Rashi: People think that I am a Chasid. People will think that Hash-m was not justified in doing this to me.

What forced Rav to expound that David intended to serve idolatry? Perhaps he wanted to see Mekom ha'Mikdash and bow to Hash-m!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If so, Chushai would not have torn his clothes just because David needs to flee, if not for his intent to serve idolatry.

Iyun Yakov: Chushai had earth on his head. i.e. he mourned that David intended to bow to the Rosh, i.e. idolatry.

Why would it be better for David to serve idolatry?

Rashi: Only he will be Mechalel Hash-m; the entire nation will not.

Ramah: He will only pretend to serve idolatry, and no one will question Hash-m's ways.

Maharal: He would bow to idolatry, but his heart would be to Hash-m, to avoid Chilul Hash-m. Chushai said that even so, there will be Chilul Hash-m

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why did David choose idolatry? If he would do any severe sin, this would evade Chilul Hash-m! Rather, he would bow with intent for Hash-m, and only appear to transgress.

Etz Yosef: David agreed that it would be Chilul Hash-m to appear to serve idolatry, just will evade a bigger Chilul Hash-m if he appears to be a Chasid, and his son kills him. Also, it will seem that there is no choice; everything is from Hash-m's decree - Hash-m said "Hineni Mekim Alecha Ra'ah."

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shelal David (Ki Setzei): David knew the place of the Mikdash, but it was not known to the Rabim. From the top of Har ha'Zeisim one can see the place (Midos 2:4 - the Kohen who burns Parah Adumah did so). Normally, we assume that there is idolatry on top of tall mountains. If Kedushah (e.g. of the Mikdash) preceded it, we are not concerned. David used to go there covertly to bow, lest people suspect him. Now he went openly, so they would suspect him.

Maharsha: He meant that he wanted to flee from his son to Chutz la'Aretz, which is like serving idolatry, like David said when he fled Sha'ul - "Gereshuni ha'Yom me'HIstape'ach b'Nachalas Hash-m [Leimor Lech Avod Elohim Acherim]" (Kesuvos 110b).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Malbim (Eretz Chemdah Vayikra, Ahavas Hash-m): A Mashal for this is a cruel king who would kill a servant for a minor error. Once, the wine steward accidentally spilled a little on the table. He saw that the king was angry; he intentionally spilled the entire cup on the table. They asked why he intentionally added to his sin. He said, I knew that you will not pardon me. I did not want people to say that you killed for a small matter and did not have mercy. Amidst my love for the king, I increased my offense to spare him from this shame. The king was pleased, and elevated him above the other officers. The Vilna Gaon and Pardes Yosef (va'Yeshev 71) explain 'Iyov wanted to turn the bowl on its mouth' (Bava Basra 16a) like this.

Why did Chushai say 'a king like you...'?

Maharsha: Even though David fled to Chutz la'Aretz before, now that he is king, it is improper for a king like you... (NOTE: The Gemara says that Chushai dissuaded David. David fled from Avshalom to Chutz la'Aretz, and returned only after Avshalom died! - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 17: Chushai told him, a king like you - you are established to be Kosher, many will stray if you appear to serve idolatry.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shelal David (Ki Setzei): You asked Hash-m to test you, and you could have overcome even Arayos (just you wanted to fulfill His words), which man desires (Chagigah 11b). All the more so you can overcome idolatry, which man does not desire so much!

What is the relevance of the Drashah that one who marries a Yefas To'ar will have a Ben Sorer u'Moreh?

Rashi: People will not question Hash-m's ways. Avshalom was the son of Ma'achah Bas Talmi Melech Geshur. Surely David married her b'Heter (Eshes Yefas To'ar), for he sinned "Rak bi'Dvar Uriyah ha'Chiti."

Maharal: All know that we expound Semuchim, so there will be no Chilul Hash-m.

How was David like a Kusi merchant?

Rashi (according to Rashash's text): He lowers the price of his merchandise bit by bit, until it is cheap. (So David diminished liability for his sin.)

Maharsha: Midrashim say that he was like a poor Kusi begging at the door.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Midrash Shochar Tov says, the Kusi requests water (which is Hefker), and then an onion (lest drinking plain water harm him), and then says that an onion without bread is futile. So Tzadikim know how to appease Hash-m.

Etz Yosef: Perhaps Socher it is an expression of Sechor (go away, i.e. he goes to doorways to beg).

What levels of pardon did David request?

Rashi: "Shegi'os Mi Yavin" - who can avoid sinning b'Shogeg? Pardon me for this! Hash-m agreed. "Mi'Nistaros Nakeni" - cleanse me from intentional sins in private! Hash-m agreed. "Gam mi'Zedim..." - pardon intentional sins in public. Hash-m agreed. "Al Yimshelu Vi" - Chachamim should not expound my sin. Hash-m agreed. "V'Nikeisi mi'Pesha Rav" - my sin should not be written in Tanach. Hash-m could not agree to that.

Maharsha: The verses do not say that Hash-m pardoned, but since David requested greater matters, we infer that Hash-m agreed to pardon the smaller matters. Even though Nistaros are not Shogeg, since they were not known, there is no Chilul Hash-m in them. "Gam mi'Zedim Chasoch Avdecha" - Mezid sins that were known. Withhold them from Avdecha (Rabanan), that they will not discuss them.

Ramah: "Gam mi'Zedim..." - Chachamim should not say that I have no share in the world to come.

Maharal: After David arranged the attribute of Torah, that he was careful about its Mitzvos, he asked Hash-m to pardon Shegagos. After, he asked about Nistaros - he thought that it is permitted, but it is not. This is not Shogeg. He should have learned! He asked that Chachamim not discuss his sin. They discuss one who sinned b'Mezid, and say that he has ill repute. He said "Avdecha", for since I am Your servant, it is not honor for the Master if people speak evil about His servant! He said "Az Eisam" - great sins - they are normally written [in Tanach].

Why does it discuss the Yud removed from Sarai?

Maharsha: Shem Yud-Kei joins Ish and Ishah, if they merit. If not, the letters Yud-Kei depart, and Esh and Esh remain (Sotah 17a). Hash-m took the letter Yud, which is the letter of His name in Ish, from Sarai, and gave to her a Hei (changed her name to Sarah). She did not merit a son as long as Yud was in her name. The Yud screamed until it was put in a man - Yehoshua. Since it stopped Sarah from having a son, Yehoshua did not merit a son, even though the Yud helped him to [be saved from the Meraglim's counsel, via Moshe's Berachah, and] enter Eretz Yisrael. All the more so, the Parshah of David's sin, which discusses the Isur of Eshes Ish and the joining of the letters Yud Kei, it cannot be omitted!

What is the significance of 'your son Shlomo will write "ha'Yachteh Ish Esh...; ha'Ba El Eshes Re'ehu Lo Yinakeh"?

Maharal: One who talks excessively with his wife, he descends to Gehinom, and all the more so with another's wife (Avos 1:5). The entire matter of a woman is Gehinom. Even one who follows his wife's counsel falls to Gehinom (Bava Metzi'a 59a)! Surely he is a Ba'al Gehinom, and the fire of Gehinom burns him!

Maharsha: Often a sinner has merits that protect him, or his fathers' merits protect him. This sin is so big that these will not help. It separated Yud-Kei from them, and Esh remains. It is as if you stoke the Esh of Ishah in his bosom - will garments, i.e. good deeds [protect] - "b'Chol Es Yihyu Vegadecha Levenim", "Lo Sisarafnah"?! Surely the fire will burn his deeds; they will not protect him. "If a man will walk on coals (the fire of Ish), will his feet not be scalded?" Merit of his fathers - the foundation and leg of man, like it says about Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov, a chair of three legs - will not help him. David asked, will nothing help - will I bear the sin forever?

Why does it say 'Shlomo will write with his Chochmah'? He wrote Mishlei with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 23: Be'er Sheva and Maharatz Chayos (Berachos 4a) left this difficult. Rashi (Bava Basra 14b) says that Mishlei and Koheles are Sifrei Chochmah. Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:7 says that Ru'ach ha'Kodesh rested on Shlomo and he composed three Seforim, and all knew his Chochmah. His Chochmah was not normal; it was a special gift from Hash-m.

How do we learn from "Techat'eni v'Ezov v'Etaher"?

Rashi: David needed Ezov to be Metaher him, for he was a Metzora.

Maharsha: Did David need Tzara'as to atone for his sin with Bas Sheva? Nasan ha'Navi already told him "Hash-m He'evir Chatasecha Lo Samus", but he will pay via [death or affliction of] four of his children - Bas Sheva's baby, Amnon, Tamar and Avshalom! It was totally pardoned only after David's body was afflicted. "V'Nikeisi mi'Pesha Rav" - I will be totally clean from the sin. Alternatively, we learn that he was a Metzora from the Seifa "umi'Sheleg Albin" - snow is one of the appearances of Tzara'as.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11: In the verse "va'Yomer David El Nasan Chatasi la'Shem va'Yomer Nasan... Lo Samus", there is a Pesik between "la'Shem" and "va'Yomer". Normally, even for Shogeg, one confesses Chatasi Avisi Pashati. Minchas Chinuch (364) asked, why does he say Avisi Pashati if he sinned only b'Shogeg? I answer that also Shogeg comes due to a previous Mezid sin. David was an exception; Hash-m forced him. Therefore, Nasan interrupted him after Chatasi, before he continues Avisi Pashati. They say like this in the name of the Vilna Gaon.

What was the consequence of becoming a Metzora?

Maharal: His body was stricken and also his Nefesh - Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, which dwells on man from above, departed from him. The Sanhedrin, the eyes of the congregation, separated from him. It is as if Klal Yisrael separated from him. This is a third matter - disgrace of his intellect, which is proper for honor. All parts of him were judged. He was in Niduy (excommunication) from above and below.

Maharsha: Afflictions for Tzadikim in this world for their minority of sins is in place of judgment of Resha'im in Gehinom. One who has Bi'ah with an Eshes Ish descends to Gehinom for 12 months (Bava Metzi'a 28b). Accept on yourself afflictions - you will suffer only half. (NOTE: Above, Maharsha brought that anyone who went to war in Beis David divorced his wife (Shabbos 56a). David did not transgress Eshes Ish! Perhaps since the divorce was not known, there was Chilul Hash-m as if he transgressed Eshes Ish, and he needed to be punished for this. - PF) Tzara'as come for Arayos (Erchin 16a). The Shechinah departed from him, for it dwells only amidst Simchah, and David was worried and afflicted. Therefore he prayed "Hashivah Li Seson Yish'echa", and via Simchah, "v'Ru'ach Nedivah Sismecheni." He calls it Nedivah - even if I am not worthy of it. The Sanhedrin separated from him, for a Metzora calls "Tamei Tamei" (others must distance from him). He could not join to 10 for a Davar shebi'Kdushah, or learn with a colleague; he needed to learn alone. He prayed "Yashuvu Li Yera'echa" - I should be able to pray with others. Tefilah is called Yir'ah - "Yira'ucha Im Shemesh." Also "v'Yode'ei Edosecha" will return to me - I will be able to learn with them.

Iyun Yakov: Tzara'as is like a Mizbe'ach of Kaparah (Berachos 5b). The six months of his Tzara'as are not counted towards his kingship, for a Metzora is like a Mes - "Al Na Sehi ka'Mes." The Shechinah departed from him, for he must leave Machaneh Shechinah. Then he ceased to reach the correct Halachah ("Hash-m Imo" did not apply), so the Sanhedrin separated from him. (NOTE: Any Tamei person must leave Machaneh Shechinah! In any case the Sanhedrin had to separate from him, for a Metzora must dwell alone, outside the city! - PF)

We infer that one verse omits six months from David's reign in Chevron, for he was a Metzora for six months, to atone for the episode of Bas Sheva. That episode was later, when David reigned in Yerushalayim! (It was shortly before Shlomo was conceived. He was born 12 years before David died. David's last 33 years were in Yerushalayim!)

Margoliyos ha'Yam citing Tosfos Yeshanim (Yoma 22b): Surely, the Tzara'as was when he was in Yerushalayim. The verse preferred to deduct six months from his reign in Chevron. The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah 1:1) says that for honor of Yerushalayim, it says that he ruled there 33 years, even though six months do not count.

Why did David request an Os?

Maharsha: An Os can be for good or for bad. Hash-m told an angel to write the letter 'Tav' on people's foreheads - this can be for good (Tichyeh, you will live), or for bad (Tamus). David's enemies wanted him to die; David requested that the Os be for good.

What is the significance of informing the pardon in the days of Shlomo?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Chilul Hash-m is until after death - "Im Yechupar ha'Avon ha'Zeh Lachem Ad Temusun." Therefore, Hash-m will inform only after David's death, when it is pardoned. However, David said 'pardon me', and Hash-m consented! For some reason, Hash-m will inform Yisrael only after David's death. The Pesikta says the Shechinah did not rest in Shlomo's Bayis for 12 months. People said, how will Hash-m dwell in a Bayis built by Bas Sheva's son? People thought that Hash-m pardoned David, but her sin remains. (NOTE: It says in Shabbos (56a) that she was divorced! Also, enticement of a minor is considered Ones! If she was an adult at the time (unlike the Gemara says - and if so, her grandfather Achitofel was at most 14 years older than her), and liable for consenting to David, she would have been forbidden to David! - PF) People saw that the Aron entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim only in the merit of David, so they ceased to say also that Bas Sheva's sin is delaying the Shechinah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2 citing Shemos Rabah 8:1: Shlomo's Aron was 10 Amos [tall], the height of the opening to Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. It could not fit through its exact measure, especially because people carried it on poles! He prayed, and brought the Aron of David and said "... Al Tashev Pnei Meshichecha." At that time, David was revived.

What is the source that Shlomo said 24 Renanos to Hash-m?

Rashi: In his Tefilah, 24 times we find an expression of Tefilah, Techinah or Rinah.

First it says that Shlomo brought the Aron to its place, and the cloud dwelled, and then Shlomo's Berachos and supplications, and at the end "Kumah Hash-m... Al Tashev Pnei Meshichecha Zochrah l'Chasdei David Avdecha"!

Anaf Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: First the verses tell what happened - they entered the Aron to its place, and via this the Shechinah dwelled. Afterwards, Shlomo blessed Yisrael. After, it details how each matter happened - the Aron entered via Shlomo's many Tefilos, and mentioning David's merit.

What was the question 'where did Elisha go'?

Maharsha: It says "va'Yavo Elisha Dameshek", without saying that he went there. This implies that he did not go for the sake of appointing Chaza'el, which it says explicitly. Rather, he went for a different reason, and Chaza'el came to him. Since the reason why he went (to make Gechazi repent) is omitted, also the going is omitted.

If one sins and makes others sin, why does Hash-m not allow him to repent?

Maharsha: Rashi on the Mishnah explained, it is improper that the Talmidim be in Gehinom, and the one who caused them to sin is in Gan Eden.

Iyun Yakov: Even though Elisha taught that Hash-m not allow him to repent, he went to get Gechazi to repent, for he caused [Gechazi to make others sin] by rejecting him with both hands. (NOTE: The one who says that Gechazi dispelled people from learning from Elisha, this was before Elisha rejected him! - PF) Also, he learned from Yaravam - Hash-m grabbed him to get him to repent (102a)!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5, citing the Me'iri: If he repented, there is no wall that blocks Teshuvah. However, in this world, sometimes Teshuvah does not totally nullify the punishment.

How did suspending Yarav'am's idols in mid-air via magnets cause people to sin?

Maharal: It made people think that they are gods, and have power. The second opinion holds that this does not show divinity; rather, he carved Hash-m's name on its mouth, and it said "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha..." The last opinion holds that expelling Rabanan from learning from Elisha is a great sin for which Teshuvah does not help. Since he distanced them from Torah, he was distanced from Teshuvah. The first opinion holds that he sinned with a physical body. The second holds that he gave the power of speech, as if he put a Nefesh in it - a greater sin. The last opinion holds that he sinned with Sechel, regarding Torah, which is intellectual.

What is the significance of saying "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha..."?

Maharsha: This is like the Egel in the Midbar, about which they said "Eleh Elohecha..."

What do we learn from "ha'Makom... Tzar Mimenu"?

Rashi: Until now [before Gechazi left], the Talmidim were not crowded (there were less Talmidim, and there was enough room).

What is the meaning of "Ho'el Kach"?

Rashi: Swear that Elisha sent you [and take my gift].

Maharsha: Elisha cursed him with Tzara'as, for Tzara'as comes for Shevu'as Sheker (Erchin 16a).

Margoliyos ha'Yam (13 citing Birkas Moshe): For Shevu'as Sheker, he and his family are punished, and it is immediate. Therefore, Elisha cursed him and his sons immediately.

What is the meaning of "va'Yifratz Bo"?

Rashi: Gechazi insisted [that Na'aman give a gift].

Metzudas David, Metzudas Tziyon (Melachim II, 5:23): Va'Yifratz is like va'Yiftzar (he insisted). (Gechazi said that Elisha requested one Kikar of Kesef, and Na'aman wanted to give two.) Gechazi initially refused, lest Na'aman sense that Elisha did not send him. Na'aman insisted that he take two.

What is the significance of immersing seven times in the Yarden?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 12 citing Toras Chayim: It is because Nega'im come for seven reasons (Erchin 16a). Or, Na'aman transgressed the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach, and needed to purify himself from these Aveiros.

Why did Na'aman think that Elisha was mocking him, and how did people convince him to follow Elisha's words?

Maharsha: Tzadikim request a miracle only close to nature; therefore, Elisha told him to immerse in the Yarden. Na'aman thought that it is a totally natural cure, and objected that there are better rivers in his land. Others convinced him that bathing in the Yarden is miraculous - via Elisha''s Tefilah.

Why did Elisha refuse to take money for healing him?

Maharsha: The cure was miraculous - one may not take wages for this. He said "Chai Hash-m Asher Amadti Lefanav" - Amidah refers to Tefilah. Gechazi went to take wages, as if it was natural. Therefore, Elisha cursed him with Na'aman's Tzara'as permanently, to show that it is not natural (Tevilah in the Yarden will not cure it).

Where do we find that Elisha repelled Gechazi with both hands? We do not find that Gechazi came to Elisha, and he did not accept him!

Anaf Yosef: There is no greater rejection than cursing him with Tzara'as, which forces him to separate from people. Had he cursed him with something else, Gechazi would not have left him, and he would have repented.

What is the source that Tzara'as was on Gechazi's head before Elisha cursed him?

Maharsha: After, he left "Metzora k'Sheleg." This implies that before, he had Tzara'as, but not like Sheleg.

How does 'the time has come for you to receive your reward for learning about the eight Sheratzim' answer the question?

Rashi: The verse lists eight matters that Gechazi intended to buy. Elisha said, did you think that this will be your reward for learning about the eight Sheratzim?

Maharsha: "Lakachas" is repeated, to hint that he intended to buy the additional six matters (that Na'aman did not give to him) with the money. It mentions Sheratzim, for even k'Adashah (the size of a lentil) of them is Metamei - so the Tum'ah of Gechazi and his sons will be great.

What is the source that the Metzora'im were Gechazi and his three sons?

Malbim (Melachim II, 7:3): Elisha healed Na'aman's Tzara'as, and all the more so others' Tzara'as! (NOTE: What is the Kal v'Chomer? Elisha cured Na'aman so he will know "Ki Yesh Navi b'Yisrael", and to be Mekadesh Shem Shamayim (Malbim ibid. 5:16). Hash-m sends Tzara'as on a Jew so he will repent; then, it goes away. Why should Elisha get involved? Granted, if they received "Tzara'as Na'aman", e.g. leprosy, and not Torah Tzara'as, it is reasonable to ask a Navi to cure it. However, Malbim (ibid. 7:3) explains that it was Torah Tzara'as! This requires investigation. - PF) The captive who told Na'aman about Elisha implied that he used to heal. However, the Tzara'as of Gechazi and his sons was "l'Olam" - it could not be healed.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15 citing Ramas Shmuel #1: They said "Mah Anachnu Yoshevim Po Ad Masnu" - how did they know that they will die? Perhaps they will be healed, and live! Rather, they were Gechazi and his sons. (NOTE: Alshich (Melachim II, 7:4) says that they had only a little time to live, i.e. soon they will starve. A cure would not change this! They said "Navo ha'Ir veha'Ra'av ba'Ir va'Masnu Sham" - i.e. even if we could go to the city, it will not help, for they have no food for us. - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15 citing Ramas Shmuel #2, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Eil ha'Milu'im: They spoke with each other. "Badad Yeshev" - he may not dwell with another Tamei (Zevachim 117a). This is Midah k'Neged Midah, for he separated others via Leshon ha'Ra. This did not apply to Gechazi and his sons; their Tzara'as was not due to Leshon ha'Ra.

Why were Gechazi and his three sons "Pesach ha'Sha'ar", and not inside the city?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15 citing Yalkut ha'Gershoni: It was not due to Tum'ah. Shomron was not a walled city from the days of Yehoshua - Omri built it! Rather, the residents expelled them, lest Gechazi's Tzara'as infect them. (NOTE: They said "Navo ha'Ir veha'Ra'av ba'Ir va'Masnu Sham." Granted, if they were outside due to Halachah, Piku'ach Nefesh could permit entering, just since there is no food, it will not help. If they were outside due to being contagious, why would the city let them in? And why would they think that Aram will want to sustain contagious lepers? - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 15 citing Tosfos R. Akiva Eiger (Kelim 1:7): Due to this question, Targum Yonason (Melachim I, 16:24) explains that Omri bought it; it already was a walled city from the days of Yehoshua, so a Metzora may not enter it.

Why should one always repel the Yetzer with the left hand, and draw close with the right?

Rashi: If one totally distances desire, this would diminish Yishuv (settlement of) ha'Olam. If one totally brings it close, he will come to sin - he will not be able to conquer it.

Maharsha: The left always symbolizes Midas ha'Din, and the right is mercy. Elisha distanced Gechazi with both - he converted mercy to anger.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: In three matters, the Yetzer, a child and a wife, we are warned to repel with the left hand, and draw close with the right. 'Always' includes an adult man, like Gechazi.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: This is even in a case when they said to distance, e.g. Gechazi, who was Mechalel Hash-m via taking money and garments from Na'aman in the name of Elisha, who swore that he will not take. In order to show Na'aman that Gechazi took on his own, he cursed him that Na'aman's Tzara'as will cling to him forever, so all will know that Elisha did not transgress his Shevu'ah. Even so, the left should repel and the right draw close; he should have punished him with something lighter, to enable draw him close afterwards.

Iyun Yakov citing Tanchuma: I said that you will not have anything from him, and you went and took from him - you will take his blemish!

Why should one repel a child and wife with the left hand, and draw them close with the right?

Rashi: Their Da'as is light. If one rejects them, he will make them lose the world.

How does the verse teach that Elisha fell sick three times?

Rashi: (a) "Chalah" (b) "Es Chalyo" (c) "Asher Yamus Bo."

Here it says that until Avraham, there were no visible signs of old age. It says about Sedom "mi'Na'ar v'Ad Zaken", and about Lot "v'Avinu Zaken." It says about Avraham (before Yitzchak was born) "vA'doni Zaken", and "v'Avraham v'Sarah Zekenim"!

Etz Yosef citing Maharsha in Bava Metzi'a: Surely there was already old age in the world, just it was not recognized via white hair. It already said "vA'doni Zaken." It says later (after Yitzchak had a beard) "v'Avraham Zaken Ba ba'Yamim" to teach that then his old age was visible.

Why did Yakov pray for weakness?

Rashi: If one gets weak before death, there will be time for his children to come to be by him at the time of death.

Here it says that Elisha was the first to recover from weakness. Yalkut (243) says that Chizkiyah was the first! Also, Melech Aram asked if he will recover - this implies that [some] Cholim already recovered, for Elisha already recovered!

Anaf Yosef citing Kli Yakar: Elisha lived longer, but he did not fully recover. Chizkiyah was the first to fully recover. "Chalah Es Chalyo Asher Yamus Bo" teaches three illnesses, but they were like one (he died from the first illness, for it never totally cured).

Why will Dor ha'Mabul not be judged?

Ramah: They already received their punishment, i.e. the flood. Anshei Sedom sinned more; they received part of their punishment in this world, and will receive the rest in the world to come.

Maharal (108b): They received [a taste of] the world to come in this world, so nothing remained for them for the world to come. This does not apply to others punished in this world.

What is the meaning of 'neither Din nor Ru'ach'?

Rashi: They will not stand in judgment, and they have no Ru'ach to be with Tzadikim who have a share in the world to come.

Maharsha: Ru'ach is life in the world to come - "v'Es Ruchi Eten b'Kirbechem."

Ramah, Iyun Yakov: Their Ru'ach will not return to their bodies. Therefore, they cannot be judged. Antoninus said that the body and Neshamah can exempt themselves from judgment! Rebbi answered, Hash-m will put the Neshamah in the body and judge them together (91a-b). If the Neshamah will not return, it cannot be judged!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 20, citing Me'iri: They have no share in the world to come, i.e. their Nefesh will not remain. They will not stand in judgment in Techiyas ha'Mesim, which is later. So we say 'Ein Kamocha... b'Olam ha'Zeh, v'Ein Zulasecha Malkenu l'Chayei ha'Olam ha'Ba, Efes Biltecha Go'alenu li'Ymos ha'Mashi'ach, v'Ein Domeh... li'Schiyas ha'Mesim.' Our Mishnah holds that Techiyas ha'Mesim for Resha'im is in order to be judged, like we said that Hash-m will put the Neshamah in the body and judge them together (91b).

What is the source that "umi'Sham Hefitzam" is from the world to come?

Anaf Yosef citing Mizrachi: "Va'Yafetz Hash-m" is in this world, so "umi'Sham Hefitzam" must apply to the world to come.

Maharsha: We say in Rosh Hashanah (17a) that the body of Resha'im perishes, and the Neshamah is burned, and Ru'ach scatters [the ashes] under the feet of Tzadikim. Also here, Ru'ach scatters [the ashes of Dor ha'Flagah] on the entire land, where Tzadikim go.

How are they "Chata'im" in the world to come?

Maharsha #1: Chata'im means lacking, like "Ani u'Vni Shlomo Chata'im."

Maharsha #2: They will not merit the world to come, for there they will remain sinners. They stand in judgment to punish them for their sins also in the world to come, like we say 'to stand in the congregation of Resha'im', to be judged with them.

What is the significance of Dor ha'Mabul, Dor ha'Flagah and Anshei Sedom?

Maharal: Each had a particular sin. The primary sin of Dor ha'Mabul was physical lust, Zenus - "Ki Hishchis Kol Basar." They are not proper for the world to come, which is separated [from physicality]. Dor ha'Flagah's primary sin was intellectual - they wanted to make war with Hash-m. Intellect is a Migdal (tower), like I explained about 300 Halachos of an airborne Migdal (106b). Since they opposed Hash-m, they do not come to the world to come. Anshei Sedom's primary sin was in judgment - they deviated from proper Din. This pertains to the Nefesh. The world to come is not for them; it is for people who go straightly. Since they sinned in Din, they will be judged, like their Midah.

What is the source that "...ba'Magefah" refers to the world to come? Perhaps it explains "va'Yamusu", in this world!

Maharsha: If so, it should have said va'Yamusu ba'Magefah. Rather, ba'Magefah is at the end of the verse, to teach about death in the world to come.

Did all of Dor ha'Midbar lose the world to come? There were Tzadikim among them, e.g. Nachshon and the 70 Zekenim!

Margoliyos ha'Yam citing AMa"Tz: Even though it says about them "ba'Midbar ha'Zeh Yitamu", that is because the world is judged based on the majority (Kidushin 40b), or due to Arvus (mutual responsibility) - they did not protest (above, 43b), or because a Tzadik is punished for his Dor's sins (Bava Kama 60a). This is in this world; in the world to come, one who merits receives his share and his colleague's share (Chagigah 15a). Rashbam (Bava Basra 117a, citing Sifri) says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among the Tzadikim who left Egypt; the Resha'im and their children did not receive a share. We cannot say that all were Resha'im! Rather, R. Akiva refers only to the Meraglim and Mislonenim. Only they and Adas Korach did not receive a share in Eretz Yisrael. The Ramban (Bereishis 33:18) says that anyone who has a share in Eretz Yisrael, it is like a share in the world to come.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shach (Parshas Korach): R. Akiva refers to the Erev Rav. However, if so, why does it say (110b) that he abandoned his Chasidus (expounding favorably)? Perhaps he should have judged even the Erev Rav favorably.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Asarah Ma'amaros: He means that they have no need for the world to come, for they already saw the Shechinah at Keri'as Yam Suf.

A Beraisa (110b) expounds "ba'Midbar ha'Zeh Yitamu" in this world, "v'Sham Yamusu" in the world to come. If so, how do we learn from the verse that they will not stand in judgment? For Dor ha'Mabul and Anshei Sedom, we needed another verse to teach that they will not stand in judgment!

Maharsha: We can ask also, why does R. Akiva need a verse to teach that the Meraglim have no share in the world to come? Surely they are no better than the rest of Dor ha'Midbar! We can say that this is R. Akiva's source that Dor ha'Midbar will not stand in judgment. In this way they are better than the Meraglim.

Tiferes Yisrael (on the Mishnah): It is a leniency to stand in judgment, for it says about Anshei Sedom "v'Chata'im" in the world to come, but they will be judged! Perhaps the disgraceful death of the Meraglim atoned for them, therefore they will stand in judgment.

What is the source that "Isfu Li Chasidai..." refers to Dor ha'Midbar?

Maharsha: It says about them "Zacharti Lach Chesed Ne'urayich... Lechtech Acharai ba'Midbar..." Also "Koresei Vrisi Alei Zevach" refers to them, at Matan Torah - "Dam ha'Bris Asher Kares Hash-m Imachem."

Why does R. Akiva say 'Adas Korach will never rise'? In a Beraisa, he uses the usual expression 'they have no share in the world to come'!

Maharsha: Perhaps here it includes that they will not rise to be judged. "Va'Yovedu mi'Toch ha'Kahal" regarding the future judgment.

R. Bachyei (Bamidbar 16:33): It should have said va'Yovedu mi'Toch Yisrael. Rather, it says "mi'Toch ha'Kahal" to hint to "v'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi mi'Toch ha'Kahal." They were punished harshly in this world. Why did they lose also the world to come? They sinned greatly, so the body perished from this world, and the Nefesh from the world to come.

Chanah said "Hash-m Memis u'Mechayeh Morid She'ol va'Ya'al." Why did she discuss Adas Korach?

R. Bachyei (Bamidbar 16:33): Even though they have no share in the world to come, i.e. Olam ha'Neshamos right after death, they come to Techiyas ha'Mesim - "Hash-m Memis u'Mechayeh..."

Be'er Sheva: R. Eliezer expounded so. If so, R. Akiva argues and says that they lost also Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Maharsha: Chazal said that Korach saw a great line of lineage descending from him (Shmuel ha'Navi comes from him). This brought him to make his feud (NOTE: he thought. if I will have such great descendants, I cannot be a sinner! - PF) He did not know that his sons will repent, and Shmuel will come from them. Chanah said, You were gracious to me, a barren woman, and gave to me seven children. This caused Korach to err. Therefore, kill and revive. If you did not kill them, rather, they descended alive, raise them.