What is the source of the Isur to enter a Beis ha'Kisei with Tefilin?

Rav Elyashiv: We know this from reasoning. It is due to disgrace to Kisvei ha'Kodesh. It is a Torah Isur, and worse than destroying them! Acharonim discuss whether one should burn Seforim to avoid disgrace to them in such places. Perhaps we learn from the Isur to think about Torah in odorous places, about which it says "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah"!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Since it is due to the Shin, this implies that one may enter with the Tefilin Shel Yad. So Rashi and Tosfos hold. Ri of Orlins was unsure. Mishnah Berurah (25:47) brings from the Bach, Taz and Vilna Gaon that one who removed Tefilin to go to the privy, afterwards he must bless on them again, since he was obligated to remove them. It seems that he blesses also on the hand Tefilin! According to Rashi's text, we can say that he must remove also the hand Tefilin due to the Yud on the strap. (NOTE: What is difficult? Mishnah Berurah holds like Rema (26:2) and R. Tam, that if one has only head Tefilin, he makes both Berachos on it. Since he was obligated to remove the head Tefilin, his Berachos on it ceased. He is like one who talked in between the hand and head Tefilin; he makes two Berachos [on the head Tefilin - R. Tam Menachos 36a]. - PF)

What was the Havah Amina that one covering should help? We always require two coverings!

Rav Elyashiv: Since it is always covered, the usual laws of coverings do not apply.

What is the Shin, and what is its significance?

Rashi: It is from the external leather. One makes three folds in it, like the letter Shin from Hash-m's name 'Shakai', which is not covered.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though a tradition from Sinai obligates the boxes, and they have Kedushas Tefilin, only Kisvei ha'Kodesh may not be brought into a privy. Only head Tefilin may not be entered, because the Shin is like Kisvei ha'Kodesh, for it is part of Hash-m's name. Rashi (Berachos 23a) says that one who brings Tefilin into the privy must cover the straps, for the forms of the Dalet and Yud from Hash-m's name Shakai are in them. If not for them, the straps could be exposed!

What are the Dalet and Yud?

Rashi: They are in the knot of the straps. One strap points to the north, and one to the east - they form a Dalet. A tiny strap is suspended from [the hand Tefilin - Hagahah in Oz v'Hadar edition]. When the leather is moist, it is bent like a Yud, and it remains bent forever.

Tosfos: The text does not say [that a tradition from Sinai obligates] a Dalet and Yud. Above (28a), we say that only Tahor animals may be used for Shamayim's work, and we establish it to discuss Tefilin straps. We do not say that that a tradition from Sinai obligates a Dalet and Yud, like we asked about the Shin!

Rav Elyashiv: According to Rashi, also the Dalet and Yud may not be brought into a privy; Tosfos disagrees. They are not absolute Kisvei ha'Kodesh, therefore one may untie the knot; it is not considered erasing Kisvei ha'Kodesh. Rashi holds that the Dalet and Yud are not totally like Kisvei ha'Kodesh, for they are a mere shape of a knot. Therefore "Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha" does not apply to them, so we did not ask above (28a).

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilin 3:1) mentions the Shin and Dalet, but not the Yud. The Ohr Somayach explains, he had Tosfos' text; he learns the Dalet from the Midrash that Hash-m showed to Moshe Kesher Tefilin. I do not understand the significance of two letters of His name (since the complete name is not in Tefilin).

What is Plaiton, and how does "Reishis Shemanim" hint to it?

Rashi: It is the choicest oil - balsam.

Maharsha: Reishis is first - the first oil to come out of the olives. Via crushing. It has no dregs, like Rashi explained (Shemos 27:2). When it is mixed with fragrances, it is called Plaiton.

Why did R. Yehudah ben Bava decree against Plaiton?

Rashi: It is for pain over the Churban.

Why should matters of indulgence be forbidden?

Rashi: People ignored the Nevi'im's warnings, and indulged in pleasures.

Rav Elyashiv: In the Havah Amina, they decreed only about balsam, an exceptional pleasure, if they did so before the Churban.

What is Kenishkin?

Rashi: It is a long glass Kli with two mouths. Wine is thrown from one end to the other [when it is tilted].

Rav Elyashiv: What [extra] pleasure is in this? It seems that if the head is sunk in other [follies], people come also to this folly. The words imply that Rabah bar Rav Huna drank from Kenishkin. If so, who did not comment?! We must say that the Reish Galusa drank. 'V'Shasah' is like she'Shasah; the prefixes Vov and Shin are interchangeable - she'Efer Kirah Muchan means v'Efer Kirah Muchan (Beitzah 8a). The Ritva says that this is the episode in Avodah Zarah 72b in which the Reish Galusa, or in the latter version Rabah bar Rav Huna, drank with a Nochri from Kenishkin; it is not considered Yayin Nesech.

Maharsha: It is a big Kli. It is not normal to drink from such a big Kli. It is not indulgence like Reishis Shemanim.

How did they throw their cups one to another?

Rashi: They were skilled jugglers, like [Shmuel] juggled eight cups of wine (Sukah 53a).

We conclude that Chachamim decreed against indulgence that has Simchah. The Rema (OC 553) forbids learning Torah, even Pirkei Avos in the afternoon before Tish'ah b'Av, because "Pikudei Hash-m Mesamchei Lev." The Taz (2) asked, one may eat meat and wine, even like Seudas Shlomo!

Rav Elyashiv: Yad Efrayim answered that meat and wine are Oneg - "v'Sis'aneg b'Deshen Nafshechem", but not Simchah. "Lehis'aneg Al Hash-m" means l'Shem Shamayim. Ta'anug is improper for fools; it is fine for those who engage in Chochmah - they will not indulge too much. The proper amount of bodily pleasure strengthens three intellectual powers - memory, distinction and thought. Torah is Simchah. Simchah is only with meat (Beitzah 8a), i.e. Shelamim. We permit Kisuy ha'Dam on Yom Tov for Simchas Yom Tov (Beitzah 7b), even though it does not apply to Shelamim, only to Chayos and birds! We forbid meat even two days [after Shechitah] regarding [the week of] Tish'ah b'Av, due to Simchah, even though it is unlike Shelamim! It is Simchah, but not true Simchah. Even returning shutters of spice vendors is called [needs of] Simchah. Eliyahu Rabah calls it absolute Simchah! This is difficult. Nowadays, the primary Simchah is via wine. Even so, each day of Chol ha'Mo'ed one should eat at least a k'Zayis of beef, or at least fowl, in addition to a Revi'is of wine. However, when Purim falls on Shabbos, we push off Seudas Purim, for even without Purim he is obligated in Mishteh and Simchah due to Shabbos (Yerushalmi)! The Shulchan Aruch (529) implies that Simchas Yom Tov is the same as on Shabbos! This is nowadays. Shabbos is primarily for Oneg, but automatically there is also Simchah, so it is improper for Seudas Purim. Chazal did not decree about [meat and wine] on Shabbos due to Aveilus, since it is not primarily for Simchah, but Divrei Torah are for Simchah.

Rav Elyashiv: Simchah Yom Tov applies even nowadays. Teshuvas R. Akiva Eiger (1, Hashmatah) distinguishes Oneg and Simchah. Oneg requires a meal, but Simchah does not - Simchah applies to Chol ha'Mo'ed, but there is no Chiyuv to have a meal.

How does R. Yosi bar Chanina answer the objection - for urinating naked in front of their beds, "Yiglu b'Rosh Golim"?

Iyun Yakov: He explains that this punishment is for "Ochelim Karim mi'Tzon..." (the end of the previous verse), like we say in Pesachim (49a; we include anyone who benefits from a meal of Reshus).

Why does urinating in front of one's bed [while naked] cause poverty?

Rashi: The Sar of (angel appointed over) poverty is called Navil (Pesachim 111b). It loves repulsive places, e.g. urine in front of his bed. It does not depend on being naked, just it is common to do so naked, for it is a toil to get dressed and go outside to urinate.

Maharsha: Likewise, it is not only in front of his bed - all the more so in other places, e.g. in front of his table, it causes poverty, for it is repulsive.

R. Avahu holds that "u'Sruchim Al Arsosam" refers to adultery. What is his source to say that urinating naked in front of one's bed causes poverty?

Iyun Yakov: The verse used this expression to include urinating in front of one's bed, for both of them bring poverty - "Be'ad Ishah Zonah Ad Kikar Lechem."

The Gemara said only that urinating in front of one's bed leads to poverty. Is it forbidden?

Rav Elyashiv: Yes, due to Bal Teshaktzu. One who drinks from bloodletters' Kelim or delays defecating, he transgress this. The Torah wants a Jew, the handiwork of Hash-m, to be clean and honored. An ideal person or Chacham may not have an oil stain on his garment.

Why is it fine to face away and urinate?

Rashi: The urine goes far away.

Etz Yosef citing Magen Avraham (243:3): This implies that for a woman (her urine does not go far away), it is forbidden. (The Shulchan Aruch says that Hash-m hates one who does so. Perhaps this is only for a man, for he could face away! - PF)

What is the meaning of ' he washes and does not wash'?

Rashi: He does not wash and rub his hands well. Rather, he uses a minimal amount of water, i.e. a Revi'is.

Rav Elyashiv #1: What was the question from Rav Chisda? Even if one who washes generously is rewarded with wealth, we cannot infer that one who washes minimally will be impoverished! Perhaps 'this is not a problem' implies that this fully fulfills the Mitzvah.

Rav Elyashiv #2: We thought that washing minimally does not bring poverty nor wealth. We conclude that washing generously leads to wealth; washing minimally impoverishes, for sometimes he does not wash properly (the water misses part of his hands). It is as if he denies Hash-m's good. Midah k'Neged Midah, his income is minimized. One who washes properly, but not generously, does not come to poverty nor wealth.

Maharsha: We can say that he washes from less than a Revi'is, i.e. it came from a Revi'is, but someone else washed before him. He washes, but not properly, to remove the dirt. We reject this, for Rav Chisda said, I wash my handfuls - not from the remnant of another's handfuls.

How did Rav Chisda wash generously?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing His'orerus Teshuvah (74): He poured at once far more than the required Revi'is. If he already washed his hands, and washes them again, this does not bring Berachah (Taz OC 161:6). It is like separating additional Terumos and Ma'aseros after he separated the proper amount - the addition does not get Kedushah. The Ran says that three walls that suffice for Hechsher Sukah, they get Kedushah; a later addition to them does not get Kedushah. Multiple Tevilos is different, like the SHLaH and Yesod v'Shoresh ha'Avodah say. The Rambam criticizes immersing twice - there are special reasons for this.

Why does she curse him about ornaments?

Rashi: He does not buy them for her. This is a problem only if he has money to buy, but does not.

Maharsha: Surely we discuss one who has money. If not, he is an Oni - he already is in poverty! Rather, he has his needs, and also enough to buy for her, but he does not.

Rav Elyashiv: This is Midah k'Neged Midah. Since he has money, but does not buy for her, in the end he will lack money, and not be able to buy for her. This is only if she is so upset that curses him in front of him. The curse affects him, for it is justified. If he cannot buy for her as much as she wants, the curse will not affect him, for it is groundless.

Why do these three things cause poverty?

Maharal (61a): Wealth is man's honor. One who is Mekadesh a woman 'on condition that I am wealthy', he need not be like R. Eliezer ben Charsom. Rather, it suffices that people of his city honor him for his wealth (Kidushin 49b). Wealth is glorious garments; poverty is the opposite - he is called Arum (naked). One who disgraces himself, e.g. he urinates in front of his bed and does not face away from the bed that he sleeps on, and he urinates on the ground, not into a Kli, this is total disgrace. We wanted to say that this is "u'Sruchim Al Arsosam"! He distances from honor - he is naked, therefore he will be naked without property - "Arum Yatzasi [from the womb]." If his wife curses him in his presence, curse clings to him - how can he have wealth?! She is his flesh and bones - even a little wealth is not proper for him, especially if she curses due to ornaments. She is prone to curse in deed - a woman is only for ornaments (Kesuvos 59b).

Iyun Yakov: A hint is the word Oni - it is an acronym for Arum, Netilas [Yadayim], Yud. Yud hints to "ha'Asiri Yihyeh Kodesh" - Shem Yud Kei. When a man and his wife merit (there is Shalom between them - Iyun Yakov Sotah 17a), the Shechinah is between them. If not, fire consumes them (ibid.)

Do the verses discuss married or single women?

Rashi: Married tall women walked next to short women. This is why the verses tell their detriment!

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi said so only about this, for it is not total lewdness. She is dressed properly, just she calls attention to herself. A Penuyah may not do so, but she is not punished so much for it, since she wants that men will want to marry her. This does not apply to married women, so they are punished greatly. The other matters are lewd, and even single women were punished greatly for them.

What is the source that they would walk erect?

Maharsha: "Gavhu" implies that they made themselves [appear] tall.

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps it simply means that they were haughty! Rava holds that they would not be punished so greatly for this. It is not such a terrible Midah for women - we say only that pride is not proper for women (Megilah 14). It can block her from Zenus (she thinks, it is below my dignity to be Mezanah with this man)! Therefore, he expounds the entire verse regarding [things that lead to] Zenus, which has a great punishment.

Why did they walk heel to toe?

Rashi: They took tiny steps, and went slowly, to allow men more time to look at them. One who sticks out his neck normally walks slowly, for he cannot see his feet.

How does "u'Mesakros Einayim" hint to painting their eyes and winking at men?

Rashi: Mesakros is like Sikra (dye) and Sikur (looking).

What is Kuchla?

Rashi: It is a dye (mascara).

Etz Yosef: It is red dye. It looks like blood; it stops tears.

At whom would they wink?

Rashi: At single men

Why would a tall woman walk next to a short woman?

Rashi: She appears to float on the short woman's head - this is beauty for her.

Maharsha: The text of Yalkut is opposite. "Netuyos Garon" - a tall woman would walk next to a short woman, and leaned her neck over her. "Haloch v'Tafof" - they walked heel to toe; they measured their steps precisely. This is like 'not Mechukos (less than the measure), not Gedushos (heaping, above the measure), rather, Tefufos' (Yoma 48a).

Etz Yosef: Tafof it is an expression of excess, like li'Tfuyei Ka'asi. i.e. they raise themselves.

What is the meaning of "Te'akasnah"?

Rashi: This is snake venom, like "uch'Eches El Musar Evil." It is called Eches, for a snake injects it only via Ka'as (anger).

Maharsha: The letters of Eches and Ka'as are reversed. We find like this - Simlah-Salmah, Keves- Kesev.

Was it common for women to gird themselves with belts?

Maharsha: Zonos do. We say (Sotah 9a) 'she girded herself with a pretty belt...' In Menachos (109a), it says 'he girded him with a Tziltzul... and told the other Kohanim that it was of his beloved (Rambam - harlot).'

What do we learn from "Mikshah"?

Rashi: Mikshah is like Miskashtos (they adorn their hair).

Maharsha, Rashi in Yeshayah: In place of gold ornaments that are Mikshah (made from one mass of gold), they will have bald patches.

How do we learn from "Ki Sachas Yofi"?

Rashi: They will have all of these in place of beauty.

Maharsha: Ki is like Kiva (pus).

How did their openings became like a Ya'ar (forest)?

Rashi: They became full of hair, and despised for relations.

Rav Elyashiv: Normally, Bnos Yisrael do not have hair in the underarms or by the Ervah (Sanhedrin 21)!

What are Anshei Shachatz?

Rashi: They speak haughtily [about their sexual affairs through allusions].

Rav Elyashiv: This teaches that the women learned to be lewd from them. The men seemed to discuss proper matters, but it was awesome lewdness. Had the men opposed the women, the women would not have done so. Therefore, it is considered that the men agreed with them.

What does 'did you eat well kneaded bread, or poorly kneaded bread' hint to?

Rashi: Did you have Bi'ah with a Be'ulah, or a virgin?

What does 'did you drink white wine, or black' hint to?

Rashi: What color was she?

What does 'did you recline on a wide bed, or a thin bed' hint to?

Rashi: Was she fat, or thin?

What does 'did you eat with good company, or bad' hint to?

Rashi: Was she attractive, or not?

It says that there were cinnamon trees in Yerushalayim. The Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:14) says that we do not keep or plant trees in Yerushalayim! Kaftor v'Ferach (10) says that this is even nowadays!

Rav Elyashiv: Perhaps the Isur is due to the beauty of Yerushalayim - "Kelilas Yofi." Perhaps this is only for other trees, what falls from them (leaves) sullies Yerushalayim; cinnamon trees do not drop leaves. And even if you will say that their leaves drop, the good scent outweighs the loss.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Ezras Kohanim (on Maseches Midos) says that when Yerushalayim was chosen, they uprooted all trees, but left Ginas Veradim (Ma'aseros 2:5), for it was needed for the Ketores. Perhaps all trees needed for Ketores are permitted (including cinnamon). However, we could say that they grew in forests near Yerushalayim, and they were burned in Yerushalayim, and gave a nice smell. However, many Mishnayos discuss trees in Yerushalayim, e.g. a tree in Yerushalayim, and its foliage is outside (Ma'aser Sheni 3:7). She'eris Nasan (Yeshayah 6:13) said, this is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who holds that the Isur of planting trees is only in the Azarah, but not in all of Yerushalayim.

What is Tzimtzemai ha'Malkah?

Rashi: Tzimtzemai is the name of a queen.

Maharsha citing the Aruch: The Pesikta says, when Yisrael stood on Sinai, they were Metzamtzem themselves like a Kalah. We can say that also here, it is used only to give a nice scent to the queen.