What is 'a form or likeness'?

Rashi: They are pictures of animals, or events with people, e.g. David's battle with Galyus.

Rav Elyashiv: Magen Avraham explains, the entire episode is written. If he knows the episode, and the caption merely says that it is David's battle with Galyus, which is a mere glance; it is permitted.

Why may one not read a caption under a form or likeness on Shabbos?

Rashi: Perhaps he will come to read secular documents.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though one could say that a caption on a wall is very unlike business documents, and we need not decree, even so they decreed.

Why may one not look at a form during the week?

Tosfos: The case is, it was made for idolatry. If it is for beauty, it is permitted. Sons of Kedoshim did not look at the form on a coin (Avodah Zarah 50a) - this implies that others looked!

Rav Elyashiv: Others forbid a Stam form, even not for idolatry. The Torah forbids a human form - "Lo Sa'asun Iti." Tosfos holds that the Torah forbids a Yisrael's idolatry immediately, and a Goy's only after it is served. Here, a Goy made it and it was not yet served. The form is permitted, just "Al Tifnu" forbids looking at it. (NOTE: I did not find where Tosfos says so.)

Igros Moshe YD 1:69: There is no Isur of stamps with pictures of priests or crosses. Tosfos forbids only what was made for idolatry. These stamps are disgraced - they are stamped with a postmark lest one use them again, and the recipient throws them (with the envelope) in the trash. One may bathe in Afrodaiti's bathhouse, for it is not attributed to her for honor (Avodah Zarah 44)! Further, a cross is not idolatry, just it is proper to distance from it.

Daf Al ha'Daf: In the Yerushalmi and Sifra, R. Yehudah holds that "Al Tifnu" forbids looking at them; Chachamim hold , it forbids serving them. The Ramban says, because idolatry is so severe, the Torah forbids it with extra Lavim. Alternatively, they agree that there is an Isur mid'Rabanan to look at them; our Gemara is an Asmachta. The Ritva (Makos 20b) says that 'mi'Shum she'Ne'emar' means that it is only mid'Rabanan.

What is mi'Da'aschem?

Rashi: It is what you make from your heart and Chalal (interior). Elilim is like Chalalim (Ran - dead bodies without Ru'ach).

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi did not explain the source to expound Elilim like Chalalim. (NOTE: Aleph and Ches are interchangeable (Ya'aros Devash 2, Drush 2). Yud for a Chirik can be written or omitted. - PF)

Aruch: [Do not look at these forms, and thereby clear Hash-m] from your minds.

Tosfos Rid: Everywhere else idols are called Elohim Acherim. Only here it says Elilim, to expound, even though you did not make it for idolatry, rather, from your Da'as (desire), for a mere picture, do turn to them.

Rav Elyashiv: Also Vayikra 26:1 calls idols Elilim! This requires investigation.

If one is punished due to Ploni, why does Ploni not enter Hash-m's Mechitzah?

Maharal: Even though punishments, and all evil that comes from Hash-m is for a good purpose, man intends for evil. Ploni intends that someone else lack - therefore Ploni will lack, and not be in Hash-m's place, where there is no lack. "Lo Yegurcha Ra" - lack cannot connect with Hash-m, who is absolute existence.

Iyun Yakov: 'Al Yado' means that Ploni caused this - he desires that the other be punished due to him. So it implies in Avodah Zarah.

Hilchos Ketanos (1:160): Ploni is punished if he asked Hash-m to judge him. If he said 'his Master should pardon him!', and does not bear a grudge, Ploni does not desire his punishment; if he is punished, Hash-m Himself avenged his honor. Daf Al ha'Daf - according to this, even if he sinned, Ploni must pardon him. If not, he can be punished due to Almoni! (NOTE: Hilchos Ketanos discussed one who asked Hash-m to judge, and one who pardoned. He did not discuss the middle case, when he did neither. R. Bechayei (Bereishis 50:17) holds that Yosef never pardoned his brothers. Moshe bore a grudge against Shevet Shimon even close to his death (Rashi Devarim 33:7, from Midrash Tehilim 90:1). Is anyone closer to Hash-m than Moshe?! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Gilyon ha'Shas cited Bava Basra 22a. (Five Chachamim lamented 'I caused Rav Ada's death' - Bava Basra 22a). Abaye said, he used to say 'rather than learn without satisfaction from Abaye...' Rava said, he used to say that he is greater than me. Tosfos and the Ritva there explain, they worried lest this expel them from Hash-m's Mechitzah.) i.e. it pertains to our Gemara. Parshas Derachim (Derech ha'Melech 11) says that one is expelled from Hash-m's Mechitzah only if he sinned, like it says about Tzidkiyah! A Talmid ruled in front of R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer told his wife, surely he will die this year; he did (Eruvin 63). Sichos Musar (Pinchas 5732) says, according to Parshas Derachim, this is fine.

NOTE: Chasam Sofer (Bava Basra 22a) says, surely these Tzadikim are with other Chachamim, closer to Hash-m than the angels. I suggest, perhaps they worried lest subconsciously, they felt that Rav Ada should be punished! If a Chacham is insulted, he must bear a grudge [until he is asked to pardon - Yoma 22]. R. Shimon punished R. Elazar bar R. Yosi for ruling in front of himself, and Eli wanted to kill Shmuel for this. R. Akiva cursed a Talmid who rejoiced over refuting R. Tarfon. R. Yochanan caused the death of Rav Kahana and Reish Lakish for belittling him. Rav Sheshes wanted Rav Achdevoy to be punished for belittling him. In four of these, the punisher retracted, but not because he should not cause another's punishment. Wherever Chachamim put their eyes, death or poverty came (Mo'ed Katan 17b). It seems that Tana'im argue about this. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in Shemitah, when people may take fruits from your field, mark off Orlah and Revai. In other years, let the thief eat them and die for his sins! Tzenu'im would redeem the Reva'i, to save thieves from an added Aveirah (Bava Kama 69a). (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: If someone pains Ploni, and Ploni prays that he be punished, he is liable (Berachos 10b). He should have prayed to be saved from him! Not everyone merits to be in Hash-m's Mechitzah. If another is punished via Ploni, he is not at the proper level. (NOTE: He also explained that 'Al Yado' can be via his negligence; David was liable for Yonason's death (Sanhedrin 95a). Surely he did not want his beloved to be punished! - PF)

Why did Hash-m want someone to entice Achav?

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: His merits and sins weighed equally. (Even though "Lo Hayah ch'Achav Asher Himacher La'asos ha'Ra", he was easygoing with his money, and Chachamim benefited from his property. This atoned for half his sins. - Sanhedrin 102b) There were [angels] advocating and prosecuting (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:1). Who will entice him, i.e. find an Aveirah to tip the scale, and via this he can entice him to go to Ramos Gil'ad and fall there?

What is the meaning of "Zeh b'Cho"?

Rashi: This one said, so I will entice him.

Anaf Yosef: Prosecutors suggested different Aveiros to tip the scale of his judgment. The Ru'ach of Navos said, his Aveirah of [framing and] killing me. The Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach 4) says that Hash-m agreed, for murder is very severe. Achav caused the death of Navos, yet this sin caused his demise, and not all his idolatry! Overtly killing is even worse!

Why should Navos leave Hash-m's presence because Ach'av will be punished through him? What did Navos do wrong?

Rav Elyashiv: Since the king wanted his vineyard, he should have seen the result, and let him buy it. His stubbornness caused his own death. We say that Tzidkiyah would not be punished, for he was not guilty at all! Tzemach Tzedek and Acharonim say that if one sent a Shali'ach, and he was killed in an accident, he needs full Kaparah, for his friend was punished via him. Hash-m told David, until when will you be liable for this sin?! Via you, Kohanei Nov, Do'eg, Sha'ul and his three sons were killed! (Sanhedrin 95a). (NOTE: In Rav Elyashiv's latter edition, he left this difficult. One who killed b'Shogeg, he is not expelled from Hash-m's Mechitzah! David admitted that he caused all the deaths via taking Achimelech's help in front of Do'eg (Shmuel I, 22:22). Rav Elyashiv explained, his 'sin' was not seeing the result. Malbim there says that David was Mezid, and so the verse implies. Piku'ach Nefesh (Bulmus) permitted him to eat Lechem ha'Panim, and David held that this also permits taking immediately in front of Do'eg, even if he will tell Sha'ul. Really, he should have waited until he can be secluded with Achimelech. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R' Y. Levenstein: People think that the world to come is a new world. Really, it is the other part (recompense) of this world (of deeds). Just like one eats on Shabbos only what he prepared beforehand, so attributes are attained only in this world. Why did Navos want to be a Ru'ach Sheker, and leave Hash-m's Mechitzah? Since in his lifetime he quarreled with Achav, he was unable to change in the world to come. A Midrash says that Hash-m told Moshe that Sha'ul, the first king, must die via the sword due to the Kohanim's prosecution. The Kohanim were already in the world to come - why were they prosecuting? Since they prosecuted here, they could not change. Once, a Gilgul was tearing Sifrei Kodesh and kissing Sifrei Minim. The Chasam Sofer explained, even though he stood at the opening of Gehinom and saw Hash-m's grandeur, he remained like he was here. All this is in Mesilas Yesharim Perek 1. (NOTE: Shila bar Avina and Rav Asi had a heated argument before they died. After they died, myrtle branches jumped from one's coffin to the other, showing that they made Shalom (Nidah 36b). However, their entire lives they had Shalom; the feud was only due to a misunderstanding before they died. However, also Navos contested Achav only due to one episode shortly before he died! The one who says that Do'eg and Achitofel are in the world to come, he expounds "Alai Peleshes Hisro'a'i" - it is Alai (upon Hash-m) to make them Re'im (friends) with David (Sanhedrin 105a). Without this, they would still hate each other. - PF)

Why was Navos' Ru'ach punished for offering to do Hash-m's will?

Etz Yosef citing Maharsha (Sanhedrin 102b): Hash-m asked, who will entice Achav. He did not suggest Sheker. Navos' Ru'ach offered to do so via Sheker. Hash-m consented, for (a) Since Navos' Ru'ach wanted to say Sheker, Hash-m leads one in the way that he wants to go. (b) Achav deserved to die via [prophecy of] Sheker, just like he killed Navos via [Edus] Sheker.

How was Nebuchadnetzar disgraced, and why?

Rashi: When he intended to sodomize Tzidkiyahu, his Orlah extended 300 Amos.

How can the entire verse refer to Nebuchadnetzar?

Rashi: "Shesei Gam Atah" - also you will drink [the cup of punishment] like those whom you belittled. "Veha'Arel" - v'His'arel (your Orlah will become gigantic), and you will be disgraced. Rashi (Chabakuk 2:16) - the Hei in veha'Arel is used in place of Hispa'el conjugation, like "v'He'asef El Amecha."

Maharsha: The Havah Amina was "Shesei Gam Atah" - also Tzidkiyah will be punished, for Nebuchadnetzar was punished via him.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since Nebuchadnetzar's Orlah extended, he never sodomized Tzidkiyah. What was the Havah Amina that Tzidkiyah was punished because Nebuchadnetzar was punished via him? Also, how could we learn above one whose Chaver is punished due to him? Nebuchadnetzar, from evil seed, is not the colleague of Tzidkiyah, from Kadosh seed! Perhaps he is called Chaver, for both of them were kings. Also, even if the verse shows that Tzidkiyah was punished, it does not show that he does not enter Hash-m's Mechitzah! Perhaps since it says here veha'Arel, and it says there Redah v'Hashkevah Es Arelim, i.e. in Gehinom, we infer that he will not be in Hash-m's place.

Why do we bring Rav Yehudah's teaching?

Rashi: He calls Tzidkiyahu a Tzadik. This shows that he was forced.

Maharsha: Even if you will say that the verse refers also to him, there is no reason for him to be punished!

If "Lo Tov" is Ra, we should say the same about one who has no wife and children - "Lo Tov Heyos Adam Levado"!

Iyun Yakov #1: Indeed, perhaps 'one who has no children is Menudeh to Shamayim' means that he does not enter Hash-m's Mechitzah!

Iyun Yakov #1: The verse discussed Adam ha'Rishon. He was totally alone in the world. Nowadays there are many in the world to help him survive. (NOTE: Or, when he was the only person, there was room to err and say that just like Hash-m is alone above, also Adam alone below is a god (Rashi Bereishis 2:18)! - PF)

Why do we expound Nachu (they had respite) from Mishkav Zachar?

Maharsha: The verse ends "Shachvu v'Chavod Ish b'Veiso" - this implies that until now, they lied in disgrace in Nebuchadnetzar's house.

How does "u'Se'irim Yerakdu Sham" forbid standing in his house?

Rashi: The verse teaches that Mazikim should be there, and not people. When people enter, the Mazikim leave - this nullifies Hash-m's decree!

Rav Elyashiv: If people are already there, the demons already left, so other people may enter.

Maharal: Hash-m decreed that it be desolate, and demons will dance there, like in a ruin. If one stands there, it is not like a ruin - he nullifies Hash-m's decree!

Maharsha: One may not enter due to danger - demons damage one who enters their domain!

Why do we expound the Gematriya of Arel?

Maharsha: The word is extra.

Anaf Yosef: Often, 300 is an exaggeration, e.g. 300 Kohanim immersed the Paroches (NOTE: even if man was only half an Amah wide, 300 Kohanim could not fit around the Paroches to hold it - PF), and 300 Kor of ashes on the Mizbe'ach. Here it must be precise - we learn from a Gematriya! It is because he was the descendant of Nimrod (Amrafel), who threw Avraham (the first to remove his Orlah) into the furnace, and he acted like Nimrod - he said "E'eleh Al Bamasei Av" - therefore his Orlah stretched 300 Amos, like the Gematriya of Nimrod.

Why were those in Gehinom afraid that he came to rule over them? In any case they are being punished!

Iyun Yakov: It is better to be punished directly by Hash-m than via a Rasha - "Niplah Na v'Yad Hash-m... uv'Yad Adam Al Apoleh."

Rav Elyashiv: As bad as Gehinom is, Nebuchadnetzar is worse. (NOTE: How can this be? He afflicted in this world. One Sha'ah (a brief time) in Gehinom is incomparably harsher than 70 years of afflictions like Iyov (Tanya Igeres ha'Teshuvah, from Ramban's introduction to Iyov)! - PF)

How do we learn from "Gam Atah Chulesa Chamonu Eleinu Nimshalta"?

Rashi: The verse discusses those who descend to Gehinom. Nimshalta is an expression of Memshalah (kingship).

What do we learn from "mi'Mi Na'amta Redah v'Hashkevah Es Arelim"?

Rashi: Do you think that it will be more Na'im (pleasant) for you than for them?!

"Redah v'Hashkevah Es Arelim" refers to Egypt, and not to Bavel!

Maharsha: The previous verse says "Nehe Al Hamon Mitzrayim v'Horiduhu... Es Yoredei Vor." If also this verse discussed Egypt, it would not say "mi'Mi Na'amta Redah"! Rather, it refers to Bavel. It thought that due to its esteem, it will be better off than other nations mentioned there. The verse refutes this - you are like the others.

What is the Drashah about "Eich Shavas Nogesh Shavsah Madhevah"?

Rashi: Bavel said Medod v'Havei - measure out and give [gold coins; how did it cease]?!

Maharal: It was a kingdom of lack; it sought only to receive. The kingdom of Kedushah does not lack; it does not take. It itself is complete. Its desire is to influence - a Shalem influence.

Maharsha: Normally, coins are counted. They request so many that it is a toil to count them, rather, one gives via measure.

What is the difference between Medod v'Havei and Me'od Me'od Havi?

Maharal: The latter is to bring without measure. This reveals that the kingdom lacks without limit.

When did he ride on a lion and tie a snake to its head?

Rashi: It was after being like an animal for seven years, and he returned to his kingship.

What is the significance of riding on a lion and tying a snake to its head?

Maharal: This showed that he ruled over power on the right (a lion) and the left (a snake). A lion is king due to its strength - it is hard to defeat the king. A snake lacks strength, but it is able to kill (via venom). Daniel told him "you are the gold head" - the head rests on the two sides [of the body]. Also, he was able to tie a snake to a lion's head, to join them together and ride on them. This is known to one who understands.

Maharsha: Rashi explained that he tied a snake to the lion's head. One could explain that he tied it to his own head, like a crown. He rode on a lion; this was his Mazal - "Alah Arye mi'Subecho." He destroyed the Bayis in Chodesh Av, which has Mazal Ari. The snake represents the snake of Gan Eden - the Mazal and strength of Esav, whose seed destroyed Bayis Sheni. The two Churbanos are like one; Nebuchadnetzar began, and Esav's seed finished. "Al Naharos Bavel", which discusses the Churban, says "Zechor Hash-m li'Vnei Edom...; Bas Bavel."

Anaf Yosef citing Ramas Shmuel: This was a sign that he conquered Malchus Yehudah, which is compared to a lion, and Malchus Mitzrayim, which is compared to a Tanin. These were the two primary kingdoms!

Rav Elyashiv: They are the power of Tum'ah. The Zohar says that Shlomo's throne was on lions, and a snake was on top.