Who are the Minim?

Ha'Kosev citing the Rambam: They are people who deny Torah. They do not believe in the world to come. They ruined mindsets and Emunos.

Why did they enact to greet people with Hash-m's name?

Me'iri: It was so people will know that Shalom and all blessings come from Hash-m.

Etz Yosef: An enactment was needed, for even though it is not Hash-m's name l'Vatalah, it is improper to mention it constantly, lest he come to say it l'Vatalah. Also, one should say it only with fear and trembling - "Mipnei Shmi Nichas Hu", "v'Zarchah Lachem Yir'ei Shmi." If people are used to greeting with Hash-m's name, it will be light in their eyes, and they might say it in a filthy place. However, they saw that people were trying to make Hash-m's name forgotten. Therefore, they enacted this.

Ha'Kosev citing the Rambam: Shalom is a name of Hash-m. (NOTE: R. Moshe Shapiro said that they enacted to obligate greeting with Hash-m's name. One fulfills this via 'Shalom' or 'Gut Shabbos' (also Shabbos is a name of Hash-m - Rav Pe'alim 4 Sod Yesharim 16, citing Ramaz). - PF)

What do we learn from "Min ha'Olam v'Ad ha'Olam"?

Rashi citing a Tosefta: This teaches that this world is nothing compared to the world to come. It is like a corridor in front of the banquet hall. i.e. conduct with His Berachos in this world, to be accustomed to the world to come which is totally long.

What is the Havah Amina that one Tehilah suffices after all the Berachos?

Rashi: They will answer Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso l'Olam va'Ed after the last Berachah.

What is the significance of 'perhaps Bo'az did so on his own'?

Rashi: If so, we may not learn from him.

Maharsha: Really, we did not need to say that perhaps the angel informed Gid'on that Hash-m was with him. In any case, we need the verse to teach that Shamayim consented to Bo'az (Makos 23b)!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Now that "v'Al Tavuz..." teaches that Bo'az did not do so on his own, why do we need the verse about Gid'on? One might have thought that Bo'az did not say so to greet them, rather, to make them zealous not to give grain to harlots. When he saw a girl with them, he "Hash-m Imachem" - do not sin, and Hash-m will be will you. We bring the verse of Gid'on, even though one could reject that it was not a greeting, just a promise that Hash-m will be with him, for in any case we learn it that "Hash-m Imchem" is not mere Ziruz. Regarding Bo'az, it is not a promise; it must be a greeting.

What was the rejection 'the angel said so to Gid'on'?

Rashi: Perhaps this was not a greeting, but rather the angel informed Gid'on that Hash-m was with him; we cannot learn from it.

Iyun Yakov: The angel said so to Gid'on, but Gid'on did not return a Berachah with Hash-m's name like the reapers blessed Bo'az "Yevarechecha Hash-m."

What do we learn from "v'Al Tavuz Ki Zaknah Imecha" and "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha"?

Rashi: Do not suspect Bo'az, that he did so on his own. Rather, you may learn from a Chacham. He has what to rely on - "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha."

Ha'Kosev citing the Rambam: "V'Al Tavuz..." teaches that you should not disgrace enactments of early Chachamim. "Es La'asos...", from Seifa to Reisha, teaches that a time will come to pay up from those who transgress enactments. Those who expound it in order, it teaches that when the time will come to pay up from them, reasons will arise to annul Torah, so the punishment will properly come on them. All His judgments are proper, but man cannot grasp this, nor His Chochmah -"Ka'asher Gavhu Shamayim me'Aretz Ken Gavhu Derachai mi'Darcheichem u'Machshevosai mi'Machshevoseichem." Those who descended into deep waters [to investigate His judgments] brought up Cheres (mistakes).

Maharsha: We did not ask why we need "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha", for "v'Al Tavuz Ki Zaknah Imecha" cannot permit when there is concern for an Isur (Hash-m's name l'Vatalah; Rif (on the Ein Yakov) - when there is concern for Hash-m's honor, to mention His name for people's honor).

Iyun Yakov: Do not say that the reapers improperly blessed Bo'az "Yevarechecha Hash-m."

What do we learn from expound from Reisha to Seifa?

Rashi: He must punish, because people annulled His Torah.

Maharsha: The verse does not hint to this!

Maharsha: This is like it says below - if you see that the generation does not value Torah, refrain [from teaching].

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If one cannot fulfill "v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah" (learn constantly), fix times for Torah. Even though this annuls "v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah", if one does not do so, he will be totally Batel from Torah.

Iyun Yakov: "Es La'asos la'Shem" is a Mitzvah; if it is Lo Lishmah, "Heferu Sorasecha."

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Some people fulfill amidst necessity, without any desire, and think that this is fulfillment. If one benefits another without desire, he benefited him! This is only for people, for the recipient needed the matter. Hash-m does not need anything; He merely wants that we do His desire. "Yakriv" - one must offer a Korban willingly. Therefore, there are times when we nullify Mitzvos, since the Mitzvah itself is not the goal, only desire to serve Him.

What is the meaning of 'they transgressed Your Torah, for it is a time to do for Hashem'?

Rashi: People who do His will needed to transgress Torah at times, e.g. Eliyahu offered a Korban [outside the Mikdash] on Har ha'Karmel, for it was time to make a fence in Yisrael for His sake.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One may annul Torah when there is a need to do for Hash-m, i.e. Piku'ach Nefesh - desecrate one Shabbos in order to save a Jewish life.

Iyun Yakov: They did an Aveirah, Lishmah, for it was "Es La'asos la'Shem"; this is greater than a Mitzvah Lo Lishmah (Nazir 23). We can expound the verse in both ways, for both are good. However, the Gemara here implies unlike this.

How does 'we do not answer Amen in the Mikdash' answer why there is a lengthy closing to Berachos?

Etz Yosef: Tzlach left this difficult. Mayan ha'Berachos says that Amen is an acronym for Kel Melech Ne'eman - Malchus Shamayim. Since we do not answer Amen in the Mikdash, they said Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso l'Olam va'Ed to declare His kingship.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Bartenura and Ritva (Ta'anis 2:5, 16a) say that in all Berachos in the Mikdash, they said Shem ha'Mefurash like it is written, therefore they answered Baruch Shem Kevod... like for Birkas Kohanim in the Mikdash. Tosfos ha'Rid (Yoma 68a) asked, the eight Berachos that the Kohen Gadol says on Yom Kipur - were they with Shem ha'Mefurash? They should be, like Birkas Kohanim in the Mikdash. However, we said that the Kohen Gadol mentions Shem ha'Mefurash [exactly] 10 times that day! Granted, he need not give Birkas Kohanim, but he must bless the eight Berachos!

Megadim Chadashim: Also in Har ha'Bayis, we do not answer Amen (Ta'anis 15b, 16b), even though we say Shem ha'Mefurash only in the Mikdash (Yoma 69b)! Even in the Mikdash, it was used only in Birkas Kohanim, and the Kohen Gadol said it 10 times on Yom Kipur! The Rashba brings from the Ra'avad that 'Min ha'Olam v'Ad ha'Olam' and Baruch Shem Kevod... were only in Tefilah, but not for other Berachos. We find that Ezra blessed on the Torah, and people answered Amen (Nechemyah 7:6). However, it says that he blessed Hash-m ha'Elokim ha'Gadol, and we expound (Yoma 69) Baruch Hash-m Elokei Yisrael Min ha'Olam v'Ad ha'Olam; Rashi says that that day they enacted to say so in the Mikdash at the end of every Berachah.

What is the meaning of 'when people withdraw, disseminate; when they disseminate, withdraw'?

Rashi: When Chachamim do not disseminate Torah, teach to Talmidim. When Chachamim of the generation spread Torah, humble yourself and refrain from teaching - "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha."

Maharsha: The next clause is the explanation of this one - if you see that the generation values Torah, disseminate... If not, refrain.

Iyun Yakov: If they do not value Torah, refrain - it is better that they be Shogeg and not Mezid.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Initially, we said that it depends only on whether or not people disseminate. We did not say that it depends on whether or not Torah us dear to the generation! If the Tana returns to explain, the Gemara should have said so! Also, we should have brought a proof from the Seifa - "Yesh Mefazer ... v'Choshech mi'Yosher Ach l'Machsor", i.e. when Torah is not dear to people, gather in! It seems that Hillel defends his teaching. Seemingly, the verse says to spread when people spread! He answers, the verse teaches that if you see that the generation values Torah, disseminate. i.e. the verse does not distinguish between whether or not people are spreading, rather, whether or not Torah is dear to them. If it is dear, spread, even if others are spreading - "Yesh Mefazer v'Nosaf Od." However, when Torah is not dear to people, then do not spread if others are spreading. However, if others are not spreading, you should spread, lest Torah be totally Batel. We learn this from "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha."

Etz Yosef: Hillel taught two separate teachings. 'When people withdraw...' discusses Chachamim; 'if the generation values Torah...' discusses Talmidim. "Es La'asos la'Shem" applies to both of them. When Chacham spread Torah, act for Hash-m with humility and annul Torah, i.e. refrain from teaching Talmidim, since others are teaching. If the generation does not value Torah, refrain lest Torah be disgraced.

If the generation does not value Torah, why should you refrain?

Rashi: Do not cause Divrei Torah to be disgraced. "Heferu Sorasecha" - they annulled spreading it, l'Shem Shamayim.

Etz Yosef: One who teaches an improper Talmid, the Rebbi's Chochmah decreases, like Hafla'ah writes. Therefore, do not teach. If the generation (Talmidim) value Torah, teach them. Via them, also your Torah will increase - "Yesh Mefazer v'Nosaf Od." I learned much from my Rebbeyim, even more from my colleagues, and the most from my Talmidim (Ta'anis 7a).

Why did Bar Kapara say on his own 'in a place where there are no men, you should be a man.' This is a Mishnah in Avos (2:6)! And why did Abaye infer from Bar Kapara, and not from the Mishnah?

Maharsha: The Mishnah refers to doing the needs of the Tzibur. If not one is doing them, you should, even if it will diminish your learning a little. Here we learn from what preceded this - it discusses Divrei Torah. Where no one gives rulings, give rulings. "Awesome are the amount she has killed" refers to a Chacham who is qualified to rule, and does not rule (Sotah 22a). Bar Kapara comes to teach the inference - where someone gives rulings, you should not.

Iyun Yakov: From Avos, we may infer only that where there is a man [teaching Torah], do not strive to be a man, but without striving, one may accept to be a man, even if there is another proper to be a man. Bar Kapara implies that one should refrain, unless there is no one like himself.

What do we learn from 'if merchandise is cheap, buy'?

Rashi: Buy and gather it, for in the end its price will rise.

Iyun Yakov: Also regarding Torah - even if the generation does not value Torah, acquire it, for in the end, Devar Hash-m will be dear.

Why is 'where there is a man, do not be a man' obvious?

Rashi: One may not issue Halachic rulings in the same place as his Rebbi.

What are Gufei Torah, and how do they depend on "b'Chol Derachecha Da'ehu v'Hu Yeyasher Orchosecha"?

Etz Yosef: Gufei Torah are matters to meditate on them day and night. This is impossible! Man needs to rest from exertion, to sleep, eat and drink! Shulchan Aruch (OC 231) says that if one does so to strengthen his body to serve his Creator, it is considered engaging in Gufei Torah.

How does "b'Chol Derachecha Da'ehu..." apply to an Aveirah?

Rashi: Consider whether there is a need to transgress for the sake of a Mitzvah, e.g. Eliyahu on Har ha'Karmel. If there is, transgress!

Maharsha: It does not say Zachrehu (remember Him), rather, Da'ehu - know His existence, ability, and He oversees all your ways to give good reward to Tzadikim and punish Resha'im. "V'Hu Yeyasher Orchosecha" - the way a person wants to go, they lead him - one who wants to be Metaher himself, (Hash-m helps him - Shabbos 104a).

Iyun Yakov: Put to your heart that all that happens in this world is via Hash-m's Hashgachah. Nothing happens without Him. If one wants to sin, e.g. to steal, realize that it will not succeed without Hash-m. Via this he will refrain, for evil does not come from Hash-m. This will straighten his ways to repent. (NOTE: Some thieves seem to succeed, but in the end Hash-m returns everything to its proper owner. - PF)

What is 'easy and clean'?

Maharsha citing the Aruch: There is no temptation to steal, and there is no loss (NOTE: i.e. it does not require a major investment. - PF)

What is Machata d'Salamiyusa?

Rashi: It is embroidery. The stitches are in rows, like furrows.

Meturgeman: It is a tailor who can fix tears with a small needle.

What is the significance of not having too many friends in his house?

Maharsha: This is like it says in Sanhedrin (100b) 'keep the masses from your house, and do not bring everyone in.' "Lehisro'e'a" with two Ayin's is an expression of Ra'u'a (rickety).

What is the source that had Potifar not appointed Yosef as overseer, the episode would not have occurred? Yosef was already in Potifar's house - he was his slave!

Iyun Yakov: Potifar's wife despised him as long as he was a slave; after he became an overseer, she desired him. The episode came via this.

Iyun Yakov, based on Rashi Bereishis 39:6: After Yosef saw that he rules over Potifar's house, he began to eat and drink (honorably) and curl his hair.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ohr Moshe (Kidushin 27): Part of Kivud Av v'Em is 'Machnis u'Motzi.' What is this? People say, he takes him out and brings him in. Indeed, Yere'im (56) says Machniso u'Motzi'o, but Yere'im ha'Shalem (222), the Rambam and others says Machnis u'Motzi. Perhaps it is being an overseer on his property. Rashi here says 'he is Machnis u'Motzi his property.' The Yerushalmi says 'Manhig' in place of Machnis u'Motzi.

Why should one who sees a Sotah in her disgrace become a Nazir?

Maharsha: Wine leads to adultery (Sotah 7a) - "Zenus v'Yayin v'Sirosh Yikach Lev."

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Chasam Sofer (Parshas Nasa) says that the Torah gave two extremes - a Sotah in her disgrace, and a Nazir. Both of them are improper; a Nazir is called a sinner! Rather, one must go in the middle path, like the Rambam writes (Hilchos De'os Perek 3). Ibn Ezra explains "Yafli" (written about a Nazir) is a wonder. Why does he go to the extreme to totally separate from wine, and not go in the middle path?!

Iyun Yakov: Even a man who sees a Sotah should become a Nazir, for just like the water tests her (kills her if she is guilty), it tests him. All the more so a woman who sees should become a Nazir, for she should not drink so much. We do not apportion wine for a woman (Kesuvos 65a).

Anaf Yosef: When one makes bodily pleasure his goal, the more he benefits, the more he wants. His eyes and stomach will not be satiated. This will arouse him to desire Bi'ah (Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:12). His body will be elevated, and his intellectual Nefesh will decrease. Therefore, man should benefit from this world only what is needed to live.

If "v'Ish Es Kodashav Lo Yihyeh" teaches that he will ultimately need them (be poor), it does not mention his deeds (keeping Terumah and Ma'aser for himself) which caused this!

Maharsha: We rely on the previous verse "v'Chol Terumah... la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh" - what should be given to the Kohen, he keeps for himself

How will he need the Kohen due to his wife?

Rashi: He will need him to give to her Mei Sotah to drink.

How does "Ish Asher Yiten la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh" teaches that he will become wealthy?

Maharsha: The Reisha said "Ish Es Kodoshav Lo Yihyu." If also the Seifa meant that the Kohen will own them, also it should have said Lo Yihyu. Rather, "Lo Yihyeh" means that the giver will have [much wealth] - Aser (tithe) in order that Tis'asher (you will become rich - Ta'anis 9a).

Iyun Yakov: One who has a wife with good deeds is an Ashir (Shabbos 25). If he does not give gifts to the Kohen, her deeds will be evil; she will be a Sotah.

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: If one does not give Terumah and Ma'aser, in the end his land will produce only the amount proper for Terumah and Ma'aser [from what it initially produced]. Oppositely, one who gives Terumah and Ma'aser, he is blessed, and the Terumah and Ma'aser will be as much as he has; see Alshich and Akeidah on "ha'Yotzei ha'Sadeh Shanah Shanah." The verse means that the Kohen will have (receive next year for Terumah/Ma'aser) as much as the tithes were separated from (this year's entire crop).

What is 'joining Hash-m's name to his troubles'?

Rashi #1: He blesses Dayan ha'Emes on evil tidings.

Rashi #2: He prays for mercy.

Maharsha: This is not joining!

Maharsha: "Imo Anochi v'Tzarah" - Hash-m is with us in our troubles. He prays also for Hash-m, who shares in our pain.

Anaf Yosef citing Nefesh ha'Chayim: Even though an individual may request for his needs and pain, in each Berachah what pertains to it, his purpose should not be his pain. How can one supplicate in front of Hash-m to remove his pain and afflictions? A doctor makes him drink bitter potions; sometimes he cuts off a limb, lest the poison spread. Will one beg the doctor not to do so?! He hired the doctor to do so! Afflictions are a bandage and elixir of life to atone for sins - there are no afflictions without sin (Shabbos 55a)! If he will not be afflicted, how will he get Kaparah?! Rather, one must pray for 'needs' of Shamayim. When one is in pain, the Shechinah says 'My head hurts. My arms hurt' (Sanhedrin 46a). Shamayim's pain is much greater at the time that one transgresses. The person does not feel this at all, for he is considered like a Mes - Resha'im are called dead in their lifetimes (above, 18b). Some sins totally cut off the Nefesh from Kedushah. Hash-m sends him afflictions to remove his sin; then, the person is pained. If one prays to remove Hash-m's joint pain, and repents from and regrets the sin that caused it, the afflictions cease. His income is doubled, for he regrets causing two pains above; his Mezid sins are reversed to be merits. (Also Mayan ha'Berachos and Be'er Mayim Chayim (Beshalach) wrote like this.)

Iyun Yakov #1: Even though his income is difficult, he gives Tzedakah to other Aniyim (Gitin 7).

Iyun Yakov #2: It says (Pe'ah 8:9) about one who needs to take [Tzedakah] and does not "Ashrei Adam Bote'ach ba'Shem."

What do we learn from "v'Hayah Shakai b'Tzarecha v'Chesef To'afos Lach"?

Rashi: To'afos is an expression of double. The Targum of of "v'Chaflata" (Shemos 26:9) is v'Sa'eif.

How will his income fly like a bird?

Maharsha: It comes to him easily, like a bird that finds its food easily, for it flies.

What is slackening from Torah?

Maharsha: Even if he learns and fulfills Torah, it is soft and haphazard. Torah and good deeds require strengthening (32b).

Why did Chananyah go to Chutz la'Aretz?

Rashi (Sukah 20b): He went to make a leap year.

Megadim Chadashim: Here it implies that he did not go in order to make a leap year! Aruch l'Ner there asked, it is proven there that R. Yehoshua was alive at the time. How could Chananyah say that he did not leave a Chacham like himself?! He answered that Sukah 20b discusses an earlier descent to Chutz la'Aretz; here discusses a different descent, after R. Yehoshua died. (NOTE: Here it implies that Chananyah was there for a long time - surely smaller Chachamim would not surpass him in the short time needed to make a leap year! The Yerushalmi cited below says that it depends on being the greatest Chacham in calculating Tekufos. Is there a source that R. Yehoshua knew Tekufos better than Chananyah? - PF)

Why were Chachamim sent to protest?

Rashi: We establish leap years only in Yehudah, as we learn from "l'Shichno Sidreshu" - all Derishos must be in the place of the Shechinah (Sanhedrin 11b).

Why did he ask 'why did you come'?

Iyun Yakov: It is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael. They answered that they came to learn; that is one of the Hetrim. "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - go to Chananyah, R. Yehoshua's nephew, in Chutz la'Aretz (Sanhedrin 32a). They deviated from the truth for the sake of Shalom - they did not want to quarrel with him immediately.

Megadim Chadashim: The Radzhiner Rebbi (introduction to Ein ha'Techeles, p.6) says, surely Chananyah did not lie to say that he did not leave anyone in Eretz Yisrael as great as himself. Why did they send Chachamim to contradict his words? They should have told him that Chachamim surpassed him, and he would refrain from Ibur Shanah! Rather, they knew that he would not believe that others surpassed him. In the Yerushalmi (Nedarim 6:8), it says that Rebbi sent to him letters. In one, it said 'the kids became adult goats.' R. Chananyah went to R. Yehudah ben Beseira in Netzivin and complained, do I not know what [kind of Chachamim] I left there (in Eretz Yisrael)? Who says that they are Chachamim to calculate [Tekufos, to determine leap years] like me?! R. Yehudah said, you say they are not Chachamim like me. Since they say that they are Chachamim to calculate, we heed them! The Ya'avetz (Migdal Oz) says that one cannot avoid envying authority of someone smaller than himself. This resolves what it says below 'if not, your Talmid Yehoshua will serve in place of you', even though normally, one does not envy his Talmid.

Why may a Chacham fix leap years and months in Chutz la'Aretz if there is no one in Eretz Yisrael as great as him?

Maharsha: The reason to fix in Eretz Yisrael is due to "Ki mi'Tziyon Tetzei Sorah u'Devar Hash-m mi'Yerushalayim" - the greatest Chacham of the great Sanhedrin is there (Sanhedrin 87a). R. Akiva was after the Sanhedrin ceased.

Iyun Yakov: Tosfos (Yevamos 115a) says that R. Akiva did so in Chutz la'Aretz due to Ones. "Ki mi'Tziyon Tetzei Sorah", for the land of Eretz Yisrael makes wise; we are more adamant about this for leap years, for "Ki Hi Chochmaschem u'Vinaschem..."

Why should they go to a mountain?

Rashi: Idolaters build Bamos there.

Who was Achiyah?

Rashi: He was a great man, the leader of the Diaspora.

Why did they mention building a Mizbe'ach?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nachalas Yehoshua (introduction): If he makes leap years in Chutz la'Aretz, he must hold that Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash totally ceased. (NOTE: This was after he said that he did so because he is greater than the other Chachamim! He did not say that Kedushas Yerushalayim was Batel! - PF)

Why did they say 'they became adult goats with horns'?

Maharsha: They can gore you via Niduy, like they said 'if not, you will be excommunicated.'

Why will Chananyah sing?

Rashi: He will sing by the Bamah; he was a Levi. We find that his uncle R. Yehoshua was a singer, and not a gatekeeper (Erchin 11b; presumably, also Chananyah was a singer).

Here we learn from "Ki mi'Tziyon..." In Sanhedrin 11b, we learn from "l'Shichno Sidreshu"!

Maharsha: The latter applies only at the time of Shechinah, while the Mikdash stands. This is why we asked why Chachamim were so adamant about Chananyah, and why here we needed to learn from "Ki mi'Tziyon..." - even nowadays. (NOTE: Both verses discuss only Yerushalayim. Why is fixing months permitted in all of Eretz Yisrael? Perhaps since it was permitted for 400 years, before Yerushalayim was chosen, the Heter remained. - PF)

Etz Yosef: "Ki mi'Tziyon..." refers to the entire Torah, not only fixing the months! However, fixing the months is included.

Did Chananyah's declarations take effect?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Yerushalmi (Kesuvos 2:6) says that Shmuel's daughters were captured. They came in front of R. Chaninah, and stood the captors outside. They said 'we were captured, and we are Tehoros'; he permitted them. People told Shimon bar Ba (a Kohen) 'go marry one of your relatives!' He married the first, and she died. He married the second, and she died. Did they lie? Heaven forbid! Rather, it was due to Chananyah, who made a leap year in Chutz la'Aretz. Chasam Sofer (Kesuvos 23a, citing the Vilna Gaon) and Birkas Shmuel (of Ba'al Birkas ha'Zevach, Acharei Mos) - based on his leap year, the girls were defiled before the age of three years, which is not called Bi'ah, so they were truly Tehoros. Really, his leap year was invalid, and they were disqualified.

Megadim Chadashim: Yichusei Tana'im v'Amora'im (p.390) says that he left Eretz Yisrael before he received Semichah, or they canceled his Semichah, so that people would not rely on his rulings. This is difficult, for the text in Sukah says 'Rebbi Chananyah'! (NOTE: According to Aruch l'Ner, this is fine! They canceled his Semichah only after he made leap years, which was on a later descent to Chutz la'Aretz! - PF)

May we be lenient unlike Torah law for a special need [to undermine his authority]?

Anaf Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim: People are always drawn after Heter and leniencies - the power to permit is greater. If the Chachamim would have been more stringent, people would have followed Chananyah and not heeded them.

Megadim Chadashim: The Chida and Ben Yehoyada say that they did not permit what was Vadai forbidden, only when he was stringent, and there was room to be lenient. This is unlike va'Yo'el Moshe, who learned from here that one may permit even what is truly forbidden, amidst concern lest people be drawn after an improper Chacham.

Why did Chachamim come to Kerem b'Yavneh?

Iyun Yakov: "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - go to the Beis ha'Va'ad ... to R. Gamliel in Yavneh (Sanhedrin 32b). Why must they all go there? One could go to Yavneh to learn from R. Gamliel, and go to teach others elsewhere! This we learn from Moshe. Every Mevakesh Hash-m learned from him; he did not go to Aharon or his sons, who learned from Moshe. Hearing from the Talmid is not like hearing from the Rebbi. (NOTE: Seemingly, they went to Yavneh after R. Yochanan ben Zakai requested from Aspasyanus to allow Chachamim to learn in Yavneh (Gitin 56b)! I also question his implication that R. Gamliel was the greatest Chacham there. He himself called R. Yehoshua 'my Rebbi in Chochmah' (Rosh Hashanah 2:9), and he died before R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer! Rather, he was the Nasi who headed the Yeshivah there! - PF)

Why was it called Kerem b'Yavneh?

Rashi: They sat in rows, like a vineyard is planted in rows.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yo'el Rosenthal: The Yerushalmi (Ta'anis 4:1) explained so. Rashi explained so in all nine places that the Gemara mentions Kerem b'Yavneh. What is the significance of how they sat? Yavneh was the first place to which the Sanhedrin was exiled after the Churban. The Sanhedrin sits in a semicircle, like a Goren (Sanhedrin 36b), so they will see each other. Three rows of Talmidim proper for Semichah sat in front of the Sanhedrin (ibid. 37a). Now they sat in rows, to show that they are like Talmidim proper for Semichah, but they lost the status of Sanhedrin. (Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 8b) says that when they were exiled to Chanuyos (before the Churban), they still had the status of Sanhedrin when they returned to Lishkas ha'Gazis.) I can add that grapes grow in a Kerem, and the purpose of Tevu'ah is to bring it to a Goren to fix it. Yavneh was like a Yeshivah that clarified the foundations of Halachah and oral Torah - this is like a vineyard. The Sanhedrin was the purpose, to give rulings in Yisrael - this is like a granary.

Why is he called R. Elazar Beno Shel R. Yosi ha'Gelili, and not R. Elazar ben R. Yosi ha'Gelili?

Megadim Chadashim citing Nesivos Olam (on 32 Midos of R. Eliezer, 3b): It is because he was dearest to R. Yosi ha'Gelili among all his children. We find also R. Gamliel Beno Shel R. Yehudah ha'Nasi, R. Yishmael Beno Shel R. Yochanan ben Berokah. However, we find also R. Chanina Beno Shel R. Yosi ha'Gelili! Perhaps both of them were extra dear to R. Yosi ha'Gelili.

Megadim Chadashim: This is difficult. We do not find other children of R. Yosi ha'Gelili and R. Yochanan ben Brokah! Also, it says R. Gamliel Beno Shel R. Yehudah ha'Nasi only in Avos 2:2; elsewhere, he is called R. Gamliel bar Rebbi!

Megadim Chadashim citing Radal (on Devarim Rabah, Ki Savo 27): When the father has an addition to his name, e.g. ha'Gelili or ha'Nasi, or also the grandfather is mentioned, the Gemara says Beno Shel, for if it would say Ben or Bar, one might have thought that the addition refers to the son. (NOTE: Al ha'Nisim mentions Matisyahu Ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol. There are two opinions whether Matisyahu or Yochanan was Kohen Gadol. May we infer that it was Matisyahu, for it did not say Beno Shel Yochanan Kohen Gadol? Regarding a grandfather, had it said R. Yishmael ben R. Yochanan ben Berokah, how could one err? Indeed, it says so in Tosefta (Kesuvos 9:3, Avodah Zarah 3:1 and Eruvin 38b, and we find that R. Shimon ben R. Yosi ben Lekunya (Pesachim 51a)! - PF) Rashash rejected this, for we find Chananya Beno Shel R. Gamliel! Perhaps the text should say Chananya b'Ribi Gamliel, like it says elsewhere. A Rishon said like Radal, i.e. Yichusei Tana'im v'Amora'im (Beseira p.28)!

Why was R. Yehudah the first to speak everywhere?

Rashi: It is explained in Shabbos (33b. Romi decreed so, for once R. Yehudah praised them.)

What is the source that the Aron was distanced 12 Mil?

Rashi: This is three Parsa'os, the length of Machaneh Yisrael, for it extended from Beis ha'Yeshimos until Evel ha'Shitim.

Maharsha: One who was on the far end of Machaneh Yisrael [on the other side] was 12 Mil away. (NOTE: Really, one entire side of Machaneh Yisrael was 12 Mil away. (NOTE: Some were more than 12 Mil away, due to the diagonal! If the Aron was on the east side, those on the west were 12 Mil away. If from north to south the Aron was in the middle of Machaneh Yisrael or on the north side, people in the southwest corner were distanced about 13.5 Mil (the diagonal of a rectangle that is 12 by six). If the Aron was on the south side, it was this far from the northwest corner. If the corners (squares at least two by two Mil) were only for animals, all people were less than 13 Mil away, so it is called 12 Mil. - PF)

What is the source that a Chacham who travels to learn Torah is called Mevakesh Hash-m? Perhaps the verse calls Mevakesh Hash-m one who goes to where the Aron is!

Maharsha: The Aron with Moshe was not the Aron of the Mishkan. There were two Aronos, like Rashi explained in Parshas Ekev - "v'Asisa Lecha Aron Etz."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): They were commanded to make the Aron only later! Rather, here discusses the Aron that Moshe made, and descended with it on Yom Kipur; afterwards, he commanded to build the Mishkan. Even if we will say that a Chacham is equal to the Aron, there is a Binyan Av, but not a Kal va'Chomer! If the Kal v'Chomer is for Chachamim who go more than 12 Mil, we can reject this - in the Midbar, there was also the Aron, and Moshe was greater than other Chachamim (even though we say that the Gadol of each Dor is called Moshe)! Also, is one who goes less than 12 Mil not called Mevakesh Hash-m?! Midrash Chazis on "Samechuni ba'Ashishos" learns from here that anyone who is Mekabel Pnei Chaverim (Chachamim) is like Mekabel Pnei ha'Shechinah, and all the more so one who goes 10 or 20 Mil to hear Torah. The Midrash said that Moshe distanced a Mil, i.e. from Machaneh Yisrael. Even one who was close to Moshe, and needed to go only one Mil, is called Mevakesh Hash-m. The Midrash says that even angels, the sun and moon, when they sought Hash-m, went to Moshe's tent.

Anaf Yosef: Even the first Aron, Moshe was commanded to make it only after Hash-m was appeased with Yisrael, after Moshe returned the Ohel to the Machaneh! Then, He said "Pesal Lecha..."! It seems that the text should say 'Ohel Hashem' in place of 'Aron Hash-m.' Or, Moshe put the broken Luchos in the Ohel where he taught. This is why the Ohel is called Aron Hash-m. Because the writing departed from the Luchos, one who went to the Ohel is not called Mevakesh Hash-m due to the Luchos, rather, because he came to learn from Moshe.

Why is this considered 'honor of hosts'?

Maharsha: Chachamim go from city to city to learn, and they are guests in homes of people of the city - their merit (of their Torah) depends on their hosts! (NOTE: Our texts say 'R. Yehudah began with the honor of Torah.' This is unlike it said just before this, that all four Chachamim began with the honor of hosts! Also Anaf Yosef and Semichus Chachamim asked how this is considered honor of hosts. Perhaps their texts said here '[R. Yehudah... began with the honor of] hosts.' 'Torah' was mistakenly copied from below. - PF)

Anaf Yosef: Also R. Yitzchak's Drashah about "... Panim El Panim..." pertains to honor of hosts. Moshe should return to the camp, lest Yisrael need to come to him to learn. Also Talmidim came to Yavneh, lest Chachmei Yavneh need to go to them to teach them! This is the honor of the hosts (Chachmei Yavneh)!

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim: Chachamim go from city to city, and say that they came to learn from the local Chacham. Really, they came to teach! Saying that they came to learn is honor of the local Chacham.

What is the source to expound 'just like I was Masbir Panim to you...'?

Rashi: It says "Panim El Panim."

Maharsha: This cannot be literal, for "u'Fanai Lo Yera'u"! Rather, we will be Nasbir Panim in Halachah.

Etz Yosef: i.e. Panim El Panim refers to the Dibur (NOTE: i.e. Moshe will converse with Hash-m, unlike other Nevi'im, who usually received Nevu'os and did not have a dialogue with Hash-m. - PF) 'I saw R. Meir from the back. Had I seen him from the front [I would be even sharper] - "v'Hayu Einecha Ro'os Es Morecha"' (Eruvin 13b). When the Talmid and Rebbi are Panim El Panim, there is greater understanding.

What is Hasbaras Panim in Halachah?

Etz Yosef #1: It is making Halachos sweet to them (giving reasons).

Etz Yosef #2: It is not getting angry when teaching them. This is why it is brought next to the teaching about returning his Ohel to Machaneh Yisrael.

Ben Yehoyada: Hash-m allowed Moshe to say Chidushim in Torah and merit to reach the Emes by himself. He told Moshe to do similarly. If the Rebbi smiles at the Talmid, he is encouraged to say Chidushim; this opens him in Torah.

Why would Yisrael say that both the Rebbi and Talmid are angry at them?

Rashi: Hash-m was angry about Chet ha'Egel, and Moshe distanced his tent from them.

How does this explain "v'Shav El ha'Machaneh"?

Rashi (Shemos 33:11): After Hash-m spoke will Moshe Panim El Panim, Moshe returned to Machaneh Yisrael and taught the Zekenim what he learned from Hash-m.

Etz Yosef: According to this, "u'Mesharso Yehoshua... Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel" has no connection to what came before! This is why Shemos Rabah (45:2) expounded differently. "Panim El Panim" - [it is not proper that] both of us are angry. Be pleasant to Yisrael, and return to the Machaneh. If not, "u'Mesharso Yehoshua... Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel" - Yehoshua will serve in place of you, and not leave the tent.

What is the significance of Hash-m's suggestion about Yehoshua?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Over Orach (114): Was this harsh in Moshe's eyes? He said "if only all of Yisrael would be Nevi'im" (NOTE: even after hearing that they prophesized that Moshe will die, and Yehoshua will lead Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael - PF)! When Torah was given via Moshe, it was complete and did not lack anything. Moshe knew everything that every Chacham will be Mechadesh. Had he lived more, there would have been more [Torah], but only via him. It cannot come via Yehoshua.

What is the source that "Haskes u'Shema..." was said at the end of the 40 years?

Maharsha: All of Sefer Devarim was said in the 40th year.

If one omits Shema one evening, why is it as if he never said it?

Maharsha: He did not fulfill "v'Hayu ha'Devarim ha'Eleh...," to consider Divrei Torah as if they were just given now.

Megadim Chadashim: Seforim ha'Kedoshim say that every day there is an influence of new Divrei Torah that pertain to that day.

Is it the honor of Torah that those who learn it, every day it is as dear to them as the day it was given? This is an obligation upon people! And what is the connection to one who did not recite Shema one evening?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Yehudah came to appease Chachamim who were Batel from Torah during the decree. Now they came to learn in Yavneh. He taught that their learning is as dear to Hash-m as the day of Matan Torah. If one omitted Shma one evening without Ones, it is as if he never recited it. When he returns to read it, it is like a new acceptance of Torah.

Why do we expound "Haskes" - Asu Kitos?

Rashi: Haskes is like "Asu Kitos" (make groups to learn together),

Iyun Yakov: Torah is acquired in a Chaburah (group) - 'Aseh Lecha Chaver' (Avos 1:6).

Etz Yosef: New laws are acquired only amidst analysis amidst a group. Then, it is called as if he received it that day.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Binyan Shlomo: In Ta'anis 7 we learn from "ha'Lo Cho Devarai ka'Esh" - just like a lone log does not burn, so Divrei Torah do not last with an individual. In Makos (10a), Rav Ashi expounds "u'Mi Ohev be'Hamon Lo Sevu'ah" - whoever loves learning with many, he will have grain (Torah). Why are three verses needed? One verse has many meanings, but one law is not learned from more than one verse (Sanhedrin 34a)! (NOTE: Perhaps that applies only to verses of Chumash! - PF) There are three parts of Torah. (a) One must know the laws simply, and be expert in them. This is called Gemara. (b) To understand the reasons for those who forbid and for those who permit. First one should learn [the text], and afterwards reason (Shabbos 63). So R. Meir learned Gemara from R. Yishmael, and afterwards reasoning from R. Akiva. (c) Giving rulings for Yisrael. All three of these must be amidst a group. Also for ruling, Chachamim said, do not judge alone. Rav Huna and Rav Ashi would gather others when they needed to give a ruling. "U'Mi Ohev be'Hamon..." teaches about one's initial learning, to be expert in what he learns. "Haskes u'Shema" applies to reasoning, like Rava said, first one should learn (the text), and afterwards, delve deeper into it. "Ha'Lo Cho Devarai ka'Esh" applies to a Chacham appointed over the Tzibur. For difficult matters, he must consult with other Chachamim.

Why should a sword come upon those who learn Bad b'Vad?

Iyun Yakov: The sword and Sefer were given together - one who does not properly engage in the Sefer is judged with the sword.

Etz Yosef: The sword of Esav will come upon him.

Megadim Chadashim: Divrei Mordechai (ha'Aris p.5) brings from several Seforim that nowadays that we learn from Seforim, there is no concern for learning alone. Salmas Chaim (2:67) brings from Aliyos Eliyahu that in his youth, the Gra learned alone. Surely he clarified the Halachah, and did not find colleagues to learn from. We find that Abaye cleared out animals from where he learned, lest he be secluded with them (Kidushin 81b). This shows that he learned alone! The Ya'avetz (introduction to his Sidur) said that there is no concern in Eretz Yisrael, for the air of Eretz Yisrael makes wise. This is why Bnei Eretz Yisrael sent to Bavel 'be careful to learn in a group' (Nedarim 81a)!

Why do they become foolish and sin?

Iyun Yakov: One sins only if a spirit of folly enters him. Since he does not learn Torah properly, it does not protect him or save at all.

Anaf Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim: It is not Vadai that they will be punished via the sword, or become foolish and sin. Rather, it is possible. "Ha'Kol Kol Yakov veha'Yadayim Yedei Esav" - when the voice of Yakov [in Torah and Tefilah] is heard, Esav's hands do not rule over him. "Ha'Kol Kol" hint that at least two (should learn together). Alternatively, if he learns alone, there is no need for a Kol (voice)! Even though one should say the words, Kol implies loudly; this is needed only if he learns with another. Similarly, if he learns alone, he could become foolish and could sin.

Etz Yosef: When one learns properly, Torah is "Machkimas Pesi." One who learns improperly becomes foolish. Anyone who brings merit to the Rabim, he does not come to sin, lest he be in Gehinom and his Talmidim in Gan Eden. This does not apply to one who learns alone; he could sin.

What is the meaning of 'Kisesu yourselves over Divrei Torah'?

Rashi: Pain yourselves for Divrei Torah.

How does "Zos ha'Torah..." teach that Divrei Torah endure only in one who kills himself for Torah?

Maharsha: It did not say "Zos ha'Torah" above, regarding touching a Mes, only regarding Ohel, to expound that Torah is only in one who kills himself in the tent of Torah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sefas Emes (Chukas 5634) asks, it says "va'Chai Bahem"! He answers, the person must be prepared to be Moser Nefesh, but due to the verse, he is Moser Nefesh only for idolatry, Arayos or murder. Torah endures in him to the extent that it is primary to him and he is Batel to it. "Uva'Goyim Lo Yischashav" - what Yisrael consume in this world among the nations, this is not deducted from their Cheshbon (calculation of the reward due to them). It is because this world is not important to them; via this, they merit good life in this world without deduction! Hash-m influences on the world based on nature, to feed His creations, and via Yisrael's good deeds. The latter is not considered part of their reward. Resha'im destroy the world - all that they receive is from their reward.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Rav Vozner: Divrei Torah are not found in one who slackens from them, or who learns amidst indulgence, eating and drinking. Rather, they are in one who kills himself - he constantly pains his body and does not give sleep to his eyes. Why do we not merit the level of early Chachamim? The Chida answers, they had ashes of Parah Adumah, and could learn in total Kedushah and Taharah. This is why the Drashah of "Zos ha'Torah" was written regarding Parah Adumah. Temei'im may learn, but they cannot reach the highest levels - "Imros Hash-m Imros Tehoros." Also toil in Torah is required - "Ki Yamus b'Ohel." Yakov is called "Yoshev Ohalim" - he recognized that this world is haphazard, like an Ohel. Therefore he engages only in Torah, and not in worldly matters.

What is the meaning of Has, and then Kases?

Rashi: 'Has' is to be silent, like "va'Yahas Kalev." First hear the teaching until it is fluent in your mouth, even if you do not understand it, and afterwards "Kases" - challenge it and resolve it, until you are settled (understand it).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Do not say that you will return home now. Rather, first learn [here, amidst the Chachamim who gathered in Yavneh], and afterwards you can delve into it when you return home.

What is the meaning of 'he vomits out the milk that he nursed, for it'?

Maharsha: He abandons childish pleasures for its sake - "ha'Yaldus veha'Shacharus Havel." Cream of Torah is ruling, just like cream is the choicest part of milk.

When his Rebbi gets angry at him, why does he merit distinguishing between Tahor blood and Tamei blood?

Iyun Yakov: He is embarrassed, and blushes; the blood leaves his face, and it whitens. Correspondingly, he understands laws of blood.

Why do we bring R. Yishmael's teaching, that monetary laws are the greatest field in Torah?

Maharsha: This explains why silence when his Rebbi gets angry at him once suffices to merit distinguishing between Tahor blood and Tamei blood, but he must be silent twice to merit distinguishing between monetary and capital laws. (Etz Yosef - more patience is required for them.)

What is 'Menavel himself for the sake of Torah'?

Rashi: He asks about everything he is unsure about, even though some of his colleagues mock him for this.

Why does it say 'if he muzzled himself, his hand will be to his mouth'?

Rashi: If he did not ask, when they ask him, he will be unable to answer.

When did Yisro draw Moshe close?

Rashi: When he came to the encampment of Yisrael in the desert - "va'Yavo Aharon v'Chol Ziknei Yisrael Le'echol Lechem Im Chosen Moshe."

Maharsha: 'Yisro drew Moshe close' implies unlike this. There, it seems that Yisro was the guest - he ate in front of Moshe, like Rashi explained in Chumash!

Etz Yosef: "Va'Yavo Aharon v'Chol Ziknei Yisrael..." implies that they went elsewhere, i.e. to Yisro's tent. Even though the verse implies that he drew everyone close, his intent was for Moshe - he returned Moshe's wife and children after Moshe sent her. He told Moshe "Ani Chosencha Yisro Ba Elecha" - he came only due to Moshe. It was his honor to be his father-in-law - Moshe was king, Ish ha'Elokim and world famous via the Makos. Even though the verse "va'Yavo Aharon..." does not mention Moshe, Rashi on Chumash explained that Moshe served. This is because one must honor his father-in-law.

Megadim Chadashim: Teshu'os Chen (Shemos) and Toras Shimshon (va'Yelech) cite a Midrash that Moshe never ate after being on Har Sinai. (NOTE: The chest of Eil ha'Milu'im was Moshe's portion (Shemos 29:26) - surely he ate it! "On the mountain... I did not eat bread and I did not drink water" (Devarim 9:9) implies that he ate afterwards! Perhaps he ate only for Mitzvos, or manna. - PF) The Ba'al Shem Tov says that he never ate physical eating of this world. Iyun Yakov (Sotah 14a) - he ate in this world only to follow the local etiquette. Beis Kelm (Tefilah, Musar, Shabbos, Mo'adim, p.268) - Moshe totally purified his body. All his eating and bodily activities were l'Shem Shamayim. Even so, since he still had a connection to a body, Oneg Shabbos applied to him. Michtav me'Eliyahu (2, p.116) says similarly, that [Shavu'os must be at least partially] "Lachem" applied to him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Mendel Barfeld: Vayikra Rabah (34:8) and Shir ha'Shirim Rabah on "Samechuni ba'Ashishos" say that here refers to when Moshe came to Midyan. Rashi did not explain so here, for that was not for Yisro's own honor. How does the Midrash explain "v'Atah Asisa Chesed Im Kol Bnei Yisrael b'Alosam mi'Mitzrayim"?

Maharsha: When Moshe fled to Midyan, Yisro told his daughters to call him to eat bread, and he drew him close and gave his daughter to him. This was Chesed to Yisrael, to do Chesed to their savior, to draw him to his house to save him from Pharaoh's sword. (NOTE: Even though Moshe was appointed to save Yisrael only later, it turns out that Yisro did Chesed with their savior. - PF)

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: 'Yisro drew Moshe close for his own honor' implies like Rashi. He did not call Moshe to his house for his own honor! (NOTE: Maharsha can explain like Rashi (Shemos 2:16, 20), that he hoped that Moshe would marry one of his daughters. [This was his own honor, for] he heard that the water rose for Moshe. Also, Yisro was in Niduy for ceasing to serve idolatry [so others did not want to marry his daughters. - PF]) It should have said for his benefit (to graze his flock)! Rather, in the Midbar, Moshe was esteemed; it honored Yisro that Moshe came to his meal. Mayan ha'Berachos supports Rashi, for in the Midbar, Yisro did Chesed with all of Yisrael. Maharsha must say that Moshe is considered like all of Yisrael.

Why do we cite "Lo Sesa'ev Adomi Ki Achicha Hu"? We teach only about Egypt!

Iyun Yakov: One might have thought that only Pharaoh needed Yisrael for his benefit, but the other Egyptians drew Yisrael close to benefit them [and this is why one may not despise them]. Adomi refutes this. Even though only Esav is our brother (Goyim do not have lineage), since he is the head, the entire nation is drawn after him. Also here, all of Egypt is drawn after Pharaoh; we may not despise them, even though he drew us close for his own benefit.

What is the source to say that his wife and daughters-in-law gave birth to six at once?

Maharsha: The Navi already listed his eight sons; it implies that he was blessed above this. We find that in Egypt, women gave birth to six at once. If so happened here, in all he had 62 children and grandchildren.