Where does the Isur to face east-west apply?

Rashi: It is in Yehudah.

Anaf Yosef: The Gemara did not specify Yehudah. This implies like the Rambam and Tur, who say that it applies everywhere. The Rosh brings from the Yerushalmi that this is only when there is no wall [between the privy and Mekom ha'Mikdash]. Even in a Chatzer, where the walls are far from the privy, there is no Isur (Beis Yosef). However, the walls of the city do not help; they are too far away (Magen Avraham). The Rema says that urinating is not a problem. The Vilna Gaon says that one may not urinate facing west, for the Shechinah is in the west. Eliminating is forbidden also to the east, for he exposes himself in front and in back.

How could R. Akiva infer that one may not face east-west, and we do not eliminate standing up, and we do not clean with the right hand? Perhaps R. Yehoshua happened to face north-south, sit, and clean with his left hand, but he could have done otherwise!

Maharsha: R. Akiva could see that it would have been easier for R. Yehoshua to face east-west. It is easier to eliminate standing, and to clean with the right hand, which one primarily uses.

What did Ben Azai consider to be brazen?

Rashi: He looked at what his Rebbi does in the privy.

Maharsha: Do not say that he could have asked him. He would not have known that there is any concern for Isur in these matters!

R. Akiva already taught proper conduct in the privy, Why did Ben Azai follow R. Akiva there to see what he does there?

Maharsha Perhaps he would see other proper conduct he had not yet heard!

Vilna Gaon: What one sees for himself enters the heart deeper than what one hears.

What is 'like one whose did not gulp down his food'?

Rashi: He is hungry. i.e. you conduct frivolously, amidst desire, like one who never had relations before.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rav Kahana entered what should be the most private place, under Rav's bed, because 'it is Torah, and I must learn!' Torah she'Ba'al Peh (36 p.59) infers that one may wiretap to save from sin, or even to learn Torah. (NOTE: He implies that Rav accepted Rav Kahana's reply 'it is Torah...' - PF) The Chida (Chikekei Lev YD 1:49) said that one may read a Nochri's letter without his permission in order to save himself [from loss]. It is not clear if Beis Din could permit this for a Jew's letter, against the Cherem of R. Gershom. (NOTE: The Chida was within 1000 years of the Cherem. Now that the Cherem ended, just it became the custom, perhaps there is more room to be lenient. - PF)

Chashukei Chemed: Seemingly, we may learn from Rav Kahana that one may listen to someone's Tefilah in order to learn what to request from Hash-m. However, one of the miracles in the Mikdash was that people were crowded when standing, and sparsely spaced when bowing (Yoma 21). Rashi explains that this was lest one hear another's Viduy. It seems that this is even if he could learn from it. If so, one may not listen to another's Tefilah. However, Magen Avos (Avos 5:7) says that this was only on Yom Kipur, when people confess, but not on festivals. Or, it was not on festivals because there are seven days to bring the obligatory Korbanos, so it was not so crowded. This requires investigation. (NOTE: One could ask him afterwards what to request! However, perhaps he could not convey the tone and emotion he has while praying. Also, one may not pray at his Rebbi's side, in back or in front (OC 90:24). Even if one could learn from his colleague, presumably, it would suffice to hear him once, or a few times. The miracle was lest one hear his colleague every time, without benefit. - PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Tal Torah: Rashi says that Rav spoke idle matters with his wife. This is unlike the Rambam (Hilchos De'os 2:4), who said that Rav never spoke idle matters his entire life! (NOTE: Perhaps it is not considered idle, for it was needed to appease her; Rav's wife used to intentionally transgress his will (Yevamos 63a). See below. - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim (Asaf 702 p.165) says that Rav married Rav Kahana's mother. It is difficult to say that Rav Kahana would do so to his mother! (NOTE: Honor of one's primary Rebbi is greater than Kivud Av v'Em. However, Rav Kahana was a Talmid Chaver at this time - he called Rav by his name (Aba). Surely Rav was not Rav Kahana's father; perhaps also Rav married more than once, and this episode was with Rav's other wife. Perhaps due to this episode, Rav Kahana suggested to his mother to marry Rav, e.g. after Rav's first wife died! - PF)

Rav Kahana wanted to learn his Rebbi's conduct in intimacy. Why did he speak up? Surely Rav will tell him to leave!

Megadim Chadashim citing Magid Ta'alumos: He wanted to know if Rav was jovial because he needed to appease her, or it is always proper. Since Rav Kahana said 'it is Torah, and I must learn', and Rav did not comment, we infer that it is always proper to do so.

Megadim Chadashim: This is difficult. In Chagigah 5b, Rav taught that one is judged even for excess talk between him and his wife [at the time of intimacy]. We asked from this episode, and answered that it is permitted if needed to appease her. Derech Pikudecha brings from the Zohar that one must speak words of love even if she is not angry. The Shulchan Aruch (240:10) implies that it is only if she is angry. I say that a small amount of words of love are always needed. Excessive words are permitted only when she is angry, until she is appeased. Dikdukei Soferim brings a text that permits before Bi'ah, but not after. If so, we do not distinguish between whether or not it is needed.

NOTE: Rav Kahana could have asked Rav afterwards! Perhaps he never intended to be there during Bi'ah; he wanted Rav to know that he left before Bi'ah. R. Eliezer's wife said that her children were so beautiful due to his conduct at the time; it was as if a demon forced him (Nedarim 20b). However, perhaps he rushed the Bi'ah itself as if a demon forced him, lest he think about other women, but he jested with her beforehand. I prefer to say that he was exceptional; she realized this before marrying him. (PF)

We say that the right hand more important, for it is used to tie Tefilin. Perhaps the left is more important, for Tefilin is worn on it. This is why we put on the left shoe first (Shabbos 61a)!

Maharsha: Each is more important for its matter. The act of Tefilin (tying) is done with the right hand, so we do not do a disgraceful act (cleaning) with it. The act done to the left hand (Tefilin is put on it) is more important, so a shoe is put on the left foot first.

Etz Yosef: We do not clean with the middle finger of the left hand, for the Tefilin strap is wrapped on it (Magen Avraham 3:10, citing Shlah). One may wipe drops [of urine from one's shoes] even with the right hand (Beis Yosef OC 43).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Bechor Shor: We do not learn from Tefilin, for it is on the upper arm, and hear we discuss the hand.

Is the right hand closer to the mouth than the left hand?!

Rashi: People regularly put the right hand to the mouth.

Maharsha: Most of man's actions are done with the right hand! It mentions eating, because life depends on it. Alternatively, it is proper to guard its cleanliness, lest his food become repulsive.

How is the right hand used to show Ta'amei Torah?

Rashi: It points to the vowels, which are written in a Sefer. Also, he waves his hand based on the musical notes for reading Torah.

Is there a practical difference to the reason why we clean with the right hand?

Iyun Yakov: This affects a lefty. So Meginim says in OC 3.

Ha'Boneh: All Chachamim attribute good to the right and evil to the left. Here Chachamim gave reasons for the importance of the right - one should not be lenient about it.

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: 'Ela b'Smol' teaches that the same applies to a lefty. Magen Avraham (3:8) - Rava holds like this (the Torah was given with Hash-m's Yamin), but according to all the others, a lefty cleans with his weak hand. Perhaps the Halachah follows Rava, for he lived last of the four Chachamim whose opinions are given. (NOTE: This is like Rashi (Gitin 31b), who says that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is Stam Rav Nachman, Rava's Rebbi. However, Tosfos and others proved that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was Rava's Talmid! - PF) Or, perhaps the Halachah does not follow him, for he is unlike all the Tana'im brought below. The Taz says that even according to Rava, he cleans with his weak hand. Daf Al ha'Daf - the Pri Megadim says that since the Halachah is in Safek, and it is a mid'Rabanan law, we are lenient; a lefty may do as he wants.

What is modesty in the privy?

Rashi: He conducts gently and quietly.

Kovetz Shitos Kamai citing Ri'az: He exposes only what is necessary - one Tefach in back, and in front, two Tefachim for a man, and nothing for a woman (23b).

Why is he saved from snakes, scorpions and Mazikin?

Rashi: Snakes and scorpions are not aroused to make trouble for him, and even Mazikin have mercy on him.

Maharsha: Mazikin are common in the privy, and also snakes, like the episode below with the Roman. Via modesty, his accompanying angels protect him from them, like Abaye said 'guard me, help me...' (60b). Surely if he is not modest, they will abandon him, and no one will guard him.

Daf Al ha'Daf: When a person is modest, snakes do not rule over him. Rashi (Bereishis 3:2) says that the snake saw Adam and Chavah having Bi'ah openly, and desired her. Lack of modesty enabled it to rule over them! Also the Kena'anim ruled over Yisrael because "va'Yir'u Kol ha'Edah", i.e. they were revealed. Ba'al Shevet Musar says that Hash-m gave manna to Yisrael, lest those who were not modest be damaged via Snakes and scorpions in the Midbar. There were no snakes and scorpions in Machaneh Yisrael (the cloud killed them). He assumes that one who needed to eliminate needed to leave Machaneh Yisrael. (NOTE: I add that manna saved Yisrael great toil and time of going to eliminate. For those who camped near the middle, they needed to go six Mil to leave the camp, which takes almost two hours, and another six Mil to return! - PF) However, Toras Yakov asked, in the Midbar people ate from their food and what they bought from merchants. After they complained about the manna, even the manna made excrement (Yoma 75b). We do not find that they died due to snakes and scorpions then! Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni (Devarim 23:14) Radal (on Pirkei d'R. Eliezer 44:14) and others say that Yisrael were allowed to eliminate in Machaneh Yisrael, unlike Ba'al Shevet Musar.

Why are his dreams settled?

Rashi: Mazikin do not disturb them.

Why does it say that in the privy in Tiverya, even two people would be damaged during the day?

Rashi (3b): Normally, Mazikin bother only people alone. However, where they are common, we are concerned even for two people. (NOTE: Pesachim 112b implies that they damage primarily at night. It says not to go out alone at night, and afterwards discusses Mazikim that go out at night; before R. Chanina ben Dosa, they were common every night. -PF)

Is there a connection between the traditions for being quiet and Tzanu'a in the privy, and accepting afflictions in silence and praying for mercy?

Ha'Boneh: There are very different. Perhaps they hint to two states of man - the privy hints to when he is healthy, and the other is when he is afflicted. Even when he is healthy, he should know that he is prone to danger and Mazikin. He should conduct with modesty and minimize lightheaded talk, and he will be guarded from all damage.

Megadim Chadashim: Ben Yehoyada says that in the privy, one may not talk, but one may make noise (e.g. to inform others that he is there). Also afflictions, one may not talk (complain) about them, but one may make noise (groan). This is unlike R. Chaim's son wrote in the introduction to Nefesh ha'Chayim, that when his father was afflicted, he did not groan, to fulfill accepting afflictions in silence. Ya'aros Devash (1:7) says similarly. Rebbi's groans were heard from afar (Bava Metzi'a 85a). We cannot learn from him, for he accepted afflictions on himself - there is no concern for appearing upset with Shamayim!

Megadim Chadashim: SMaK says that after bearing afflictions, he should not boast about this. This is included in silence!

What was the answer 'Sa'ir can be confused with Se'ir'?

Rashi: The demon of privies resembles a Sa'ir (goat) - "u'Se'irim Yerakedu Sham." They can be confused (and he might be harmed).

Here it seems that Abaye was alone in the privy with a sheep. Abaye used to clear animals out of the field lest he be secluded with animals (Rashi Kidushin 81b)!

Megadim Chadashim and Daf Al ha'Daf citing Artzos ha'Chayim (3:10:2): In his youth he held like Rabanan, that Yisrael are not suspected of bestiality, so one may be secluded with animals. After he matured, he was stringent amidst Midas Chasidus. The Rambam says so about great Chachamim. Or Zaru'a (137) already asked this, and said that perhaps he was stringent only about female animals. Alternatively, after he heard that Shmuel forbids, he ceased taking animals to the privy.

Megadim Chadashim: Hagahos ha'Griv said that this is not difficult. In Avodah Zarah (22b) we say that Nochrim are not suspected about their own animals, for bestiality weakens them. Also Chachamim were not stringent about this. I do not understand this. If Chachamim suspected themselves lest they transgress an Isur Sekilah, would they refrain due to monetary loss?!

Why did Bas Rav Chisda put a nut in a copper box?

Rashi: She made noise in the house, opposite where he eliminated outside.

Maharsha: If drops constantly fell into an exposed liquid, we are not concerned lest snakes drank from it, for the noise scares them away. Also regarding Mazikin, we say [when they are prone to damage one who drinks water] ... if he is thirsty, if someone else is there, he wakes him; if not, he bangs the cover on the jug, and drinks (Pesachim 112a).

What changed after Rava became Rosh Yeshivah?

Rashi: He needed more guarding from Mazikin, for they envy Chachamim more than other people. (NOTE: He was a Chacham also before this! They considered making him Rosh Yeshivah earlier, just Abaye merited to be Rosh Yeshivah first (Horayos 14a)! - PF)

What is the meaning of 'and they are Tehorim'?

Rashi: Even though he was in back of the fence, and could not see if an ignoramus entered the olive-press, the oil is Tahor.

Rambam (Taharos 10:2): If one hired ignorant workers, and oversaw that they immersed properly, if they did not distance until they are out of sight, they are still considered Tehorim.

What is the meaning of 'Chachamim were lenient about Taharos' and 'people who eat Taharos are different; Chachamim were lenient for them'?

Rashi: Both of these mean that Chachamim were lenient about distancing when eliminating, for the sake of Taharos.

Is this a Klal, that Tzanu'a depends on modesty in the privy?

Maharsha: We can say that it is, e.g. 'be Tzanu'a' (Avos 6:1), [Bas Kalba Savu'a saw] that R. Akiva was Tzanu'a (Kesuvos 62b). (NOTE: Why would a Tzadekes like her look at R. Akiva in the privy?! Perhaps she saw that he distanced greatly. - PF) However, it is difficult to say so in verses - "v'Es Tzenu'im Chochmah", "v'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha"! Perhaps it is a Klal for when Chachamim said Tzanu'a, but not for Tanach.

For what are the deceased punished?

Maharsha: They are punished for a Mitzvah that they did not do. So eulogizers are punished for saying that the Mes had attributes that he did not have, and those who affirm their words. Therefore, Rav Nachman did not want to affirm his words.

What is the attribute of eliminating in the same place at night as he does during the day?

Rashi: He distances as much from people at night [even though he cannot be seen].

How does eliminating morning and evening evade the need to distance himself?

Rashi: 'Morning' means before light of morning. (NOTE: Below, we support this from a Beraisa in which Ben Azai said 'Hashkem (rise early)...'

What is the meaning of 'he eliminates in the same way at night as during the day'?

Rashi: He exposes himself the same amount (only one Tefach in back and two Tefachim in front - 23b).

What is Rav Ashi's answer 'there is a corner out of view'?

Rashi: Also at night one must use it, and not an exposed place.

What is Meshamesh?

Rashi #1: He uses a pebble or chip to open the anus.

Rashi #2: He cleans the place where he will eliminate.

Rashi: This is not a proper answer. Even without concern for witchcraft, if he already sat, his clothes are already filthy - it will not help to clean it afterwards!

What is the meaning of 'not me, not me; not Tachim nor Tachtim; not these and not from these'?

Rashi: Not me - you cannot overcome me. Tachim and Tachtim are names of witchcraft done through hemorrhoids. Not all of them and not some of them will harm me (alternatively - witchcraft will not help any more).

Why should one not lie on the ground?

Tosfos ha'Rid (Bava Basra 52b): It is unhealthy, like it says (Rashi Vayikra 16:1, from Sifra) 'do not eat cold food, and do not lie b'Tachav, lest you die like Ploni died.' This is why the Gemara says that one who set mattresses in Hefker land acquired it. If he lied on the land itself, he did not acquire, for he did not benefit.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yakov Shor: Tachav does not mean 'on the ground', rather, cold, similar to cold food (Aruch). Also, there is intact discusses a Choleh. Tosfos ha'Rid should have brought our Gemara, or Gitin 70a, which say not to lie on the ground! (NOTE: In Gitin, it says only that sleeping on the ground diminishes semen. - PF)

Why should one not sit on a beam?

Rashi: It is lest you fall.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Even Shmuel, citing the Vilna Gaon's Talmidim: One should not walk on boards high above the ground, even if they are very wide. Once a person fears, the Satan begins prosecuting.

What is the significance of Sheinah at dawn?

Maharsha citing the Aruch: Morning sleep is very pleasant. It was listed (Avos 3:10) with matters that remove one from the world, lest one habituate himself to it. At dawn, it is permitted. Rav Hai Gaon said so.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Rav C. Kanievsky (Kiryas Melech): From here, the Rambam (Hilchos De'os 4:4) said that one should sleep the last eight hours of the night, and rise before sunrise. (NOTE: The Shulchan Aruch begins with 'one should invigorate himself... to awaken [before] dawn'! Even if it is healthy to sleep then, perhaps the attribute of Zerizus to serve Hash-m overrides. Tosfos (Nidah 17a, citing the Aruch) says that one who burns his fingernails is a Chasid, for he is careful to avoid damaging others, even though this harms himself. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Mesores ha'Shas brings from Mosaf ha'Aruch that Sheinah is an expression of Hashtanah (urinating). The Gemara implies like this. (NOTE: if so, it should have taught this together with Yetzi'ah (eliminating) at dawn! Perhaps they were taught separately to teach that each helps by itself, and if one can do both, it is doubly beneficial. - PF)

What words did Bar Kapara sell, and why?

Iyun Yakov: It was like what he taught after this - eat while you are hungry, drink while you are thirsty... Even though one may not take wages for teaching Torah, one may take for teaching such matters. This is like wages for guarding children (a Rebbi may take such wages, since it is not for the Torah itself).

Likutim meha'Gra, citing Rav Hai Gaon: Just like one should eat while he is hungry - afterwards, it does not help, so with Divrei Torah. Do not say 'when I will have free time, I will learn' (Avos 2:4). So too, when people want to learn from you , sell your Torah and learn with them, and it will not be lost - 'they will sustain it in your hands' (Avos 4:14).

Ben Yehoyada: He said dear matters in the way of parables, and endeared them to the listeners to the point that it seems that they bought them for Dinarim.

Megadim Chadashim: He made Meshalim to teach Musar and proper conduct. Vayikra Rabah 28:2 says that he had 300 Meshalim about foxes.

Why should one eat while he is hungry?

Rashi: If you delay until your hunger passes, the food will not help.

Anaf Yosef citing a Gaon: Then, he benefits from it. If he delays much, green bile overpowers and he weakens, and then he cannot eat much. So it is in matters of this world and the world to come. "Kol Asher Timtza Yadecha La'asos b'Chochacha Ase", i.e. when you have your strength. If you will leave your needs and obligations of today for tomorrow, it is enough that tomorrow supply its own needs and obligations! If one is hungry at night, and delays eating until the next night, he cannot eat even as much as normal in one period, and all the more so if he delayed several times for eating!

Megadim Chadashim: The Rambam (Hilchos De'os 4:1) says to eat only when you are hungry, and drink only when you are thirsty. The Aderes says that he learns from our Gemara; he explains unlike Rashi. Below, it says 'pour while your pot is hot' - this must be like Rashi (do not delay)! I say that the Rambam learns like Rashi; if the hunger will pass, the food will not help, so he should not eat then.

What is the significance of 'drink while you are thirsty'?

Anaf Yosef citing a Gaon: This refers to Divrei Torah.

What is the meaning of 'pour while your pot is hot'?

Rashi: Eliminate when you feel the need; do not delay.

Anaf Yosef citing a Gaon: When you have wealth, and you can do Chesed, do it. This is like boiling water in a pot; it cannot contain the water, and it spills over; the owner loses it. It is better to willingly give to the poor!

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: This is a cure for anger. If anger is aroused, it is dangerous to suppress it in the heart. Chachamim would go to a covert place to expel their anger on wood and stones, lest it be absorbed in internal organs, which is dangerous. (NOTE: Did Chachamim get angry? Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehinom rule over him (Nedarim 22a) The Ari Zal says that he loses whatever level he attained! Perhaps these do not apply when he remains in control of himself and follows Sechel. - PF)

Ben Yehoyada #1: Learn Torah when you have desire for it, conquer your Yetzer ha'Ra in your youth when it rages.

Ben Yehoyada #2: Share your hot food in the pot with the poor, and not the cold remnants at the end, which you would not eat anyway.

Where was the fire?

Rashi: It was in the Azarah, to warm Kohanim who immersed; one who eliminated must immerse before serving.

What did Rav Safra think is dangerous?

Rashi: if R. Aba would go away, feces might start to leave and return, causing Hidrokan.

Why do we read "Adam" as Edom?

Maharsha: Yisrael are called Adam; Nochrim are not (Yevamos 61a). How can the verse say that Adam will be in place of Yisrael?

Why should it say 'v'Amarti' and 'va'Chasti,' and not "v'Amar" and "va'Tachas"?

Maharsha: The simple meaning of the verse, it is abbreviated. Someone said to kill you, and I had mercy on you, like Rashi explained in Shmuel. Therefore, we expound that Hash-m said in the Torah to kill you; va'Tachas is second person (it applies to Sha'ul), or third person (it refers to his modesty).

Iyun Yakov: While a person is engaged in a Mitzvah, it protects; anyone who is Tzanu'a in the privy is saved from three things (Amud A). All the more so modesty is proper to protect, for one is killed prematurely only if Tzelem Elokim departed from him. Tzeni'us causes the Shechinah to dwell. "Va'Yar Es Yisrael Shochen li'Shvatav" - Bilam saw that the openings of their tents do not face each other, and said that they are worthy for the Shechinah to rest on them (Bava Basra 60a). Similarly, "v'Lo Yir'eh Vecha Ervas Davar v'Shav me'Acharecha."

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Semichus Chachamim: If David needed to kill Sha'ul because he was a Rodef, how could he refrain due to his modesty? All Mitzvos do not save a Rodef, even if he is a total Tzadik! If other Mitzvos can save, what is the source that his modesty saved him? "Ben Shanah Sha'ul b'Malko" - he was like a baby of one year, who never tasted sin! He answered, a reward for Rachel's Tzeni'us was that Sha'ul descended from her; a reward for Sha'ul's Tzni'us was that Esther descended from him (Megilah 13b). David did not want to kill him due to his modesty, and he saw with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that due to his Tzni'us, Esther will descend from him. Perhaps Sha'ul did not yet father the child from whom she will descend, therefore he could not kill him. Ya'avetz says that had David killed him, Esther would not have descended from him. Even though Sha'ul was a Rodef, David knew that Sha'ul cannot kill him, for David was anointed to be king via a Navi. (NOTE: If David saw that Esther will descend from him, he may kill him, for surely Sha'ul already fathered the child from whom she will descend! Rather, he saw that Esther was proper to descend from him. Similarly, "Demei Achicha" includes Hevel's seed (Rashi Bereishis 4:10), i.e. those who would have descended from him (Pesikta Zutresa ibid.); Yakov feared lest he kill Acherim (Rashi Bereishis 32:7), i.e. R. Meir, who was proper to descend from him (v'Lo Od Ela 44); Moshe killed the Mitzri, for he saw that no descendant from him will convert (Rashi Shemos 2:12, from Targum Yonason), i.e. even if Moshe will not kill him. Presumably, Ya'avetz means that David feared to kill him, lest this preclude Esther descending from him. Sha'ul lived only about a year after this episode. Ya'avetz did not cite a source that he fathered another child afterwards, and that Esther came from that child. Divrei ha'Yamim I, 8:33 lists four sons of Sha'ul, who were already born (Eshba'al is Ish Boshes - Redak ibid.); it is difficult to say that Esther came from a daughter born afterwards. - PF)

Chashukei Chemed: Ya'avetz implies that had David not been assured that Sha'ul cannot kill him, he would have been obligated to kill him, and not endanger himself. In the Neharde'a edition, he adds that even though David feared "Esafeh Yom Echad b'Yad Sha'ul", that was concern lest sin cancel what he was promised. Here, it was a Mitzvah to fulfill Hash-m's intent that Esther descend from Sha'ul. Ya'avetz holds that normally, one must kill one who seeks to kill him, so he needed to explain why David did not. Could one say that it is Reshus for a Nirdaf to kill his pusuer? Rashi (Sanhedrin 73a) says that we kill a Rodef to save him from the Aveirah. If so, even the Nirdaf must do so! (NOTE: If he can surely save himself in another way, automatically he prevents the Aveirah! Perhaps Ya'avetz had to answer for David, for it was not certain that he would save himself via cutting Sha'ul's garment. - PF)

Where did the Torah say 'if someone seeks to kill you, kill him first'?

Rashi: "Im b'Machteres Yimatzei" - I explained this above (58a. One who tunnels into a house, he knows that if the Ba'al ha'Bayis finds him, he will not let him take his money. The thief is prepared to kill him; the Torah says, kill him first!)

What is the source that there was a fence inside of another fence, and a cave inside of a cave?

Maharsha: "Gidros" implies two fences. Perhaps Chachamim knew the cave, that it was a cave inside a cave.

How does "Lehasech" teach that Sha'ul covered himself like a Sukah?

Maharsha: It is because this is not the usual expression for eliminating. However, what will we expound about "Meisach Hu Es Raglav" regarding Eglon?

What is the source that David could not get warm because he disgraced clothing?

Maharsha: It should have said va'Yechasuhu v'Lo Yicham Lo. "Ba'Begadim" is extra, to teach that only clothing would not warm him, because he disgraced clothing.

Did David disgrace clothing? He cut it to convince Shaul not to pursue him!

Iyun Yakov: He could have cut a little. He did not need to cut the entire corner.

Ben Yehoyada: There were Tzitzis on it, he could have cut a different part to avoid invalidating the Mitzvah.

What is the connection between David calling Hash-m an enticer, and stumbling in a matter that even children know, i.e. not to count Yisrael without Kofer Nefesh?

Iyun Yakov: David thought that his generation is nice, and Kedoshim, and Ayin ha'Ra does not rule over them, unlike Yisrael in the Midbar, who needed Shekalim. Yisrael are compared to the stars - "Moneh Mispar la'Kochavim l'Chulam Shemos Yikra." Hash-m counts them, and He guards the Torah, like a Midrash learns from "Magid Devarav l'Yakov." We must say that Ayin ha'Ra does not apply to something with Kedushah. Since David called Hash-m a Mesis, he holds that He does not guard the Torah. If so, what was his source to count without Kofer Nefesh?!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Hash-m did not create the Yetzer ha'Ra because He wants man to be enticed. Just the contrary, Hash-m helps him to save him from the Yetzer ha'Ra! Evil is attributed to the man, who chose to despise the arousal for good from Hash-m. This was Sha'ul's way. David erred to say that He enticed him. Similarly, Eliyahu said "v'Atah Hasibosa Es Libam Achoranis", as if Hash-m wants to entice them to evil. Hash-m told David, do you not admit I help save from the Yetzer ha'Ra, and evil is attributed to the man?! Therefore, He said I will cause you to stumble, i.e. when I remove the Hashgachah of My help from you, you will stumble in the enticement of your Yetzer.

Did David totally forget "Ki Sisa... v'Nasnu Ish Kofer Nafsho"?

Ramban (Shemos 30:12): He did not realize this is an obligation for all generations.

Iyun Yakov: He thought that it does not apply to his generation, like I explained above.

Daf Al ha'Daf: In Yoma (22b), we learn the Isur to count Yisrael from verses in Nevi'im. Maharsha asked, we should learn from "Ki Sisa..."! He answered that perhaps "Kofer Nafsho" was to atone for the Egel; we could not learn from here an Isur for all generations. Iyun Yakov there asked, our Gemara proves that we learn from the verse! Rather, that verse discusses counting of Reshus; Rashi said, when you want to know their number. Verses from Nevi'im prove that the same applies to counting for a Mitzvah. The Rambam (Hilchos Temidim 4:4) says that in the Mikdash, they made a lottery via counting fingers, and not Kohanim, due to the Isur, and cites a verse from Navi. Tzeidah l'Derech says that those who count Mitzvos did not count the Lav to count Yisraelim, even though it is for all generations, for it is not explicit; it is inferred. In Bamidbar (1:3), the Ramban said that David counted Yisrael via Shekalim; or at least Yo'av would have insisted on this; he opposed the census! Hash-m was angry that he counted Yisrael without need. This is unlike he wrote in Shemos. Kli Yakar (ibid.) says that David counted without Shekalim; he did not transgress, for he sinned "Rak bi'Dvar Uriyah ha'Chiti"! R. Y. C. Sofer questioned this. Perhaps the verse discusses his own sins, but not what Shamayim caused him to transgress!

Why do we need both verses "va'Ya'amod Satan Al Yisrael" and "va'Yases Es David"?

Maharsha: The latter verse, in Shmuel, implies that Hash-m (mentioned before) enticed David. The former verse, in Divrei ha'Yamim, proves that the Satan enticed him. We need the verse in Shmuel to know the reason. It says there that David said that Hash-m enticed Sha'ul. This angered Hash-m, therefore he let the Satan entice David.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: They show that via removal of His help from David, he was enticed via his Yetzer.

How does "Es Mo'ed" hint to from Shechitas ha'Tamid until Zerikah?

Maharsha: Zerikah finishes the Avodah to make the Korban accepted. (NOTE: It says about the Tamid "Lehakriv Li b'Mo'ado." - PF)

How does "Es Mo'ed" hint to midday?

Maharsha: It is the latest time that the morning Tamid may be offered.

Rashash: We hold that the morning Tamid may be offered only until four hours!

Rashash: This is the earliest time (mid'Oraisa) for the afternoon Tamid.

How do we learn from "va'Yomer la'Mal'ach ha'Mashchis ba'Am Rav" that Hash-m said 'I prefer to kill the Rav among them'?

Maharsha: "Rav" is extra, for it said that the angel destroyed 70,000. We expound it also like Rov - the majority of the Sanhedrin.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If "Rav" meant 'enough' He would have said Rav Lecha. Also, after Hash-m said so, David said, "when he saw the angel striking... I sinned... what did the flock (Yisrael) do?!' This shows that the angel was still striking. Also, "Rav Atah Heref Yadecha" implies that later, he should resume striking. Therefore, we expound that Hash-m said to take the Rav to take payment for liabilities - they did not demand to build the Beis ha'Mikdash, and they were counted without giving Kofer Nefesh. He did not take the Rav for Kaparah, rather, for a punishment. "Heref Yadecha" - after taking the Rav, do not strike with great anger, rather, a little - perhaps they will repent when the Tzadik dies.

What is the meaning of 'I will take payment for many liabilities'?

Etz Yosef: Via death of the Tzadik, the anger is decreased. This atones for many liabilities, but not all of them. Hash-m did not totally retract from the evil, until He saw Yakov or Yitzchak's ashes... according to each opinion.

Why does it say that Hash-m saw Yakov?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: Even though there were angels with him, he said "v'Ru'ach Tasimu Bein Eder l'Eder." Chazal expounded, Yakov prayed 'when You bring afflictions on Yisrael, do not bring them immediately one after the other - give respite between affliction and affliction. Therefore, Hash-m said to take the Rav and give respite - perhaps they will repent. If they will not, destroy a little, so they can bear the afflictions.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: Hash-m saw that there were many camps of angels to accompany Yakov - va'Yomer Yakov ka'Asher Ra'am Machaneh Elokim Zeh va'Yikra Shem ha'Makom ha'Hu Machanayim." There were two camps of angels - of Eretz Yisrael and of Chutz la'Aretz. If so, how can an angel destroy Yerushalayim and obligate Yisrael, the seed of Yakov His chosen one?!

Etz Yosef: He saw the merit of the Torah that he engaged in the academy of Shem and Ever - "Titen Emes l'Yakov."

Ben Yehoyada: It says Re'iyah also regarding Avraham and Moshe! Rather, Yakov's image is on the Kisei ha'Kavod. Hash-m promised Yisrael that at a time of affliction, He will see Yakov's image and have mercy on them. Therefore, David said "Ya'ancha Hash-m b'Yom Tzarah Yesagevcha Shem Elokei Yakov."

What do we learn from "va'Yomer Yakov ka'Asher Ra'am..."?

Maharsha: The angels who appeared to Yakov came to guard him from Esav and Esav's Sar, the Satan, who admitted that the Berachos [belonged to Yakov]. Midrash Rabah expounds "Machaneh Elokim Zeh" - the Shechinah does not dwell on less than 600,000. i.e. there were this many angels. Hash-m promised Yakov that in his merit, also when his seed needs guarding from the Satan, this Machaneh Elokim will guard them. This promise was fulfilled for David; Hash-m saw Yakov, and retracted [from the evil].

What are Yitzchak's ashes? He was not burned!

Maharsha #1: They are the ashes of the ram offered in place of Yitzchak - "Elokim Yir'eh Lo ha'Seh."

Maharsha #2: They are the ashes of Yitzchak, according to Avraham's intent. Avraham brought Yitzchak up [on the Mizbe'ach] in that Goren. Hash-m's promise at the Akeidah "Ki Varech Avarechecha... uch'Chol Al Sefas ha'Yam" was fulfilled in the days of David and Shlomo- "Yehudah v'Yisrael Rabim..." The destroying angel came to diminish them from this Berachah. Hash-m saw the promise, and retracted.

Etz Yosef: His ashes represent Mesiras Nefesh for Kidush Hash-m. This is primary, and not Midrash (learning). This is like we said above (20a), earlier generations were Moser Nefesh for Kidush Hash-m.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: We expound so, for it says "uch'Hashchis Ra'ah Hash-m." At the Akeidah, Avraham called it Yir'eh, and Shem ben Noach called it Shalem; Hash-m called it Yerushalayim, like both of them. If so, how will He destroy it?! Also, Avraham prayed that if his children will sin, Hash-m should remember the Akeidah and have mercy on them. Hash-m considered it as if Yitzchak was offered, and his ashes are on the Mizbe'ach, and his merit canceled the decree.

Megadim Chadashim: It says in Zevachim (62a) that in the days of Ezra) they saw the ashes of Yitzchak, and knew to build the Mizbe'ach there. Tosfos (Ta'anis 15b 16a) says that it is literally his ashes. Ya'avetz was astounded at this. Rather, it is the ashes of the wood on which has tied. (Perhaps he means the ashes of the ram offered in place of him.) Tanya Rabasi brings from Midrash Agadah that Yitzchak's ashes were on Har ha'Moriyah, and Hash-m brought to him Tal of Techiyah (revival). It seems that Tosfos holds like this. Magen Avraham says that even though Hash-m told Avraham not to offer him, Avraham did so on his own. Radal (on Pirkei d'R. Eliezer 31:59) says that Avraham did not offer him; the fire consumed him, for he was already on the wood.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: We expound "uch'Hashchis Ra'ah Hash-m" - Hash-m saw as if Avraham destroyed and burned Yitzchak, and retracted.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #3: Avraham prayed that the Tamid that Yisrael offer each day, morning and afternoon, should be considered as if Yitzchak was offered. "Elokim Yir'eh Lo ha'Seh" - He will considered the Seh of the Tamid "l'Olah Bni", as if they offer my son. The angel was striking from the morning until "Es Mo'ed" - from Shechitah of the Tamid until its Zerikah - Hash-m considered it as if Yitzchak is being offered.

What is Kesef ha'Kipurim?

Rashi: They are the Shekalim that Bnei Yisrael gave for the Mishkan. They atoned for David's count.

Etz Yosef: Hash-m gave the remedy in the days of Moshe, before the illness.

Maharsha: R. Yochanan disagrees, for the money given in the days of Moshe for the Mishkan does not atone for David's count.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Just like at Chet ha'Egel, Hash-m struck the nation with a plague, and took Kesef ha'Kipurim (the silver that Yisrael gave to make the Adanim of the Mishkan) to be Kofer Nefesh to for Yisrael's sin, so He took Kofer Nefesh (the Shekalim to buy Korbanos) to atone for Yisrael in the days of David, when Yo'av counted them without Kofer Nefesh. Hash-m saw that in the end, each Shevet will give 50 Shekalim to buy Goren Aravnah, where the Mishkan will be built; this atoned for them. "V'Lakachta Es Kesef ha'Kipurim v'Hayah li'Vnei Yisrael l'Zikaron Lifnei Hash-m Lechaper Al Nafshoseichem" hints that the money that they will give to buy Mekom ha'Mikdash will atone for not giving money to atone for counting their Nefashos. Perhaps Hash-m intended that when they count Yisrael [in the days of David], they will give Kofer Nefesh to buy Mekom ha'Mikdash, but they did not do so. (NOTE: A Shekel is 384 Perutos; Shekel ha'Kodesh is double. Even if each Shevet gave 50 Kodesh Shekalim, in all they gave less than 500,000 Perutos, i.e. less than the number of Anshei Yehudah and less than the number of Anshei Yisrael (Shmuel II, 24:9). Less than a Perutah is not considered money - can it atone? Perhaps each would have given a whole Perutah or Chetzi Shekel, and the extra money would have been used for building the Mikdash. - PF)

What is the significance of seeing the Beis ha'Mikdash?

Maharsha: He saw the Shekalim that Bnei Yisrael will give every year for Korbanos in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Etz Yosef: He saw that in the future, Yisrael will build the Beis ha'Mikdash.

How does "Asher Ye'amer ha'Yom b'Har Hash-m Yera'eh" support R. Yochanan?

Maharsha: "Ha'Yom" is more appropriate for the merit of the Shekalim given every year.

Etz Yosef: "B'Har Hash-m Yera'eh" - He will see what they will build there, and have mercy on His nation Yisrael.

What is the source that spitting in Har ha'Bayis is like spitting in Hash-m's eye even nowadays?

Maharsha: "Kol ha'Yamim" includes even at a time of Churban. It seems that he holds like the opinion that the first Kedushah was permanent (Megilah 10a). Megadim Chadashim - R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who taught this, explicitly says so (ibid. 3b).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Mo'adim u'Zmanim (4:349) says that this implies that the Shechinah is in Mekom ha'Mikdash nowadays. However, one may not act light-headedly when facing the eastern gate... at a time of Shechinah (61b). This implies that after the Churban, there is no Shechinah, and it is permitted! And so writes the Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 7:8). A Midrash (Eichah Rabasi 24) says that Hash-m said 'as long as I dwell in it, Nochrim cannot touch it. I will remove My Shechinah, and ascend to My first abode - "Elech v'Ashuvah El Mekomi."' Shemos Rabah (2) says that the Shechinah remained in the same place, just it ascended. The place below retains special Kedushah, for there, the Shechinah is above one's head. Therefore, one may not spit. However, one may be light-headed when facing the eastern gate, for the Shechinah is not below.

Megadim Chadashim: Rashi said that 'at a time of Shechinah' is while the Mikdash stands. Rashash points out that there was no Shechinah in Bayis Sheni (Yoma 21b). (Really, there are many levels of Shechinah; Bayis Sheni had a lower level than Bayis Rishon.) In a Beraisa, R. Yosi says that it depends on Shechinah, and R. Yehudah says while the Mikdash stands. Above (54a), Rashi explained that it was in Bayis Rishon, when there was the Amah Traksin.

Does "Ein Lavo El Sha'ar ha'Melech bi'Lvush Sak" apply to Hash-m?

Maharsha: Yes - one may not pray with sackcloth, for it is improper in front of even a mortal king. One must make himself presentable when praying!

Why is spitting permitted in a Beis ha'Keneses?

Rav Elyashiv: We conclude that it is like one's house - one is not adamant not to spit in his house. Sha'ar ha'Tziyun (151:15) suggests that Ashirim who are adamant not to spit in their houses, they may not spit in a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Midrash. If so, nowadays that Stam people are adamant, they are forbidden in a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Midrash. (NOTE: Initially, Rava thought that Rav Papa asks why he learned the Isur of spitting in Har ha'Bayis from shoes, and not from a shortcut. Later, he clarified his question. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf (63a citing R. Yosef Lieberman): The Heter to spit was when they had earth floors; one rubbed it with his foot, and it was absorbed. This does not apply nowadays. Cleanliness of a Beis ha'Keneses is not only from filth. Rather, it is like the Azarah - a water channel rinsed it. From it, we can learn Kevod Beis ha'Keneses. E.g. one may enter with his staff and sack (OC 151:6). Even so, the Bach wrote that some are adamant not to enter with a staff. Kaf ha'Chayim (ibid. 38) brings that he will be blessed for this, for there is honor of Shamayim; there is concern for haughtiness. I say that all the more so, one may not dirty a Beis ha'Keneses, especially via casting ashes and cigarette butts on the floor. If one is not adamant about cigarette butts, Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam, especially since it is not his private house. His colleagues and partners are adamant. Sometimes they accumulate, and even near the Aron Kodesh! Sometimes there are remnants of food, papers or dirty cups on the windows, tables and benches. R. Yochanan cut his nails, for the pieces are tiny. One is adamant about them only due to danger to pregnant women, and women are not found in a Beis Midrash. There are two aspects. (a) A person must be adamant not to dirty it at least as much as he is about his house - an Ashir must be more strict than others. (b) The Beis ha'Keneses must be clean. The Gabai must clean it like houses of Ashirim - if not, Ashirim do not fulfill their obligation! If so, the rich must pay a bigger share of the cost to clean it.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Yerushalmi says that one who does so is like one who spits in the pupil of His eye. R. Yonah cites it to discuss the Beis ha'Mikdash. A Hagahah says that it should say 'Beis ha'Keneses'. Indeed, the Yerushalmi brought it regarding laws of Beis ha'Keneses, unlike the Bavli, which brought it regarding the Mikdash.

Why is it forbidden to enter Har ha'Bayis with shoes?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The verse "Shal Ne'alecha me'Al Raglecha" was said to Moshe at the Sneh, on Har Sinai. It is due to honor of the Shechinah, and not due to Kevod ha'Mikdash. Yere'im (409) says that one must fear when he enters Beis ha'Mikdash, Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Midrash. One does not fear the Mikdash, rather, he fears Hash-m, who commanded about the Mikdash. Beis ha'Keneses and Beis Midrash are called Mikdash Me'at; we include them from "[va'Hashimosi Es] Mikdesheichem." Also there, the fear is due to the Shechinah, (NOTE: We must say that since it is a Mikdash Me'at, not all the laws of the Mikdash apply, e.g. wearing shoes and spitting. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Tosfos (Sotah 40a) brings from R. Chananel that R. Yochanan ben Zakai decreed that Kohanim not ascend for Birkas Kohanim with sandals, lest a strap break and he will go to tie it [and miss Birkas Kohanim], and people will say that he is a Chalal. This implies that one may enter a Beis ha'Keneses with shoes. R. Yehudah b'Ribi Klonimus asked, why must he infer this? A Mishnah in Megilah teaches that if one says 'I will not be Shali'ach Tzibur wearing sandals', he may not be Shali'ach Tzibur even barefoot. This implies that l'Chatchilah, he should wear shoes! Minchah Charevah answered, there we discuss new, clean shoes. In Sotah we forbid only lest a strap break. We infer that it is permitted even in [dirty] shoes worn in the market. (NOTE: Also from here, we permit in a Beis ha'Keneses, for one is not adamant about shoes in his house. This is even for shoes worn in the market! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf (63a citing R. Y. D Soloveitchik): Just like a host does not want his guest to pace around his house, one should not walk around in the middle of Tefilah. R. Chayim Brisker was adamant that Talmidim not pace around the Beis Midrash. He said that one of the miracles in the Mikdash was that they stood crowded, and when they bowed, there was space (Avos 5:5). Why did the Mishnah mention standing crowded - was it a miracle? Yes! To prevent disgrace, Hash-m caused that they stood crowded, and could not pace around like Talmidim do in a Beis Midrash! (NOTE: Do not say that it needed to say 'they stood crowded' to show that it was a miracle that they bowed with space. Had It said only 'they bowed with space', we would understand that this is even when they should have been crowded! People had a great Aliyah in Ruchniyus in Yerushalayim and the Mikdash. Presumably, the miracle was lest a small number of people at the lowest level disgrace the Mikdash via pacing around. - PF)