Why does it say 'one who fulfills the three meals'?

Iyun Yakov: He lets an Oni eat from his table, to enable him to eat three meals. He makes him like part of his household. The Oni had no obligation - make Shabbos like a weekday (eat only two meals), and do not [begin to] take Tzedakah.

Why did the three Shabbos meals save from the three matters called Yom?

Maharal: Yom refers to the time itself. It is not chance - it is existence itself - "va'Yhi Erev va'Yhi Voker." The three punishments are due to man's Chisaron, not due to sin. The three Shabbos meals show the good in the creation, so they save from the punishments due to Chisaron in the creation.

What is Chevlo Shel Mashi'ach?

Rashi: This is like it says in Kesuvos (112b), in the generation in which Mashi'ach ben David will come, there will be accusations against the Chachamim. Chevlei is like Chevlei Yoledah (birth pangs).

Maharsha: Chevlo Shel Mashi'ach is before Mashi'ach - Rashi said, the generation in which he will come. Why do we bring "Lifnei Vo Yom Hash-m", the day that he will come? The Gemara means, he will be saved from Chevlo Shel Mashi'ach, and merit [to see] the day that he comes. After the days of affliction will be days of rest; Shabbos hints to them. Therefore, if he is Me'aneg Shabbos properly via three meals, it is proper that these days of affliction will be for him rest and Shalom, with no affliction afterwards.

Etz Yosef citing the Bach: The Shabbos night meal corresponds to Shabbos Bereishis (NOTE: - Bereishis was like birth of the world (PF)) - it saves from Chevlei... The morning meal corresponds to Shabbos of Matan Torah - it saves from Gehinom (Gehinom does not rule over Chachamim). The afternoon meal corresponds to Shabbos of the future - it saves from Gog and Magog.

Rav Elyashiv: Our Gemara shows that Chevlo Shel Mashi'ach and the war of Gog and Magog are distinct matters.

What is an inheritance without boundaries?

Rashi: It is without end.

Why does one who is Me'aneg Shabbos receive an inheritance without boundaries?

Maharal: Oneg has no Tzar (border, or affliction). Man is prepared for loss. Oneg is proper for him only on Shabbos. Therefore, one who is Me'aneg Shabbos, his inheritance should be without boundaries. One who is b'Oneg, his mindset has no afflictions; this is like an inheritance without borders. It says 'Metzarim', and not Gevul, for 'Metzarim' implies also afflictions. This is Yakov's inheritance, therefore he is called Yeshurun - straightness, without affliction. What is not straight goes to an end. Yakov's Midah was Shabbos. "Va'Yichan Es Pnei ha'Ir" - he established Techumim for the city. His Midah is Kedushah; the third Berachah of Shemoneh Esre, 'Atah Kadosh' corresponds to him. Kedushah separated [from physicality] has no limit or pain. Shabbos hints to the world to come. Every Yom Tov, pain and eulogy are forbidden. One who is Me'aneg Shabbos clings to the world to come.

Maharsha citing Beis Yosef (OC 242): This is Midah k'Neged Midah. For spending to honor Shabbos without limit, he gets an unlimited inheritance.

Maharsha: Oneg Shabbos pertains to a spiritual matter - an extra Nefesh, to merit via it the day that is totally Shabbos, which has no border in place. So the reward for Oneg has no border in place. According to this, "u'Faratzta" is an expression of breaching a fence - the inheritance will have no border. It is not an expression of strength, like Rashi on Chumash explained. This Berachah was not given to Avraham and Yitzchak, for in their merit also other nations received a particular land with a border, i.e. Lot and Bnei Esav - "li'Vnei Lot Nasati Es Ar Yerushah." The merits of Avraham and Yitzchak were added to Yakov's, and he merited a Berachah of an inheritance without borders.

Iyun Yakov: Yakov was given the land without measure because he guarded Shabbos. Shabbos shows that we are children to Hash-m. So the Midrash in Bo says. A son is the leg of his father, and does like his father's deeds. Hash-m rested on the seventh day. The Rambam holds that one cannot be Makneh (transfer ownership of) something unlimited (CM 60). Some Poskim say that even so, to his son, he can. We say that a father obligates himself for his son (Bava Basra 174b). Therefore, Yakov, who guarded Shabbos [like his Father] inherited the world without measure. Perhaps "v'Hayah Zar'acha k'Afar ha'Aretz u'Faratzta Yamah va'Kedmah v'Tzafonah va'Negbah" teaches that when [your seed is like earth, i.e.] he lets others trample on him, this is like his Father - "Eshkon v'Es Daka..." Wherever you find Hash-m's grandeur, you find His humility.

Anaf Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: One who strives to earn income via work and business, and he thinks that his strength brings his success, he does not call Shabbos Oneg. He thinks that resting detracts from his income. His income is bounded, for his efforts are limited. (NOTE: Since he think that his income depends on his efforts, he will not receive more than based on his efforts. - PF) His additional efforts do not add to what was decreed for him. One who is Me'aneg Shabbos, he knows that he does not live due to his efforts, rather, "Al Kol Motza Fi Hash-m Yichyeh ha'Adam." During the week he is commanded not to be idle. On Shabbos, he delights that he is exempted from toil. He trusts in Hash-m, who is unlimited. Hash-m helps him without limit. All that he needs, Shamayim supplies.

Anaf Yosef citing Olelos Efrayim: He gets an inheritance without borders, i.e. the world to come, which is called Nachalah - "Lehanchil Ohavai Yesh." It is called Nachalah without borders - "Mah Rav Tuvecha." Menoras ha'Ma'or explains that intellect dictates that one who is Me'aneg Shabbos and rejoices in it l'Shem Shamayim, it is proper that he inherit the world to come, and rejoice and delight in the world that is totally Shabbos, when his Nefesh will leave the world to come; this is Midah k'Neged Midah. (NOTE: Most call 'the world to come' the final era. Perhaps Menoras ha'Ma'or holds like SHLaH (Pesachim Matzah Ashirah, Drush Sheni), that there is eternal Olam ha'Ba after the Olam ha'Ba that comes immediately after death. - PF)

Vilna Gaon (Yeshayah 1:2): It says 'one who is Me'aneg Shabbos', and not 'one who is Mis'aneg b'Shabbos' to teach that he intends to honor Shabbos, and not for pleasure of his stomach. Rav Elyashiv - R. Yosi said 'may my portion be among those who fulfill three meals on Shabbos!' Everyone does so! However, not everyone intends l'Shem Shamayim. Daf Al ha'Daf - the text of the Rif and She'altos is 'one who is Me'aneg himself b'Shabbos.' Beis ha'Levi (Terumah) expounds "v'Zarisi Peresh Chageichem", but not Peresh Shabatchem, for even if a person intends to indulge, it is considered a Mitzvah - "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg." His intent is for the Mitzvah! Ohr Pnei Yitzchak (p.7) asked, Shabbos is a day of the Neshamah. Why is there a Mitzvah to be Me'aneg the body? Perhaps it is due to the extra Neshamah that one receives on Erev Shabbos. Shem mi'Shmuel says, Shabbos commemorates Ma'ase Bereishis, in which it says "va'Yipach b'Apav Nishmas Chayim." Surely the extra Neshamah adds Chochmah. SHLaH brings that on Motza'ei Shabbos, Hash-m asks the extra Neshamah what Chidush it had in Torah. The Ari Zal said that on Shabbos, a Talmid has the Chochmah of his Rebbi on a weekday. We are commanded to eat and drink, to indulge also the body, so its strength will equal the strength of the Chochmah, lest he endangered. A fast on Shabbos can tear a [harsh] decree of 70 years, but he is punished for Bitul Oneg Shabbos (Berachos 31b). Why is it greater than a fast during the week? Rashi says, because he sees others getting pleasure. I say, it is because the body is weakened on Shabbos, and delicacies are needed to strengthen it. Why does it say 'Me'aneg Shabbos'? The extra Neshamah is called Shabbos. Sefas Emes says that Ru'ach ha'Kodesh descends on Shabbos, and benefits from people's meals. How can something spiritual benefit from food? And why does it need to benefit? We say that the Neshamah benefits from scents (Berachos 43b), i.e. only from scents! Rather, the extra Neshamah is pleased that the body benefits from the food, lest the extra Neshamah endanger the body.

Rav Elyashiv (118b, citing Chanukas ha'Torah 197): Because he is given all his heart's desires (118b), he needs an inheritance without borders, for a person dies before attaining half his desires!

Does the same apply to one who is Me'aneg Yom Tov?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Regarding Yom Tov, Oneg is not written, only Simchah and honor. Therefore, one must intend to get pleasure for the sake of Kevod Yom Tov. Bechor Shor (Ta'anis 30a) says that on Yom Tov there is only a Mitzvah of Simchah, and on Shabbos only a Mitzvah of Oneg. I support this from the Gemara. Here it says 'how is one Me'aneg Shabbos', and in Pesachim (109a) it says 'how does one give Simchah [to his household ] on Yom Tov'? In Megilah (16b) we say "Simchah" is [making Purim a] Yom Tov. Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (OC 168) says that this is why one may fast on Shabbos due to a dream, for it is Oneg for him, but not on Yom Tov, for the Mitzvah is Simchah, i.e. meat and wine. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Yom Tov 6:16) wrote 'just like it is a Mitzvah to be Me'aneg Shabbos and honor it, it is a Mitzvah to honor Yom Tov.'

Why is he saved from Shibud Malchuyos?

Maharal: The kingdoms afflict Yisrael. One who is Me'aneg Shabbos is removed from all limits and afflicters.

Anaf Yosef citing Tosfos Shabbos: A Midrash says that Avraham chose that his seed suffer Shibud Malchuyos in place of Gehinom. Since one who is Me'aneg Shabbos is saved from Gehinom, he should be saved from Shibud Malchuyos, which is in place of Gehinom.

Iyun Yakov: Shibud Malchuyos is primarily because when Yakov and Esav divide, Esav took this world. When Yisrael seek worldly pleasure, and make all their days like Chagim, [Bnei Esav] are jealous and want to subjugate us. If one indulges himself only on Shabbos, for he anticipates the day that is totally Shabbos, but does not indulge during the week, he is saved from Shibud Malchuyos.

Anaf Yosef: One must flee from excesses (unnecessary pleasures). He should go in the path of Histapkus (being satisfied). If he indulges l'Shem Shamayim, there is no lack in his deed. One who is Me'aneg Shabbos, even though he forgoes the Midah of Histapkus, his action is complete, and he is rewarded - "v'His'anag Al Hash-m."

Etz Yosef citing Levush: This is Midah k'Neged Midah. There are many Halachos of Shabbos. It is a heavy yoke. Also, it is hard for man to be idle - sometimes it brings to insanity! Also, sometimes one is on the road, and Shabbos comes [and he cannot bring his wealth to his house]! Even so, he accepts Ol Malchus Hash-m on himself, and guards Shabbos. Therefore, he is saved from Galus.

Why is he given his heart's desires?

Maharal #1: When he does not get his heart's desires, he has pain. Since he clings to the source of Berachah, they give to him. Shabbos to the other days is like the heart in man. All the limbs are pairs, but there is one heart. Also the days are paired, but Shabbos is alone. The heart is in the middle of man - Shabbos is in the middle of the days. The three days before Shabbos pertain to that Shabbos, and also the three days after Shabbos (Pesachim 106a). The heart is king over the limbs; Shabbos is called queen (below, 119a). Since he is Me'aneg Shabbos, they give to him his heart's desires, so he will not lack anything.

Maharal #2: It says "v'His'anag Al Hash-m [v'Yiten Lecha Mish'alos Libecha]" - it is proper that he receive his heart's desires. Even though the heart requests without limit, since his Oneg is on Hash-m, and Hash-m is without limit, he should receive them from Hash-m, even though they are without limit.

Maharsha: He spends much on Seudas Shabbos, due to Mitzvas Oneg, and one may not request his needs on Shabbos. He should not worry - even if he does not verbalize his request, Hash-m gives to him his heart's desires to fulfill what he spent. All income is fixed on Rosh Hashanah, except for expenditures for Shabbos and Yom Tov [and Rosh Chodesh and teaching Torah to his sons - Beitzah 16a]. If he spends extra, they add to his income.

Iyun Yakov: A marginal note in Ein Yakov says that his heart's desires are an inheritance without boundaries. I explain, a person dies before attaining half his desires, so he will not be so pained over his death. Alternatively, if he attained all his desires, he would not look forward to reward in the world to come. Yakov did not die at all, and his only desire was the world to come. He sold this world to Esav when he divided with him! Therefore, he was given his heart's desires. One who is Me'aneg Shabbos, this shows that he looks forward to the day that is totally Shabbos, so he gets all his heart's desires.

Etz Yosef citing Eliyahu Zuta 242:1: Thoughts are permitted, but due to Oneg Shabbos, one should not think about his desires and affairs. He should consider that all his work is finished. Midah k'Neged Midah, they give to him all his desires. A Chasid ceased to fence his field, and considered it as if it was already fenced; Hash-m gave to him his heart's desire, and a caper tree grew there and fenced it (Shabbos 150b). (NOTE: This is like Bahag, Rif and Rosh; when he remembered that it is Shabbos, he refrained from fencing it. Is this Chasidus? Rather, he considered that it was fenced. Etz Yosef mistakenly attributed this to SMaK, Sof 281. According to Piskei Rid and Me'iri, he did not consider it fenced - he resolved never to fence it! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nofes Tzufim: Chanukas ha'Torah asked, how can he receive all his heart's desires? Whatever one gets, he desires more! When the inheritance is without limit, he cannot desire more. How can one receive an inheritance without limit? Even if he conquers many countries, or the entire world, it is limited! The Vilna Gaon says that this world makes one thirsty. The more that he has, the more that he wants, and he is never satiated. It is like drinking saltwater. He thinks that it quenches his thirst, but it makes him thirst more. Even so, everyone desires a certain amount from this world - his heart's desire. He merits it via being Me'aneg Shabbos. We do not discuss what he wants after he gets this - this has no limit! Derushim Nechmadim of Maharam Shif (Sof Chulin) on Mishlei 30:8 says, people ask - one who has 100, he wants 200. He has half his desire. We say that a person dies before attaining half his desires! He answered, the second hundred that he desires is double extra over the first 100. i.e. it is twice as important to him as the first 100; so says the Magihah there. (NOTE: R. Elbaz explains that the 200 that he wants is above the 100 that he has! - PF) Chanukas ha'Torah's words require investigation.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R' M. Klein: Shmos Rabah (25:12) says, even if he does not decree, only he thinks in his heart, Hash-m fulfills his heart's request. I say that Oneg is not only eating and drinking, rather, contentment of the heart and thinking about Oneg of the day and its Kedushah. Midah k'Neged Midah, he is given his heart's thoughts for good. Be'er Shmuel asked, what Torah Mitzvah is there to eat on Shabbos? Kerem Shlomo (19:6 p.55) answered, Magen Avraham (288:7) says that there is a Torah Isur to fast on Shabbos, like Beis Shamai Yosef brings from the Rashba. Pri Megadim asked that eating on Shabbos should override Ribis. It was clear to him that it is a Torah Mitzvah to eat! Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav holds that Kevod and Oneg Shabbos, their source is from the Torah.

What was the question 'I do not know what this 'Oneg' is'!

Maharsha: We do not find that one may indulge in excess pleasure. We answer "v'Karasa la'Shabos Oneg" - it is permitted only for Shabbos.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Tur (242) says that on Shabbos we require 'Lachem', i.e. "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg." Targum Yonason is 'you will call Shabbos indulgences.' He also translated "La'asos Es ha'Shabbos" 'to make indulgences Shabbos.' Shabbos is ceasing from labors - the Aseh is via Oneg. He holds that Oneg is physical; others hold that it is spiritual. Ibn Ezra explains, "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" - do not do Melachah, and indulge the Nefesh in hearing Divrei Torah. R. Bechayei explains, we divert our thoughts from bodily affairs and engage in Hash-m's ways, which are the Nefesh's affairs. They do not argue. Both apply to Shabbos. Radak explained that "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" is bodily pleasure, and "v'His'anag Al Hash-m" is Oneg of the Nefesh. The Yerushalmi (Mo'ed Katan 2:3) supports this. Melachah is forbidden on Chol ha'Mo'ed in order that Yisrael will eat, drink and engage in Torah. Hagahos Maimoniyos explains, amidst Simchah, one can learn and understand Hilchos ha'Regel. Shechinah does not rest amidst sadness... only amidst Simchah of Mitzvah; the same applies to Divrei Torah. Via this, I explain "v'Shibachti Ani Es ha'Simchah Asher Ein Tov la'Adam... Ki Im Le'echol v'Lishtos v'Lismo'ach." The Zohar says that this is Simchah in eating and drinking on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Rashi explains that all eating and drinking in Koheles is learning Torah. They do not argue; Simchah in eating and drinking enables one to learn!

Why does it specify the Dor of Enosh?

Rashi: They began to serve idolatry - "Az Huchal Likro..."

Iyun Yakov: The Rambam explains, they intended to honor Hash-m via honoring and worshipping His servants. Etz Yosef citing Drishah - such idolatry (Shogeg) is pardoned via guarding Shabbos.

Anaf Yosef citing Ya'aros Devash: The Rambam explains, Enosh's Dor thought that Hash-m handed over conduct of the world to the stars, and gave honor to them, so they worshipped His servants. Later Doros served Heavenly bodies, and forgot their Creator and said that the world always existed. Shabbos refutes this. It shows that a Creator made the world in a set time, and then rested. One who guards Shabbos properly, and rejoices without any sadness or worry, l'Shem Shamayim, this is unlike astrologers, who say that Shabtai (Saturn) governs Shabbos, and makes people sad. Rather, Hash-m rules over everything, and reward those who do His Mitzvos. Such a person is pardoned even for idolatry like Enosh's Dor, who admitted that Hash-m created the world.

If one guards Shabbos properly, why is he forgiven?

Maharal: There are three that testify about each other. Yisrael and Shabbos testify about Hash-m, that He is one. Hash-m and Shabbos testify about Yisrael, that they are one Am. Hash-m and Yisrael testify about Shabbos, that it is one special day on which Hash-m rested from all His work. They enacted 'Atah Echad' in Shabbos Minchah, for Shabbos testifies about His unity. He has no mate. One who guards Shabbos properly is pardoned for idolatry, for idolatry strengthens external powers. Shabbos removes all external powers, and all returns to Hash-m. He clings to the level of unity. Why does he serve idolatry? It is due to his Yetzer ha'Ra; it is as if he was forced. This is like Yom Kipur, which removes sin even without Teshuvah (NOTE: according to Rebbi (Yoma 85b). - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Serving idolatry is like denying the entire Torah, and Shabbos is equal to the entire Torah - "Shomer Shabos me'Chalelo v'Shomer Yado me'Asos Kol Ra."

Rav Elyashiv: Surely he repented! However, idolatry is so severe that pardon is difficult. Via guarding Shabbos with all its fine details, he is pardoned. The Taz asked, if he repented, automatically he is pardoned! He answered, an Aveirah with Kares or Misas Beis Din (like idolatry), Teshuvah suspends and death cleanses. Via Oneg Shabbos with Teshuvah, he is pardoned without death.

Why do we expound "me'Chalelo" like 'Machul Lo'?

Maharsha #1: It should have said me'Chaleleha (feminine). Even though we find Shabbos in the masculine, it says "Mechaleleha Mos Yumas."

Maharsha #2: The word is extra. It should have said "Shomer Shabbos v'Shomer Yado...", like it says "v'Shameru Bnei Yisrael Es ha'Shabbos", and it does not say me'Chalelo.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since he guards Shabbos, obviously he does not desecrate it!

Had Yisrael observed the first Shabbos, why would no nation have ruled over them?

Maharal: Shabbos is clinging to Hash-m - "Os Hi Beini u'Veineichem." Nochrim are removed from Shabbos - if a Goy guarded Shabbos, he is Chayav Misah (Sanhedrin 58b)! Had Yisrael observed the first Shabbos, they would have received the Bris and connection [to Hash-m] via Shabbos, which is based on creation, which never changes. Also Yisrael would stand forever, without change (a nation ruling over them). The primary connection is via the first Shabbos. Clinging via Shabbos is unlike clinging via other Mitzvos.

Iyun Yakov: Had they guarded it, Hash-m and Yisrael would have testified about Shabbos, that it is a day of rest. Shabbos and Hash-m would have testified about Yisrael - "u'Mi k'Amecha Yisrael Goy Echad ba'Aretz." No nation could have ruled over them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashi (Bamidbar 15:32) wrote that Yisrael guarded only the first Shabbos, and profaned the second! Maharshal (Yeri'os Shlomo, Shlach) answered, there was Chilul of the first Shabbos - people went out to seek manna, but they did not find it. The second Shabbos, they truly profaned it. Since Chilul Shabbos is like idolatry, and intent for idolatry is like deed (Kidushin 70a), intent to profane the first Shabbos is like deed.

Parshas Amalek is not right after Parshas ha'Man - Parshah Masah u'Merivah is between them! It was one of the 10 ways in which Yisrael tested Hash-m. We should have said that Amalek came due to Masah u'Merivah! Also, Amalek came when Yisrael were in Refidim - they sinned with the manna in Midbar Sin!

Maharsha: If Amalek came due to complaining at Masah u'Merivah, they would have come in the test of Marah - also there, Yisrael complained! Rather, Amalek came due to Chilul Shabbos. Masah u'Merivah is not an interruption, for it was in Refidim, like Ma'ase Amalek. The place is called Refidim because Bnei Yisrael Rifu (slackened) from Torah (Bechoros 5b). After they complained, the name was changed to Masah u'Merivah (Shemos 17:7). Amalek came afterwards - why does it say "bi'Rfidim"? Its name was already changed! Rather, it teaches that Amalek came because they slackened from Torah, i.e. they desecrated Shabbos, which is equal to the entire Torah. Had Yisrael observed the first Shabbos, no nation could have ruled over them. Even though this was not the first Shabbos (they were already commanded in Marah), it is called the first Shabbos, like Tosfos (87b) said.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Had they guarded the first Shabbos, they would not have lacked water. Hash-m would have summonsed for them a place of streams. Because they sinned, i.e. slackened from Hash-m's command to guard Shabbos, they lacked water and became angry, and Amalek came.

Even if Amalek came due to Chilul Shabbos, can we infer that had Yisrael observed the first Shabbos, no nation would have ruled over them?

Etz Yosef citing Beis Yosef: Yes - after the miracles in Egypt and Keri'as Yam Suf, the other nations feared to fight Yisrael. Had Amalek not fought, no other nation would have fought.

If Yisrael would observe two Shabbosos properly, why would they be redeemed immediately?

Maharal: Shabbos is Yisrael's portion. It is separated and elevated about the other days - 'He divided between the seventh day and the six days of deed. So Yisrael guard Shabbos, and are elevated above the nations. When Yisrael do not do Hash-m's will, they are among the nations, and lowly under them. When they are redeemed, they rise above them "Elyon Al Kol Goyei ha'Aretz." Yisrael are not united with them, and never equal to them. They are opposites! To be redeemed, they need two attributes - one to reach their level, and a second to rise above them. Therefore, guarding two Shabbosos would bring Ge'ulah. This corresponds to Shamor and Zachor. Shabbos is the perfection of Yisrael. When man toils without rest, he is not complete. This is the extra Neshamah given on Shabbos. Yisrael's form is perfected, and it is not proper for any nation to be over them. On Motza'ei Shabbos it departs - "va'Yinafash" - Vai Avdah Nefesh (Beitzah 16a).

Maharsha: This is like it says in Nidah (38a), that early Chasidim would have Bi'ah only on Wednesday [or earlier in the week] to avoid the possibility of desecration of Shabbos (via birth on Shabbos, and Bris Milah on the next Shabbos).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Because they did not guard Shabbos, nations ruled over them. Via guarding one Shabbos, they fix their sin. They are left without sin and without merit. Via guarding another Shabbos, they merit Ge'ulah, even though they have other sins. However, how does the Gemara learn from "Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai...; va'Havi'osim El Har Kodshi"? The latter verse is not right after the former. After the first verse, it already taught the reward for guarding Shabbos - "v'Nasati Lahem b'Veisi uv'Chomosai Yad va'Shem"! Afterwards, it says "u'Vnei ha'Nechar ha'Nilvim El Hash-m...; va'Havi'osim El Har Kodshi"! There, it does not say Shabsosai (plural), rather, "Kol Shomer Shabbos me'Chalelo". If so, guarding one Shabbos should suffice! Rather, Chazal said that "Sarisim" are those who served idolatry, and were castrated from it. "La'Sarisim Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai" they must guard one Shabbos to atone for their idolatry, and one to merit Ge'ulah. Ben Nechar is a convert. He is like a newborn; he is exempt for idolatry before he converted. For him, it suffices to guard one Shabbos.

Etz Yosef: R. Levi (Shmos Rabah 25) says that if they would observe one Shabbos properly, Mashi'ach would come! Here, R. Shimon holds that they did not guard the first Shabbos, therefore they must guard one to atone for that, and another to merit Ge'ulah.

Iyun Yakov: Since they did not guard the first Shabbos, Hash-m and Shabbos cannot testify about Yisrael [that they are Am Echad] until they make a Chazakah of guarding Shabbos, via two times, according to Rebbi. Then they would be redeemed, and they would testify "ba'Yom ha'Hu Yihyeh Hash-m Echad u'Shmo Echad."

(Tosfos Nidah 13A - there is a storehouse of Neshamos that must be born before the redemption - women would have multiple births to fulfill this speedily.)

Why did R. Yosi say these matters 'may my portion be among...'?

Maharsha: These matters are not esteemed in people's eyes to be careful about them. He wanted to make them zealous about them. E.g. 'my portion should be among those who end Shabbos late in Tzipori' - he lived in Tzipori! He said so only to invigorate others.

Iyun Yakov: R. Yosi was a Chasid, and very humble. He did not establish himself to be a [big] Tzadik. He said, if only I will have a portion like those who fulfill these easy Mitzvos - no one knows how great is their reward!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Each of them, he teaches unlike what one might have thought.

Etz Yosef: He prayed that Hash-m enable him to fulfill them, so he will be counted among a group of Tzadikim.

Why did R. Yosi say 'may my portion be among those who eat three meals on Shabbos'?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that one must eat four meals, like R. Chidka (87b).

Rav Elyashiv: He intended l'Shem Shamayim.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chasdei Avos (14, Hagahah, p.42): Why did he say 'who eat three meals'? Below, Rav Nachman said 'I will receive for fulfilling three meals'! Some were lenient to fulfill Seudah Shelishis via Divrei Torah. The Zohar says that R. Shimon did so when Erev Pesach fell on Shabbos.

What is the significance of finishing Hallel every day?

Maharal: Halelukah is praise (Halelu) and Hash-m's name (Kah). Other Hilulim are great praises, but they do not reach the Emes of His name.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One who says Hallel every day, he blasphemes - but the Hallel in Pesukei d'Zimra, one should say it!

If one says Hallel every day, why does he blaspheme?

Rashi: Chachamim enacted to say Hallel to thank Hash-m at certain times (Pesachim 117a). If one says it every day, it is a mere song; he scoffs!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tzitz Eliezer (6:12): If one reads verses like a mere song, or in the pub just for fun, the Torah girds itself in sackcloth (Sanhedrin 103b). However, here we discuss even one who says it to praise Hash-m! Meshech Chochmah (Reish Bechukosai) - he shows that it is proper to thank Hash-m for His miracles, but not for nature of the creation. This is blasphemy! The miracles are merely to arouse hearts to the natural creation, and His Hashgachah! One who says Tefilah l'David three times each day, he is a Ben Olam ha'Ba, for it discusses the natural order. Meshech Chochmah discussed Hallel ha'Gadol (Tehilim 135 - Hodu lEi'lokei ha'Elokim Ki l'Olam Chasdo", unlike Rashi explained (the Hallel that we say on Yamim Tovim), but his answer applies also according to Rashi. It explains why Rashi explained the answer 'Hallel in Pesukei d'Zimra', i.e. "Halelu Es Hash-m Min ha'Shamayim..." and "Halelu Kel b'Kodsho..." The former thanks Hash-m for conducting nature, and the latter discusses ways to thank Hash-m, even for each breath - [we read] Kol ha'Neshimah Tehalel Kah.

Maharal: There is a difference between the Hilul said over miracles, and that for matters that come from Him but are not miracles, rather, the order of the world.

Maharsha: Hallel was enacted to publicize Hash-m's miracles done at certain times. If one says it every day, he does not publicize these miracles - it is as if he denies Hash-m's ability to change nature.

Do we say Hallel in Pesukei d'Zimra every day?

Rashi: He refers to "Halelu Es Hash-m Min ha'Shamayim..." and "Halelu Kel b'Kodsho..."

Maharsha: These are not to publicize these miracles, rather, praises that it is proper to say every day. One should arrange Hash-m's praise, and pray afterwards!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sidur va'Ya'as Avraham says, the Rif (Alfasi, in Berachos) says like Maseches Soferim (Sof 17) that every day we say the last six Perakim of Tehilim. This was the custom from the days of the Ge'onim! Rashi explained 'Gomerei Hallel' - these two psalms finish Hallel. However, in Maseches Soferim, R. Yosi said 'those who pray six Mizmorim every day'!

What is Dimdumei Chamah?

Rashi: When the sun is red, i.e. right after sunrise, and close to sunset.

Maharal: Tefilah is to Elokei Olam. It is more proper at a time that shows that there is Elokei Olam. Sunrise shows that He put the sun to illuminate the world. Also sunset is a proper time. Man is created, therefore he must pray to His Creator that he continue to exist. At the start of the day, when the sun rises, this shows that the world was created. If it were not created, it would not have a beginning, and not an end; it would exist forever.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that one should pray Shacharis when the sun is higher, and Minchah long before sunset. R. Yosi teaches that this is not so.

Rav Elyashiv: In Eretz Yisrael they would curse one who prayed Minchah Im Dimdumei Chamah, lest he miss praying in time (Berachos 29b). Mishnah Berurah (233:14) brings this.

When is "Lifnei Yare'ach"?

Rashi: It is before the moon's light, before the sun set.

Why did R. Yosi want to die from intestinal sickness?

Rashi: Such people are afflicted - this cleanses them from their transgressions.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R' M. Klein: Intestinal sickness is the worst illness (11b). It totally cleanses from sin. Hash-m is meticulous with Tzadikim like a hair's breadth (Yevamos 120b), therefore He brings intestinal sickness on them.

Maharal: Death is removal of the body and purification of the Nefesh from the body. When one dies from intestinal sickness, this shows that his death is to purify the Nefesh. Intestinal illness purifies the food in his innards.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that this is bad, for the body is not clean, and he cannot wear Tefilin or pray, and a Choleh must confess. R. Yosi teaches that this is not so. The illness empties the food from his innards, and he is clean and Tahor like an angel.

Here it says that most Tzadikim die from intestinal sickness. Eliyahu's letter to Yehoram rebuked him for his great evil, and said that so he will die (Divrei ha'Yamim II, 21:1)!

Malbim (there): Yehoram will have many such illnesses, and it will be disgusting; his innards will leave his body!

What is the significance of dying on the way to a Mitzvah?

Maharal: This is like dying from intestinal sickness. It purifies the Nefesh from physicality, to cling to the spiritual world. It did not say 'he died when doing a Mitzvah', rather, b'Derech Mitzvah, for Misah is called "b'Derech Kol ha'Aretz."

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: He wanted to fulfill Kidush Hash-m via his death. Also the Beis Yosef desired this, like he wrote in Magid Meisharim. Hash-m told Moshe "Mus", and not Tamus - his death was a Mitzvah.

How could one die on the way to a Mitzvah? Sheluchei Mitzvah are not harmed!

Maharsha: They are not harmed via engaging in the Mitzvah, but they could be harmed at the time.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that his death shows that there was guile in his heart, and he was thinking about sin at the time, like we say [about a son who fulfilled Shilu'ach ha'Kan and Kivud Av v'Em, and fell and died on the way down] 'perhaps he was thinking about idolatry' (Kidushin 39b). R. Yosi teaches that this is not so.

What is special about those who bring in Shabbos early in Tiverya, and those who end Shabbos late in Tzipori?

Rashi: Tiverya is in a valley - it gets dark very early. Tzipori is elevated. When the sun sets, it is still light, and people end Shabbos late.

Maharal: This shows that they did not start Shabbos as early as we do. Rather, they were Mekadesh Shabbos in its time.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that those who bring in Shabbos early in Tiverya, they do improperly and end Shabbos early (and similarly, those who end Shabbos late in Tiverya, they do improperly and start Shabbos late). R. Yosi teaches that this is not so. Both are pleasing to Hash-m.

Etz Yosef citing Kehilas Yakov: One may not be too early, nor too late (Shabbos 23b). i.e. one must add to Kedushas Shabbos, but if he accepts too early, or ends Shabbos too late, it does not look like Tosefes Shabbos. Also the Rambam says to add a little at the beginning and at the end. Also here, it implies that in Tiverya and Tzipori they added only a little. (NOTE: Rashi (23b) explains that it discusses when to light Ner Shabbos. I see no source that it forbids accepting Shabbos early or ending Shabbos late. - PF)

Gilyon ha'Shas and Anaf Yosef, citing R. Yonah (Berachos 43): In Tiverya they scented Kelim on Erev Shabbos, for Kevod Shabbos, and in Tzipori they did so on Motza'ei Shabbos, to show the pain over the loss of the extra Neshamah; they need the good scent [to revive them].

Gilyon ha'Shas citing Ri mi'Gash (Teshuvah 45): This discusses people who began Shabbos in Tiverya, and ended Shabbos in Tzipori. The cities were within one Techum, so one could walk from one to the other on Shabbos. Anaf Yosef - however, Tziyon Yerushalayim on Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 3:2 proves that 18 Mil separated the cities. (NOTE: All agree that mid'Rabanan, Techum Shabbos is one Mil; some say that mid'Oraisa, it is 12 Mil. If there were houses along the way, they could be in the same Techum. - PF)

Igros Moshe (OC 1 97): They were stringent to accept Shabbos in Tiverya once it appeared dark, lest they do Melachah after it truly is dark. However, ending Shabbos depends on seeing stars. Once they see three stars, it is night. How does elevation affect this? R. Yosi teaches that in Tiverya, it is proper to wait until stars are seen in Tzipori (which is later, for it gets dark there only later), lest people come to be lenient in Tzipori, seen they are close to each other. Similarly, there is an attribute to accept Shabbos early in Tzipori, like in Tiverya.

Daf Al ha'Daf: This is Rashi's intent. Therefore he wrote 'in Tiverya they think that it became dark, but he did not say so about Tzipori, for there according to the letter of the law it is day. However, Rav Nisim Gaon explained that it was a fence to delay ending Shabbos in Tzipori, and not letter of the law. It seems that Rashi agrees - it is better to minimize the argument. Above (34b, 35b), Rav Yehudah gave two Shi'urim of Tzeis ha'Kochavim - seeing three stars, and when the middle of the sky is as dark as the horizon. Both Shi'urim are the same; it seems that both are needed. Those who cannot see stars, they rely on the Shi'ur of the horizon. Based on the letter of the law, three stars suffice; since Tzipori is elevated, the horizon is slower to darken; it is as dark as the middle only a time after three stars are seen. They were stringent to wait for the horizon to darken. In Tiverya they were stringent to wait the extra time, like in Tzipori. However, if so, R. Yosi could have requested a portion like Bnei Tiverya, both regarding Erev Shabbos and Motza'ei Shabbos! Tiferes Yisrael (Berachos, Sof Perek 1) says, each place conducted based on its topography.

Who are Moshivei (text of Ein Yakov - Yoshevei) Beis ha'Midrash?

Rashi: They arouse Talmidim to come.

Maharsha: Some Talmidim sat, and others stood. Yoshevei Beis ha'Midrash sit; they are not quick to leave. Those who stand leave early, and cause others to leave.

Anaf Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: A Midrash says that in the future, Hash-m will make a canopy and shade for Ba'alei Mitzvos by Ba'alei Torah - "b'Tzel ha'Chachmah b'Tzel ha'Kesef", "Ashrei Enosh Ya'aseh Zos u'Ven Adam Yachazik Bah", "Etz Chayim Hi la'Machazikim Bah" - even those who [financially] support Ba'alei Torah will have a canopy and shade like Ba'alei Torah (Yoshevei Beis ha'Midrash). Even so, R. Yosi desired a portion like those who sit, and not the Ma'amidim (supporters), for Torah is not their profession, and their reward is smaller.

Who are Ma'amidei Beis ha'Midrash?

Rashi: They tell Talmidim that it is time to [leave, and] eat.

Maharal: They are the first to leave - they cause others to leave. The latter's sin is attributed to those who left first!

Maharsha: They are those who stand.

Why did R. Yosi want to be among those who collect Tzedakah, but not among those who distribute it?

Rashi: It is hard to fairly decide how much to give to each Oni. If one gives more to an Oni that he likes, he transgresses!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that collectors are punished for forcing the Tzibur [to give] - "u'Fakadti Al Kol Lochatzav ba'Mishpat" are Gabai Tzedakah. One might have thought that those who distribute it are rewarded, for they give to the poor to eat. R. Yosi teaches that this is not so. Gabayim bring merit to the Rabim. Those who distribute it, if they give more to Aniyim that they like, this is close to capital cases (stealing from other Aniyim)! Rav Elyashiv - the Yerushalmi says that it should be distributed via a Beis Din of 23, like capital cases, just we are concerned lest Aniyim die due to the delay.

Why did he want to be wrongly suspected of transgressing?

Maharal: If one is shamed for a sin, this atones for the sin. What reward will be for one who was wrongly suspected?! If a Sotah was innocent, she will bear children (unlike or better than before! - PF) This is due to the unjustified disgrace that she received. One who was improperly disgraced, Hash-m honors him in this world. His way is to raise the lowered. People think that if the Rabim suspect a person, he must be guilty.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One might have thought that since he brought himself to be suspected, he causes others to be punished, this is not good. R. Yosi teaches that this is not so, since he is innocent. (NOTE: His words imply that he caused people to suspect him. This is difficult. One must avoid suspicion - "vi'Hyisem Nekiyim me'Hashem umi'Yisrael" (Bamidbar 32:22, YD 257:1)!

About what was Rav Papa wrongly suspected?

Etz Yosef citing Maharshal: In Bava Basra 10a, it says that Rav Papa was alighting a ladder. He was about to fall. Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti suggested that an Oni came to him, and he did not give to him! Kol Eliyahu (Devarim 15:8) - Chiya suspected that it was due to this, for the Neginos of "Paso'ach Tiftach" are Darga Tevir (the step broke).

Etz Yosef citing R. Sha'ul of Vilna: In Kidushin (72a), a Beraisa taught cities that are the best lineage of Bavel. Rav Papa objected - Kusim intermarried with them! This is wrong. They requested a woman from them, but they refused. Rashi explained 'a Kusi requested to marry a woman from them, but they refused. This created unjustified rumors that Kusim intermarried with them. Some say that Rav Papa requested a woman from them, but they refused. Therefore, he besmirched their lineage. I find it hard to say so.' Perhaps about this he was wrongly suspected!

Rav Elyashiv: Rav Papa said, if one could drink beer, and he drinks wine, he transgresses Bal Tashchis. The Gemara rejected this - Bal Tashchis of the body is more important (140b). Maharsha explains that Rav Papa said so for his own benefit - he became rich via brewing and selling beer (Pesachim 109a). This is astounding to say that Rav Papa said so amidst bias! However, people suspected him of this (Rashash 140b).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Some say that it is the episode in Bava Metzi'a 69a. Two Kusim [made an Iska together. One divided the money by himself. Rav Papa sustained the division. Later, the Kusim bought wine together. The other one divided the wine by himself. Rav Papa invalidated his division. He suspected that Rav Papa favors his partner. He erred. Different wines have different qualities, so one may not divide by yourself. All coins are the same, so one can divide by himself!] Some say that it is the case in Berachos 43b. Rav Papa blessed on myrtle before on oil. (He was asked, don't you hold that the Halachah follows the arbiter?! He replied, Rava rules like Beis Hillel.) This is not so; he did so to evade. Rashi explained, he lied to avoid shame. Gilyon ha'Shas brings Rama mi'Pi'ano [who said that Rav Papa knew that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel; he preferred to attribute the ruling to his Rebbi.] Yalkut ha'Gershoni (Sanhedrin 100) says that it is the time that Rav Papa said 'these Rabanan', and he fasted for this. People thought that he was Mezid; really, he was Shogeg.

Why did he say that he planted five cedars in Yisrael?

Maharsha: They all received Semichah. He called them cedars, for so we find "ha'Cho'ach Asher ba'Levanon Shalach El ha'Erez" - it is most esteemed, and so say many verses. When we asked from Vardimus, why did we not say that he was not counted, for he did not receive Semichah? He said five Bi'os, so it is difficult how he had six children.

What is the significance of doing Bi'ah and repeating the act?

Rashi: This causes the children to be males.

Tosfos: The Yerushalmi says that he had Bi'ah with [five] Yevamos. He did not want to fulfill Onah. Rather, he did Bi'as Mitzvas Yibum [and divorced them].

Rav Elyashiv: Aba Sha'ul said 'if one married a Yevamah for her beauty, this is Bi'as Zenus; the child is almost a Mamzer.' The Yerushalmi says that he holds like R. Yosi.

Why did R. Yosi say 'I called my wife only 'my house''?

Rashi: One can learn even from my secular talk! She is primary in [running] the house.

Maharsha: He did so to make her zealous to do all needs of the house. So we say "E'eseh Ezer k'Negdo" - does a man eat wheat?! (Yevamos 63a)

Iyun Yakov: She saves him from the sin of Zenus. Zenus [destroys] a house like worms and spoilage ruin sesame. The house stands on her!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Shemenah Lachmo (Drush l'Nisu'in 1) says, it is because "the honor of a Bas Melech is inside"; she should not regularly go outside the house.

Why did R. Yosi call his ox 'my field'?

Rashi: It is primary [for farming] his field - "most grain is via an ox's strength."

Maharsha: He did so to make his servants zealous to work his field with the ox - most oxen are for plowing, and not for Shechitah.

Why did he say 'I never looked at my Milah'?

Iyun Yakov: It was not to aggrandize himself. Rather, it was to warn others not to look at their own Milah, and all the more so not of others!

Why did Rebbi never put his hands below his belt?

Maharal: It is Kedushas ha'Guf not to touch below his belt. R. Yosi was careful about his eyes - this is Kedushas ha'Nefesh, to distance from lowliness. It does not suffice to be called Kadosh.

Why did the rafters of R. Yosi's house never see the fringes of his cloak?

Rashi: He would lift it over his head while sitting on his bed, and cover himself with a sheet before removing it, for Tzeni'us.

Maharal: This is difficult. When he removed his cloak, the rafters saw the fringes!

Maharal: While he wore it, he never lifted the bottom, lest his torso or thigh be exposed.

A Zar may not give Birkas Kohanim!

Tosfos: The Ri did not know any Isur to ascend the Duchan, if not Brachah l'Vatalah.

Maharsha: He would ascend the Duchan, but he would not say the Berachos. The only Isur for a Yisrael is to bless (Tosfos)

R E.M. Horowitz: This is the Ri's intent. He would hear the Kohanim's Berachah. Daf Al ha'Daf - the Aderes discussed whether or not one can be Yotzei giving Birkas Kohanim via hearing it from another Kohen. This is why the Ri did not know what Isur there is.

Maharal: Surely there is an Isur Aseh - "Ko Sevarchu", Kohanim bless, but Yisraelim do not! If there was a Kohen, and only R. Yosi ascended to bless, he nullified the Mitzvah! Rav Elyashiv - Kesuvos 24b proves that there is an Isur Aseh. Magen Avraham (128:1) says that Tosfos asked about R. Yosi himself, who permits women to do Semichah on a Korban, even though they are exempt; "Bnei" excludes Banos. Likewise, Yisraelim are exempt from Birkas Kohanim, but they may bless. Kesuvos 24b is like R. Yehudah [who forbids women to do Semichah]. However, if R. Yosi permits a Zar to Duchan, surely we cannot infer lineage from Birkas Kohanim! Hafla'ah brought from Charedim that Yisrael have a Mitzvah to be blessed. If other Kohanim ascend, and he ascends with them, he loses the Mitzvah. Tosfos did not know an Isur if he ascends alone. Tosfos implies that if there is an Isur, the Gemara is understood. Just the contrary, one may not transgress Hash-m's word to do his colleagues' word! It does not seem that he would believe them that he is a Kohen, against his knowledge. Rather, Tosfos means, here R. Yosi teaches that there is no Isur - why does Kesuvos 24b say that there is an Isur Ase? The only Isur is Brachah l'Vatalah - R. Yosi could hear the Berachah (Asher Kideshanu bi'Kedushaso....) from others, and not say it himself.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Tosfos is difficult. If his colleagues told him to do Avodah, would he serve?! (NOTE: Rif understands that R. Yosi would have blessed. Perhaps he holds that the Isur of Brachah l'Vatalah is only mid'Rabanan. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sha'ar ha'Melech (Shabbos 19) asked, Ri himself (in Tosfos Eruvin 96a) holds that even R. Yehudah forbids women to do Semichah only because it looks like working with Kodshim. "Bnei Yisrael" does not really exclude women. If so, also a Zar who gives Birkas Kohanim does not transgress an Aseh! Meshiv Devarim (OC 24) asked, Tosfos discusses R. Yosi, who holds that women may do Semichah. If so, what Brachah l'Vatalah is there? Tosfos in Eruvin said that women may bless on Tefilin! Machatzis ha'Shekel said that Magen Avraham forbids due to Shem Shamayim l'Vatalah, which transgresses the Aseh of Yir'as Hash-m. i.e. even without the Berachah 'Asher Kideshanu...', he says Hash-m's name l'Vatalah in Birkas Kohanim itself. (NOTE: Even if it is Reshus for a Zar to Duchan, he cannot bless 'Asher Kideshanu bi'Kedushaso Shel Aharon!' Why is it Shem Shamayim l'Vatalah for a Zar to give Birkas Kohanim? They are Torah verses! R. Yosi could intend to recite verses! - PF) I say that here Tosfos holds that Mitzvos require intent, so also the Isur Aseh (to do a Mitzvah from which the Torah exempted him) is only with intent for the Mitzvah. In Kesuvos, Tosfos holds that Mitzvos does not require intent, so there is an Isur even without intent for the Mitzvah.

Tosfos ha'Rosh: This is just a parable for how far he would go to comply.

Maharal: He just teaches that he would nullify his opinion due to his colleagues' opinion. He does not discuss Isurim.

Iyun Yakov: I heard that this is read together with the coming words. If they would tell me go to the Duchan, I went, but I never said anything from Birkas Kohanim; I ascended and returned [to my place]. R. Yosi said so, lest his colleagues transgress his words; rather, they would take Musar from him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Degel ha'Torah: Torah Temimah brings R. Yerucham's text 'I know that I am not Kedai (worthy)', and not 'I am not a Kohen.' We do not discuss Kehunah. Rather, if his colleagues told him to ascend to a high place special for a Drashah, even though he knows that he is not proper to expound to the Rabim, he would ascend. (NOTE: Did R. Yosi not consider himself proper to expound? He said 'people will say, Meir died, Yehudah died, and Yosi was silent - what will be of Torah?!' (Kidushin 52b) He told R. Shimon ben Gamliel 'you always try to get R. Yehudah to agree with my opinion - why now do you try to get me to agree to his opinion?!' (Pesachim 100a) Perhaps R. Yosi was outstanding in Halachah, but he was not so worthy to expound, e.g. Agadah. Or, he said 'I am not worthy' before he became an awesome Chacham. - PF) Devash v'Chalav cites the Chasam Sofer to infer from our Gemara that one who cannot sit at the head when they tell him to ascend, this pertains to haughtiness due to crookedness in the heart. (NOTE: If so, this is special about R. Yosi - any proper person should do so! R. Yehoshua ben Perachyah said, initially, if one would have told me to ascend, I would have tied him up in front of a lion (Menachos 109b). This implies that he would not have ascended! - PF)

What is the meaning of 'I never said something and turned back'?

Rashi: If I spoke about someone, and he asked me, I did not deny it, for I said Emes. He holds that anything said in front of the person discussed, it is not Leshon ha'Ra, like it says in Erchin (15b).

Maharal: If so, it should have said 'v'Chazarti Bi', and not 'l'Achorai'!

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi implies that since it is Emes, it is not Leshon ha'Ra. This is astounding - even true Leshon ha'Ra is forbidden!

Rashi (Erchin 15b): I never said something and turned around to see if the one I spoke about was there.

Maharsha: R. Yosi permits statements like 'there is fire in Ploni's house.' Surely, if Ploni was there, it was not said in a negative way. Rav Elyashiv - so explain Tosfos in Erchin and R. Yonah (Bava Basra 39b). We permit such words in front of three people, for since Ploni will hear, surely it was said in a favorable way.

Maharal: People normally look back before talking, lest there is someone in back of them that they do not want him to hear their words. R. Yosi did not do so, for he never spoke against anyone.

Iyun Yakov: I heard that this is read together with the previous words. If they would tell me go to the Duchan, I went, but I never said anything from Birkas Kohanim; I ascended and returned [to my place].

What will Rav Nachman receive for fulfilling three meals on Shabbos?

Rashi: Reward.

Maharsha: Did Chachamim seek reward for their Mitzvos?! Do not be like servants who serve for wages! (Avos 1:3)

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: The Chachamim did not request reward. Rather, they informed, when you see that I am rewarded, know that it is for this Mitzvah.

Maharsha: The way in which one wants to go, they lead him; one who wants to be Metaher himself, Shamayim helps him (104a), i.e. they help him to fulfill. Rich people merit [their wealth] because they honor Shabbos (119a).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rif (Alfasi) explains, even though I transgressed R. Chidka, who obligates eating four meals on Shabbos, I fulfilled eating three.

Iyun Yakov: One who is careful about Oneg Shabbos, he will not need to fast due to a dream on Shabbos.

Rav Elyashiv citing Tosfos (Bechoros 2b): Even though one must eat three meals, not everyone was careful about this. (NOTE: R. Yonah (Yesod ha'Teshuvah DH Harei) mentions people who do not fulfill this. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv #1: He was particular to eat bread. One could fulfill Seudah Shelishis through Targima; some say that this is b'Di'eved.

Rav Elyashiv #2: I fulfilled it properly, with all the details and fine points.

Why did these Chachamim mention Mitzvos that they fulfilled?

Maharal: A person should be careful and zealous about at least one Mitzvah. Through it, he will receive supreme reward. Anyone who does a Mitzvah, they do good to him, and lengthen his days, and he inherits the land. The Gemara says that this is when he does one extra Mitzvah above his merits. The Chazakah is, a person' sins and merits are equal [so he should be zealous to do a Mitzvah]. Midrash Tanchuma (Ekev) says that Hash-m did not reveal the reward of Mitzvos, lest one do only Mitzvos with a big reward. All Mitzvos should be done! These Chachamim said, I fulfilled this Mitzvah properly, so it will be done in the world. All the Mitzvos sustain the world - it does not depend on whether the reward is great or small.

Why did Rav Yehudah say, I will receive for fulfilling Iyun Tefilah?

Maharsha: Because I am Me'ayen in my Tefilah, Shamayim helps me to have intent in Tefilah.

Maharsha citing Rif (Alfasi): Even though one is not saved from [all of] three matters every day - Leshon ha'Ra, thoughts of sin and Iyun Tefilah (Bava Basra 164b), I was saved from Iyun Tefilah.

Here it says that Iyun Tefilah is a merit, In Berachos (55a), it says that one who is Me'ayen in his Tefilah, he comes to heartache!

Tosfos: Here it refers to intent in the heart. Also below (127a), we say that for Iyun Tefilah, one eats the Peros in this world, and the principal is intact for the world to come. Berachos 55a discusses one who anticipates that Hash-m will fulfill his request, like we bring there from "Tocheles Memushachah Machalah Lev." Also, it says there that Iyun Tefilah arouses mentions of one's sins. In Bava Basra (164b), it says that one is not saved from Iyun Tefilah every day - that refers to lack of intent. The Yerushalmi says that one should appreciate his head - it knows to bow by itself when he comes to Modim.

Is it Midas Chasidus not to go four Amos with the head exposed?

Maharshal (Teshuvah 72): Yes; our Gemara proves this.

Anaf Yosef: Magen Avraham brings from the Bach that one should not go even less than four Amos. The Rambam and other early Chachamim said so. I say, if so even standing or sitting still [the head must be covered], for they wrote Stam. Maharshal (Teshuvah 72) and Taz (8:3) say that this is the custom. The Gemara said four Amos; this is not precise. Be'er Heitev, citing Maharshal, said that this is only when under Shamayim. This is wrong. No Posek says so! Maharshal rejected that opinion. It is permitted for a need, e.g. to cool off, when the need is evident. Perhaps Rav Huna praised himself that even for a need, he did not go four Amos. It seems that in the bathhouse, there is no Midas Chasidus to be careful about this.

Etz Yosef citing the Vilna Gaon (8:6): The only Isur of an exposed head is in front of Gedolim. Also when praying, it is proper to cover the head, based on Musar. The rest of the day, Kedoshim who stand in front of Hash-m cover it. This is why Rav Huna praised himself for this. Etz Yosef - most Poskim disagree.

Rav Elyashiv: Taz (8:3) says that in the days of Chazal, it was not fixed. Now that baring the head is a Nochri rite, it is a Torah Isur to do so.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Igros Moshe (OC 1 40) brings from ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo that if the head is totally exposed, one may not go even less than four Amos. If the minority is covered, one may go less than four Amos. This is difficult. 'Giluy ha'Rosh' implies totally exposed. According to ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo, Rav Huna merely fulfilled letter of the law!

Why should Rav Sheshes receive special reward for fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tefilin?

Rashi: He did not go four Amos without them.

Maharsha: If not for this, what is the Chidush that they fulfilled Tefilin and Tzitzis?! The Shi'ur of four Amos is to avoid going four Amos with the head exposed. (NOTE: Maharsha implies that also Tefilin pertains to covering the head. Tefilin are worn on the forehead! Perhaps the straps help to cover the head. - PF)

Anaf Yosef: He did not divert his mind from Tefilin even for a moment.

Why should Rav Nachman receive special reward for fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tzitzis?

Rashi: He did not go four Amos without Tzitzis.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though there is no obligation to wear a four cornered garment, since at a time of anger, Hash-m punishes one who does not fulfill it, it is not a Chidush that he did so. Rather, he did not go four Amos without Tzitzis.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Ohr ha'Meir brings from Seforim ha'Kedoshim that everyone must fulfill one Mitzvah with special Hidur. Rav Nachman's special Mitzvah was Tzitzis; Chidushei ha'Ran says like this. (NOTE: Nowadays, what Meforshim called Chidushei ha'Ran on Shabbos is established to be the Ritva; he says that a Chacham should fix a Mitzvah to be careful to fulfill it properly. - PF) Sifsei Tzadik brings so in the name of the Ari Zal.

Anaf Yosef: He looked at them constantly, to remember all the Mitzvos. Alshich (Parshas Tzitzis) writes, the 248 Mitzvos Aseh and 365 Lavim are Mekadesh all the limbs and sinews in man. Koheles ends "Es ha'Elokim Yere" - guard the Lavim, "v'Es Mitzvosav Shemor" - the Mitzvos Aseh, "Ki Zeh Kol ha'Adam" - this encompasses all his limbs and sinews, and is Mekadesh them. Not everyone can fulfill all the Mitzvos! Therefore, Hash-m gave to us one Mitzvah, that every day we will remember all His Mitzvos and accept to do them. Hash-m joins good intent to deed, and considers it as if we fulfilled all of them every day - "Lema'an Tizkeru... va'Asisem Osam", and via this, "vi'Hyisem Kedoshim." If one does the Mitzvah by mere habit, and does not look at the Tzitzis, he will not remember the Mitzvos.

Why did he ask 'what was your father most careful about'?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R' Y. Taichtal: Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (OC 197) says that Shulchan Aruch is for every Yisrael equally. Anyone who says 'I have only Torah', he does not have even Torah. His Mitzvos are Melumadah (rote). Everyone must make a way for himself in Ahavas Hash-m to do more than is required. No two people are the same in this. Bil'am saw that Yisraelim's Pesachim (tent openings) are not even with each other (Bava Basra 60a), i.e. their Midos in Avodas Hash-m.

If one's Tzitzis snapped, must he stay in his place before fixing it?

Rav Elyashiv: Based on letter of the law, he may go to fix it without removing the garment. This is why if Tzitzis snapped on Shabbos, Mordechai permits to keep the garment on, for he cannot fix it. Acharonim argue about this Heter. Rabah was stringent. We infer from here that going four Amos without Tzitzis is more severe than standing still. Rashi says so about Tefilin and Tzitzis.

What is considered finishing a Maseches?

Rashi: He learned it by heart.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Beis Yisrael (47) inferred that a Siyum on Mishnayos is considered a Siyum, for in the days of Abaye there were only the six orders of the Mishnah; the Gemara was arranged only later. Do not say that 'finished a Maseches' includes all the discussion in the Gemara. Rashi (Ta'anis 4a) said that Tzurba mi'Rabanan is a sharp Bachur. It is unreasonable that he remembers by heart all the Amora'im's discussion of the Mishnayos! Piskei Teshuvah (194) says that Siyum applies also to one of them 24 Seforim of Tanach, and so wrote Pnei Yehoshua (Berachos 17). Minhag Yisrael Torah (Hilchos Pesach p.257) infers so from the Yehi Ratzon at the end of a Siyum 'so help me to begin other Masechtos and Seforim and to finish them.' The Rema (551:10) permits eating meat at Seudas Siyum Maseches or Seudas Eirusin during the week of Tish'ah b'Av. The Vilna Gaon asked, one may not make Seudah Eirusin then! Rather, the Rema wrote an abbreviation Samech Aleph; really, it stands for Seforim Acherim. Pnei Mevin (103) says that the primary Simchah of a Siyum is if he exerted himself in learning. Therefore, the custom is to make a Siyum on Mishnayos only for all six Sedarim, or at least one Seder. Pri Chadashah (2:92, 3:91) says to make a Siyum on one Maseches of if he learns with Bartenura and Tosfos Yom Tov, and he is fluent in some of the Gemara on it, for then there is Simchah.

Maharsha citing Aruch: He was able to learn it totally.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Yeshurun (15 p.483): R' S.Z. Auerbach asked, surely many learned in Abaye's Yeshivah. Did he make a Yom Tov every day? Rather, 'finished a Maseches' means that he toiled and learned it the full amount, and its Sugyos are clear to him. This was not common even in Abaye's Yeshivah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Belzer Rebbi said, no one finishes learning - "Aruchah me'Eretz Midah"! The Simchah of a Siyum is because one who has 100, he wants 200. After he learned and tasted the sweetness of Torah, he wants more, to finish the entire Talmud. No dimension of the Aron is a whole number, to teach that one is always far from full understanding. Abaye made a Yerushalayim only for Rabanan, who realize that the Simchah is not for what he learned, rather, for his increased desire to learn more.

Why did Abaye say 'when I see Tzurba mi'Rabanan finish a Maseches, I make a celebration for Rabanan'?

Rashi: He was Rosh Yeshivah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Menuchas Shalom (11:23) says, Rashi explained why he made a Seudah for all the Talmidim. Alternatively, there are many sources that Abaye was very poor. (He could not be Mezakeh bread for an Eruv, for if people would request from it, he could not comply, for) he had no extra bread (Eruvin 68a). He did not drink wine (Kesuvos 65a), due to poverty. (NOTE: The Rosh and others in Kesuvos say so. There, Abaye's widow requested to receive wine along with food from his estate. Rava refused - because Abaye did not drink, also you are not used to drinking! Abaye was Rosh Yeshivah when he died - he was not poor then! R. Chananel explains that he did not drink due to Kehunah; see Ta'anis 17a.) Rashi explained that Abaye was Rosh Yeshivah, for only then he could make a Yom Tov for Rabanan; the custom was to make the Rosh Yeshivah rich (Rashi Sotah 40a). All the sources that he was poor were before he became Rosh Yeshivah.

Maharsha: Tzurba mi'Rabanan is a Talmid.

Maharsha citing Aruch: Tzurba mi'Rabanan is a great Chacham, who learned the Maseches totally. The celebration is for all Rabanan, as if all of them learned it totally. Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:9 says that we make a Seudah for the Siyum of Torah. Therefore, the meal is called Siyum.

Iyun Yakov: Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 7:36) says, even though Abaye starved himself and was frugal, for this he spent liberally. Daf Al ha'Daf - Menuchas Shalom explained that Abaye would make a Yom Tov for Rabanan only after he became Rosh Yeshivah, and rich! Yam Shel Shlomo infers that the meal is Seudas Mitzvah. Once, he ruled to say "sheha'Simchah bi'M'ono', for it is the greatest Simchah - Hash-m has in His world only the four Amos of Halachah. After, he retracted - we bless only at Nisu'in, Pidyon ha'Ben and we would bless at Seudas Milah, if not for the baby's pain.

Vilna Gaon: Each letter of 'Siyum', when it is spelled out (e.g. Samech is Samech, Mem, Chaf), the Gematriya of the revealed part (Samech is 60) equals that of the hidden part (Mem and Chaf). This hints that the revealed part (the one who learned) is equal to the hidden part (one who did not learn, but joins with making [Seudas] ha'Siyum.

Why would Rava not sleep until investigating all angles to vindicate a Chacham?

Maharsha: The Chacham was not suspected in Rava's eyes.

Rav Elyashiv: How may Rava seek to vindicate him? One may not tilt judgment! Rather, there is an amount of time that one must investigate the Din, according to the case. For a Chacham, Rava investigated more. If he did not find merit, he would not exempt the Chacham!

Why did Rashi explain 'Teisi Li - I will be rewarded' only regarding Rava?

Iyun Yakov: Do not say that he said so in order that when he is a litigant, the judge will strive to find merit for him.

Anaf Yosef citing R. Sha'ul of Vilna, Rav Elyashiv citing R' S. Katzenelenbogen: One should not seek reward for Mitzvos! Rava taught (23b) 'one who loves Rabanan, he will have sons who are Rabanan' - this will be his reward!

What is the Chidush that Mar bar Rav Ashi loved a Chacham like himself? "V'Ahavta l'Re'echa Kamocha" applies to every Yisrael!

Rav Elyashiv citing Sefas Emes: When the litigants are in front of you, they should be like Resha'im in your eyes (Avos 1:8). Mar bar Rav Ashi was unable to fulfill this for a Chacham, so he disqualified himself.