needed to publicize that he does not take, Stam Nochrim take. However, the Rosh could have learned from Bava Kama 38a, which says that Hash-m saw that Nochrim were not keeping their seven Mitzvos, and exiled them from their land, and now, even if they fulfill them, they are not rewarded like one who was commanded. Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 26b) says that Stam Nochrim transgress their seven Mitzvos, all the more so they are suspected to take 'bribes' from both sides. They are not commanded about it, and it is not lowly like theft and murder. (NOTE: If they take 'bribes' (i.e. wages) from both sides in order to judge properly, we should be able to rely on them! If they favor the one who gave the larger bribe, this is like theft! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: A Nochri is commanded about monetary laws. Surely one may not bribe him to tilt judgment - "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol"! One may not give a 'bribe' to a Yisrael to judge correctly. May one do so to a Nochri judge? Tumim (9) brings that Chavos Ya'ir (136) forbids, but Tumim says that the custom is to give. He explains, Shochad is she'Na'aseh Chad - the judge feels that he is the giver. One is a Karov (relative) to himself, and a relative may not judge. A Nochri may judge relatives, so there is no Isur. We cannot infer from our Sugya to permit - they intended only to expose him.

Chashukei Chemed: A Nochri is commanded about monetary laws. The Ramban says that the Torah forbids him to take a bribe. It seems that Lifnei Iver did not apply, for they intended to stop him from sinning in the future. Rav Elyashiv rejected this. Lifnei Iver did not apply, for it was a mere fiction; they never intended to follow his decision. Even though he intended to tilt judgment, a Nochri is not commanded about mere intent.

The Torah forbids us to go to Nochrim for judgment! How could R. Gamliel and his wife do so?

Rav Elyashiv #1: They never intended to accept his ruling, only to mock him. Rashi (Reish Mishpatim) says that the Isur to go to their courts is lest we honor them! (NOTE: Why were they not concerned for Mar'is Ayin? They intended that all present hear that he takes bribes (Rashi). Surely, all would understand that from the beginningm this was their only intent. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv #2: One may go to their courts to clarify Sheker, especially since they judged like Yisrael's law to show that they are proper.

Why did she say 'let your wisdom illuminate like a lamp'?

Rashi: She hinted, remember the bribe that I gave to you!

What is the significance of 'the donkey knocked over the lamp?

Rashi: My bribe overcame yours!

Why did she give a lamp, and he gave a donkey?

Maharal: "Ha'Shochad Ye'aver Pikchim." Physicality blinds the eye of intellect, when a person is drawn after lust of money. She said, let your wisdom illuminate like a lamp! R. Gamliel said, the donkey knocked over the lamp! i.e. physicality extinguishes the eyes of intellect. Taking a bribe does two things. (a) It causes the judge to seek claims to vindicate the one who gave the bribe, like the Min did for her, due to the lamp. When R. Gamliel gave to him a Luba donkey, this blinded all merit that the Min initially found for her. Now he did not see it, for he wanted to vindicate R. Gamliel more. The Min showed his lowliness. Had he been asked to judge without bribes, he would have ruled without sin. First he found merit via the lamp, and later via the donkey (which hints that via a bribe, a person becomes corporal and blind, and does not see the Zechus that he initially saw.)

Did they squander a gold lamp and a donkey in order to expose him?

Maharsha: It does not say that she gave to him. Surely they would not squander a gold lamp and a Luba donkey to mock him! Rather, she brought it to his house, and showed him covertly that she will give it to him. Similarly, R. Gamliel brought a donkey to his house and did not give it yet, just he promised to give it. In the end, they mocked him and did not give to him anything. From their words 'let your wisdom illuminate like a lamp' and 'the donkey knocked over the lamp', he understood that they came merely to mock him. (NOTE: R. Gamliel brought the donkey the next day. Seemingly, on the first day they accepted his ruling, and she left the lamp in his house. Is this not considered giving it to him?! - PF)