Why did R. Meir pray that they die - "Gam Anosh la'Tzadik Lo Tov" (7a)! And did Bruriyah not know many verses in Tehilim in which David curses his enemies - "Yevoshu v'Yibahalu...", "Yihyu Vanav Yesomim v'Ishto Almanah" (6:11, 109:9)! Also, the Seifa "u'Resha'im Od Einam" implies that Chot'im will cease!

Tosfos ha'Rosh: They pained him excessively, or they were exceedingly evil, so "Gam Anosh la'Tzadik Lo Tov" does not apply, even though it applies to Tzedukim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): R. Meir never intended to curse them. We cast heretics to a pit via man, but not via Shamayim (Tosfos 7a)! Rather, this is like it says in Gitin (7a), 'rise early to the Beis Midrash and stay late, and Hash-m will kill them due to the merit of your Torah.' R. Meir requested mercy for himself - automatically, Hash-m will kill them. He did not pray that they die.

Etz Yosef: He prayed Rebbi's Tefilah - save me from haughty people... and a bad neighbor. Amidst mercy for me, automatically, they will die. Bruriyah said, you do not explicitly pray that they die, for "Gam Anosh la'Tzadik Lo Tov", rather, "Ye'erav Alav Sichi (He will accept my Tefilah, and) Yitamu Chata'im Min ha'Aretz," they will die automatically. You have a better way to be saved - pray that they repent! Then, "Anochi Esmach ba'Shem" - I will rejoice with Him - "Yismach Hash-m b'Ma'asav."

Iyun Yakov: Even if the current sinners die, there will be Resha'im in the coming generation! Rather, "u'Resha'im Od Einam" - pray that every Rasha will repent.

Rav Elyashiv citing Tzlach: He prayed that they be punished in this world, lest their merits be reduced in the world to come. He primarily requested mercy for them!

Sometimes "Chata'im" means Chot'im (sinners), e.g. "uv'Derech Chata'im Lo Amad" (Tehilim 1:1)! What is the source that here it refers to sins?

Ha'Kosev: We follow the Kesiv - since it was not written Chot'im with a Vov, we expound Chata'im. We find like this in Sanhedrin 37a (we read "va'Yarach Es Rei'ach Begadav" like "Bogedav".)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since it can be read either way, we explain it to apply to both. Sins will cease, i.e. the sinners will repent. Then, there will not be Chot'im, for [a Ba'al Teshuvah] is like a newborn! David did not intend to curse them. The previous verse says "Ye'erav Alav Sichi Anochi Esmach ba'Shem" (104:34). My Si'ach (Tefilah) will be pleasing to Hash-m, and there will be Ratzon that they repent. I will rejoice with Hash-m in His deeds when they repent, and I will rejoice when Chata'im will cease, for they repented. They are no longer Resha'im.

How does it help to pray that someone else repent? Everything is in the hands of Shamayim, except for Yir'as Shamayim (33b)!

Maharsha: This can be resolved. It is not difficult that we request Hashivenu in Shemoneh Esre, for he includes himself.

Hora'as Sha'ah: One may request for a Rabim, like we do in Shemoneh Esre. The request was that words of rebuke enter the heart and soften it - than the sinner will be aroused to repent, and Hash-m will help him.

Yishuv ha'Da'as (in Sefer Si'ach ha'Sadeh): The Chazon Ish wrote at the end of Orach Chayim that what comes via Tefilah is not called bi'Ydei Shamayim.

Me'il Tzedakah (7): Sometimes Hash-m removes man's free choice - "Lev Melech b'Yad Hash-m" (Mishlei 21:1). Sefer Iyov repeatedly says that Hash-m sends afflictions to make man repent. Hash-m hardened Pharaoh's heart for punishment - all the more so He turns hearts for the good - "va'Hasirosi Lev ha'Even mi'Besarchem" (Yechezkel 36:26), "va'Eshpoch Es Ruchi [Al Kol Basar]" (Yo'el 3:1)! One can attain Yir'as Shamayim via Tefilah. "Mi Yiten v'Hayah Levavam Zeh Leyir'ah Osi" (Devarim 5:26); Chazal expounded that Yisrael should have said 'You should give!' Man comes to purify himself a little - without Hash-m's help, he could not conquer the great mountain (Yetzer ha'Ra). Since they did not request, Moshe did not pray for them. Bruriyah did not pray for them, for they did not pain her. R. Meir could pray that they repent partially, and not pain him. Bruriyah brought the Seifa "u'Resha'im Od Einam" to teach that once he may pray for partial Teshuvah, perhaps he may pray for total eradication of the Yetzer ha'Ra from them. However, Resha'im who rebel against Hash-m, perhaps one may not pray that Hash-m make them repent.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Me'il Tzedakah compared an apostate to our Gemara. It seems that his text said 'Min' (heretic) and not Baryonim. Also Drashos Chasam Sofer (p. 138a) says so. Shevet Sofer (108) says that one should pray for an apostate to repent. Levushei Mordechai (250) calls it a vain Tefilah.

Rav Elyashiv: The Chazon Ish wrote in Likutim at the end of Taharos that Reuven's Tefilah for Shimon helps more than Shimon's Tefilah for himself. Just the contrary, 'one who comes to purify himself, [Shamayim] helps him' (Yoma 38b)! Rather, here he merely requests matters that will help arouse them to Teshuvah. In Shemoneh Esre we pray that Hash-m subdue the informers and Resha'im, and do not pray that they repent, for they are a Rabim. It is difficult for all of them to repent. The Baryonim were individuals. The simple meaning of "Yitamu Chata'im" must refer to Resha'im. It cannot mean that they will repent, for they are a Rabim!

Note: It seems that all 120,000 people of Ninveh repented, and also all the Jews in Shushan! And even if all cannot repent, Tefilah can help that some will repent!(PF)

Sefer Chasidim (688): If one caused many to sin, and some of them died, we do not pray that he repent. Perush (on Sefer Chasidim) - this is because it will not help, for Shamayim does not enable him to repent, lest he be in Gan Eden and they will be in Gehinom. Megadim Chadashim - we infer that one may pray for Stam Resha'im to repent. Charedim (Teshuvah 5) says that one must pray for Resha'im to repent.

Note: Menasheh caused Yisrael to sin for 22 years. Did none of those people die? Afterwards, Menasheh repented! Some expounded that he and Yaravam have a share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 104b); it says about Yaravam "Asher Chata va'Asher Hecheti Es Yisrael" (Melachim I, 15:30)! (PF)

What is the question from "Rani Akarah..."? Perhaps initially she was barren, but now she gave birth?

Maharsha: "Lo Yaladah" is extra to teach that also now, she did not give birth. We similarly expound "Sarai Akarah Ein Lah Valad" (Bereishis 11:30) - she lacked even the housing (womb) for a child (Yevamos 64b).

Iyun Yakov: He would not ask from "Rani Akarah" alone. The Imahos were barren because Hash-m desires their Tefilos! However, "Lo Yaladah" - since her Tefilos did not help, why should she sing?

Why didn't the Gemara ask why Gog and Magog (Perek 2), which will be in the future, is before these Parshiyos?

Maharsha: Gog and Magog pertain to all of Yisrael and their Ge'ulah. It is proper to put it before the other Tefilos of Tehilim. Therefore, it is in the first Perek; the first two are really one.

There are other Tehilim later in Tehilim that discuss Sha'ul. We cannot expound Semuchim! Also other Tehilim are out of order!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We ask about the two Tehilim that discuss fleeing.

Iyun Yakov: The Tzeduki wanted to support his heresy, which denies Emunah of Tzadikim. He said that surely, David said "Mizmor" only after he was saved, but not while fleeing.

Why would people not believe that a slave would rebel against his master? Pharaoh said "Mi Hash-m Asher Eshma b'Kolo"! and others rebelled against Hash-m!

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Pharaoh said that he will not heed Hash-m, but this is unlike Gog, who will fight against Him. Pharaoh held like those who say that Hash-m abandoned the land, for it is below His honor to oversee lower beings, so He handed over the world to Mazalos. Really, Pharaoh did rebel, and also Nimrod and others, but verses do not detail their rebellion. The Gemara answered 'Havah Hacha Nami Havah.' Rashi explained, it happened (a son rebelled against his father), and so will happen. I explain simply - it happened, and so it happened (Pharaoh, Nimrod and others overtly rebelled, so no one will doubt that Gog will rebel).

Why did R. Yochanan begin with "Piha Paschah v'Chochmah"? He expounds the five Shiros similarly in Midrash Tehilim, and there he does not expound it!

Ha'Kosev: He comes to explain the difference between Shlomo's Chochmah and David's. Shlomo knew the nature of the creations - va'Ydaber Al ha'Etzim..."(Melachim I, 5:13). "Va'Yigdal ha'Melech Shlomo mi'Kol Malchei ha'Aretz l'Osher v'Chochmah" (Divrei ha'Yamim II, 9:22). There is another supreme Chochmah to oversee Hash-m's actions and wonders, in particular creation from nothing, and to constantly thank and pray to Him. David was greater in this. Shlomo concluded Koheles "Sof Davar ha'Kol Nishma Es ha'Elokim Yera v'Es Mitzvosav Shemor." Yir'as Hash-m and guarding His Mitzvos require great Chochmah! Shlomo teaches that David's Chochmah was greater than his own.

Maharsha: It says "Piha Paschah v'Chochmah v'Soras Chesed Al Leshonah." The rest of Eshes Chayil discusses the Torah, but v'Soras Chesed Al Leshonah cannot! Therefore, he explains that it refers to David, who sang with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, or the Nefesh, which said Shirah for the Chesed that Hash-m does at these five times. When one enters the world, he is under Mazal, but Hash-m can change it. Death of Resha'im is good for them, and for the world. What is the Chesed on the day of death [for Tzadikim]? The verse after "Tosef Rucham" says "Tishlach Ruchacha Yibare'un" (104:30), i.e. Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The verse is difficult. Why does it mention opening the mouth - it could say, her mouth said! Rather, it refers to when he left the womb. In the womb, the mouth is closed and the navel is open.

Etz Yosef: The rest of Eshes Chayil discusses the Torah. We cannot say so about "Piha Paschah v'Chochmah" - the entire Torah is Chochmah! Rather, David opened his mouth and began to praise Hash-m for preparing a baby's food while he is in the womb - his mother's menstrual blood turns to milk.

Rav Elyashiv: This magnifies the Chesed of Hash-m, that a baby nurses in a place of Binah, and not filth, even though the milk came from blood of a filthy place!

Did David sing Shirah in the womb, and while nursing?!

Rashi: He sang [about these times] afterwards, when Ru'ach ha'Kodesh came upon him.

What downfall of Resha'im did he see?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Their primary downfall is in the world to come. In this world, they sprout like grass (Tehilim 92:8).

Here it says that "Yitamu Chata'im Min ha'Aretz..." discusses the downfall of Resha'im. Above Bruriyah said that it refers to sins, and R. Meir accepted this!

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: The verse does not leave its simple meaning (Resha'im).

How does "Elokai Gadalta Me'od" hint to the day of death?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Hash-m is aggrandized also via the fall of Resha'im -"v'Hisgadalti v'Hiskadashti" (Yechezkel 38:22; Vayikra Rabah 24:1). He is aggrandized much more via the reward of Tzadikim after death. Regarding the former it says "Tastir Panecha Yibahelun" (Tehilim 104:29), and about the latter, "Tosef Rucham Yigva'un" (ibid.) - when they die, they receive additional Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. David sang about this addition.

Iyun Yakov: A Midrash says that "Tov Me'od" is the day of death, for Tzadikim are greater in death than in life. Then, they benefit from the radiance of the Shechinah, and their crowns are on their heads.

Etz Yosef: The Nefesh can grasp Hash-m's grandeur only after death, when it is not dressed in a physical body.

Rav Elyashiv: He sang due to contemplation of the reward after death - 'today to do the Mitzvos, and tomorrow to receive their reward' (Eruvin 22a)

It says "Barchi Nafshi..." at the beginning of the psalm. "Tosef Rucham Yigva'un" is verse 29. There are many praise of Hash-m in the middle. What is the source that Barchi Nafshi applies to "Tosef Rucham Yigva'un" (the day of death)?

Tzlach: When Moshe asked "Har'eni Na Es Kevodecha", Hash-m answered "Ki Lo Yir'ani ha'Adam va'Chai" (Shemos 33:18, 20). Pirkei d'R. Eliezer (34) says that the Nefesh leaves the body only when it sees the Shechinah. The Yerushalmi (Avodah Zarah 3:1) says that Hash-m shows to Tzadikim what is prepared for them in Gan Eden, and they sleep (die) amidst Simchah - "va'Tischak l'Yom Acharon." The primary world to come is understanding Hash-m (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 8:3). "Tosef Rucham Yigva'un" - before death, they understand more than in their lifetimes.

What was the question 'why does it say "Barchi Nafshi Es Hash-m v'Chol Keravai Es Shem Kodsho"?'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since it discusses the praise of the Kadosh Neshamah, why does it mention the physical innards? And why does it say here "Es Shem Kodsho"? It did not say so about the Nefesh ha'Kadosh! It answers that David praises Hash-m - even though He is Kadosh, He created lowly physical things, and put a Kadosh Ru'ach in them.

Iyun Yakov: This is unlike Bil'am, who said 'One who is Kadosh, does He look at such matters?!' (Nidah 31a) Hash-m cherishes us so much, that He looks at the drop [of semen from which a Tzadik is formed].

Etz Yosef: Why do the Nefesh and innards praise Hash-m more than the other limbs?

Here we expound Ein Tzayar kEi'lokeinu (no one can make forms like Hash-m). We find (Sanhedrin 65b) that Rava created a person, and R. Chanina and R. Oshaya created a calf and ate it!

Maharsha: They did so via Hash-m's name, like Rashi says there. The man could not speak, like it says there, for it is the Neshamah's power; only Hash-m can put a Neshamah in a body.

Also elsewhere Hash-m is called Tzur - "ha'Tzur Tamim Pa'alo", "Tzur Yeladecha Teshi" (Devarim 32:4, 18). Why do we expound it only here? And why do we expound "Ki Ein Biltecha"? Perhaps it simply means, there is no one like You!

Maharsha: "Ein Tzur kEi'lokeinu" implies that there is another Tzur, just he is not like Hash-m. Therefore, it cannot mean a strong rock. "Ki Ein Biltecha" follows "Ein Kadosh ka'Shem" - the verse already taught that no one is Kadosh like Him! This refers to eternal existence, like it says in Sanhedrin 92a "Kadosh Ye'amer Lo" (Yeshayah 4:3) - just like Kadosh is forever...

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Everything else called Kadosh is only because Hash-m made them Kadosh. Only His Kedushah does not depend on anything else; the Zohar says so. And in spite of His Kedushah, He turns to [oversee] lowly matters.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said 'Ein Kadosh ka'Shem v'Ein Biltecha.' "Ki Ein Biltecha" implies that this is the reason! Also, it should have said v'Ein Tzur kEi'lokeinu in between them, and not after "Ki Ein Biltecha"! We answer Ki Ein Livlosecha - Hash-m outlasts His works, unlike people. Do not say that this is because people's works are stronger and last longer - "Ein Tzur kEi'lokeinu." Man cannot put even physical innards in his work, and all the more so a spiritual matter!

Iyun Yakov: We could have explained "Ki Ein Biltecha" simply, that nothing happens without Hash-m. However, since we expound "Ein Tzur kEi'lokeinu" that there is no artist like Him (we should already know this from "Ki Ein Biltecha"!), surely "Ein Biltecha" teaches differently (Ki Ein Livlosecha).

Etz Yosef citing Iyei ha'Yam: How can it say 'there is no Tzur like Hashem'? Tzur is a rock. He is not truly a rock, just due to its strength, He is called a Tzur for a mere anthropomorphism! Rather, He is the true Tzayar.

What do we learn from the similarities of the Neshamah to Hash-m?

Ha'Kosev: From contemplation about the Neshamah, one understands Hash-m.

Maharsha: It is known from researchers that man's body is a miniature world. Here teaches that his Neshamah is spiritual, like Hash-m.

Etz Yosef citing Nefesh ha'Chayim: Do not think that the Mashal (Neshamah) resembles the Nimshal (Hash-m). Nothing is like Him - "v'El Mi Tedamyun Kel"! Rather, just like we can understand the Neshamah only via its connection to the body, we can understand Hash-m only via His connection to the worlds.

In what inner room does the Neshamah dwell?

Ha'Kosev: The heart is the abode of the Ru'ach. It is created first in the body, for it is like a king; the brain is its head general. The heart is a name for Chochmah, intellect and thoughts of understanding.

Why do we expound "u'Mi Yode'a Pesher Davar" to discuss Chizkiyah and Yeshayah?

Maharsha: The Seifa hints to this - "Chochmas Adam Ta'ir Panav v'Oz Panav Yeshuneh." Yeshayah was a Chacham and a Navi; v'Oz Panav refers to Chizkiyah, for Oz is kingship - "va'Yiten Oz l'Malko" (Shmuel I, 2:10). His face changed in his illness. Sefer Melachim hints to this episode. It says that Chizkiyah sent to Yeshayah, and Yeshayah sent to him (Melachim II, 19:2, 29) - neither went to the other.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It was difficult - why does it say "Mi" twice? Rav Hamnuna answers, "Mi kehe'Chacham" refers to Hash-m, who made a Pesharah between two Tzadikim; "u'Mi Yode'a" - neither Tzadik realized that Chizkiyah's illness was Hash-m's Pesharah.

Iyun Yakov: Many people know to make Pesharah - but that is when one does properly and the other improperly. Here, each was a Tzadik, and had a verse to support him!

Was it proper that Chizkiyah go to Yeshayah, or vice-versa?

Me'iri: One who has an attribute, if he sees another with an attribute over himself, e.g. a Chacham sees an Ashir, he should not be envious or assert himself over him. Rather, each should honor the other. Chochmah with proper Midos always outweighs other attributes, unless the other is a king or ruler. He is equal to a Navi. We find that Eliyahu went to Achav, but Yehoram went to Elisha! In any case, if one had a mishap or illness, the other should go to him, like Yeshayah went to Chizkiyah.

Ha'Kosev: Do not think that one of them refrained from going to the other due to love of honor. Rather, the Navi was concerned for the honor of his prophecy, and the king was concerned for the honor of his kingship. Chazal discussed whether or not a king and Chacham can pardon their honor! Since Hash-m caused the king to lose (fall ill), this shows that the Navi was correct. He was not pained, just he honorably did the Mitzvah of Bikur Cholim.

Maharsha He went for Bikur Cholim, for if it was merely to inform him that he will die, he could have sent a Shali'ach, like he did before!

Iyun Yakov: A king has precedence over a Kohen Gadol, and a Kohen Gadol over a Navi (Horayos 13a) - all the more so a king has precedence over a Navi! However, when the king needs the Navi, he must go to him, like Yehoram went to Elisha. Bereishis Rabah 60 says that this was the dispute between Pinchas and Yiftach. Chizkiyah said that Yeshayah has the Mitzvah of Tochachah, so he should come to me, like Eliyahu went to Achav. Yeshayah said, he should come to me to ask whether it is proper that he did not marry. Hash-m afflicted Chizkiyah, for he sinned via not marrying. Also, a king's honor is greater.

Note: If Chizkiyah knew that Yeshayah must rebuke him for his sin, why did he not marry before Yeshayah came? Also Chizkiyah answered why he thought that he is justified! Perhaps Chizkiyah believed that he is correct, and thought 'and if I erred, Yeshayah should come to me to rebuke me. I need not go to him to affirm my conduct.' Iyun Yakov concludes 'a king's honor is greater', i.e. it is proper that Yeshayah come to him. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Ya'aros Devash 2:4: Yeshayah knew that the Navi should go to the king. However, he knew that Chizkiyah's years finished, and he wanted to add to them. If someone died without Mishpat, his 'remaining' years (that he should have lived) are given to a Chacham who overcomes his Midos (Chagigah 5a). Yeshayah hoped that Chizkiyah would waive his honor and come to him, and receive extra years, but he did not. Yeshayah informed him that his time [to die] came, and Chizkiyah prayed. Tefilah does half - Chizkiyah was almost 40. His Tefilah gave to him half of the additional 30 years of a normal lifetime (70).

Note: The Gemara says that Yeshayah based himself on Yehoram! Perhaps he relied on this, lest it seem that he neglects honoring the king, but his real intent was to extend Chizkiyah's life. (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Naftoli Kohen: If Yeshayah should have gone to Chizkiyah, Hash-m could have told him to go, without any illness! Rather, they argued about "va'Yischazek Yisrael va'Yeshev Al ha'Mitah" (Bereishis 48:2) - did he get stronger due to Bikur Cholim (the visitors remove part of his illness), or this teaches that one shows honor to Malchus (Yosef). Hash-m made Chizkiyah ill, so in any case Yeshayah should go to him.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sho'el u'Meshiv (1:423) brings from Gilyonei ha'Rambam and Bamidbar Rabah (Reish Nasa) that a Navi stands in front of a king and bows to him. Why did Yeshayah think that Chizkiyah should come to him? Me'or Yisrael (Rav O. Yosef) says that two answers in Tosfos (Shevu'os 30b), argue about which is greater - honor of a king or of a Chacham. Ya'aros Devash (1:15) says that since Chizkiyah ruled over only two Shevatim, he and Yeshayah argued about whether or not he is considered king.

Note: The Gemara says that Yeshayah based himself on Yehoram, who went to the Navi! Perhaps that was because he was king only over 10 tribes, and all the more so a king only over two tribes must go to the Navi! (PF)

Why did Hash-m make Pesharah here, but not between Yiftach and Pinchas (each thought 'the other should come to me' to permit Yiftach's vow)?

Rav Elyashiv: There both did improperly, for it was Piku'ach Nefesh (to save Yiftach's daughter). Both were punished - Yiftach's limbs fell off, and the Shechinah departed from Pinchas. We learn that merits are needed in order that Hash-m will make Pesharah!

Why does it say "va'Yasev Chizkiyah Panav El ha'Kir va'Yispalel"? We do not find such an expression of Tefilah elsewhere!

Ha'Kosev, from the Zohar: This hints that the Navi told him that he will die because Lo Nesiv (he had not married). Now he resolved to marry, so he would have children and the Shechinah would dwell on him. We learn from this that one who has a sin, and wants to pray, he should resolve to fix the sin - "Nachpesah Deracheinu v'Nachkorah v'Nashuvah" (Eichah 3:40).

Why should he lose this world and the world to come for not fulfilling Peru u'Rvu?

Maharsha: It says in Bava Basra (116a) that it says Shechivah about [the death of] David, for he left a son like himself. Yo'av did not, so it says Misah about him. Since Chizkiyah will not leave any son, he will not live in the world to come. Chizkiyah properly asked, this is because I knew that even if I will marry, I will not have a son like myself!

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps Yeshayah himself said that he will lose the world to come, based on Bereishis Rabah 65, that Chizkiyah was the first Choleh to recover. Yeshayah reasoned, there is no need to tell him 'you will die in this world!' Rather, Hash-m means that also in the world to come, he will not live. He is stringent, so he will repent. Even so, Chizkiyah said 'end your Nevu'ah' - from now and onwards, Cholim will recover!

How could he know, even via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, that unworthy children will come from him? Everyone has free choice - everything is bi'Ydei Shamayim, except for Yir'as Shamayim!

Tosfos (Nidah 16b DH ha'Kol): They showed him what will be. Also, many things depend on Mazal, e.g. one who is born in Mazal Tzedek will be Tzadkan in Mitzvos. This is not called bi'Ydei Shamayim, for Hash-m does not like to change Mazalos.

Note: If he saw the future, how would it help not to marry, or to marry Yeshayah's daughter? Also, he should have known that he will not die before marrying - why did he request a sign? (PF)

What should one do if he suspects that he will not have proper children, due to shortcomings in himself, or his wife, or something he heard, or via intellect or experience?

Me'iri: He should not refrain from Peru u'Rvu. Do not engage in Hash-m's secrets! However, he should strive to have proper children, e.g. via checking the brothers [before marrying a girl] or marrying a Bas Chacham.

Megadim Chadashim citing Rama (Gilgul Neshamos 59): Chizkiyah was a Gilgul of Amram, who divorced his wife, for he reasoned that it is better not to have children than for the sons to be killed. Miryam rebuked him, and he retracted. Also Chizkiyah reasoned that he should not marry; Yeshayah rebuked him, and he retracted.

Iyun Yakov: Chizkiyah said, if I marry your daughter, perhaps our combined merits will cause proper children to result. This does not contradict his Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that unworthy children would come from him. Perhaps later generations will be proper. Indeed, their son Menasheh was evil, but the Tzadik Yoshiyah descended from Menasheh!

Rav Elyashiv: The marriage enabled Malchus Beis David to continue in Taharah via Yoshiyah, who was greater than all the kings. Also, Menasheh repented at the end of his life.

What was Yeshayah's answer 'it was already decreed'?

Maharsha: It was already decreed that you will die from this illness, so you cannot have children. Do not say 'it was decreed that you will have improper children' - if so, what was his response 'give to me your daughter - perhaps our combined merits will cause proper children to result'?! Also the continuation 'one should not despair from Hash-m's mercy even if a sword is on his neck' implies that the decree was to die.

Why did Chizkiyah say 'end your Nevu'ah and leave'?

Iyun Yakov: From now and onwards, Cholim will recover! You did not know this - this shows that your Nevu'ah ceased. This is why Chizkiyah requested a sign that he will recover - one does not request signs from an established Navi! Rather, he no longer considered him a Navi, since he did not know that Tefilah will nullify the decree.

Note: If Chizkiyah knew that he will recover, why did he request a sign?! If he knew via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that from now, some Cholim will recover, but not necessarily himself, why did he conclude that Yeshayah's Nevu'ah ceased?! Hash-m need not tell everything to a Navi Emes. Elisha said "va'Shem Helim Mimeni" (Melachim II, 4:26)! Also, the Gemara implies that Chizkiyah relied on his tradition about a sword on one's neck. That is bi'Ydei Adam. It is different. People always recovered from illness bi'Ydei Adam - "v'Rapo Yerapei"! I cannot resolve our Gemara with the Midrash that no Choleh recovered before Chizkiyah. Iyun Yakov himself brought that Bava Metzi'a 87a is unlike the Midrash! (PF)

Rav Elyashiv citing ha'Midrash veha'Ma'ase (Sof Beha'alosecha): Moshe was pleased with the Nevu'ah of Eldad and Meidad that he will die in the Midbar (Sanhedrin 17a), for Tefilah can overturn it. Had he heard the end, that Yehoshua will lead them in, he would have objected. Since it is good for Yehoshua, it cannot be nullified, and Moshe's kingship cannot impinge on Yehoshua's. Also here, Chizkiyah was adamant that Yeshayah cease prophesizing, lest he say who will reign after Chizkiyah, and then it cannot be nullified.

Rav Elyashiv: One cannot explain so here. If Yeshayah had a Nevu'ah who will reign afterwards, he may not suppress it!

How do we learn not to despair from mercy from "Hen Yikteleni Lo Ayachel"? "Lo" is written with a Vov and Aleph, so it can mean 'I will hope to Him' or 'I will not hope'! This is why we could not prove from here that Iyov served from love (Sotah 27b), and we needed to learn from another verse!

Iyun Yakov: Our Gemara holds like the opinion that Iyov served from love. If so, this verse means 'I will hope to Him.' (PF)

What is the source of this tradition [never to despair from mercy, even if a sword is on his neck]?

Rashi: David saw the angel with his sword drawn (Shmuel II, 2417), and he did not refrain from requesting mercy.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rav O. Yosef brings from the Zohar that when David was in the hands of Yishbi b'Nov, he retracted from his Tefilah (when Gad told him that he must pick one of three punishments) to be handed over to his enemies, lest his seed be wiped out. Avishai helped him in his Tefilah (Sanhedrin 95a). The Vilna Gaon (Imrei No'am) says that we learn from Yehoshafat. "Va'Yiz'ak Yehoshafat va'Shem Azaro" (Divrei ha'Yamim II, 18:31) teaches that [his enemy] needed only to cut off his head (Yerushalmi Brachos 9:1, Yalkut Shimoni Melachim I, 222). I.e. the sword was on his neck; he prayed, and was answered.

It says in Rosh Hashanah (17b) that a decree is torn for a Tzibur, but not for an individual. Here the decree against Chizkiyah was torn. He received another 15 years!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Turei Even (17b): Chizkiyah had exceptional deeds and Torah; he is equal to a Tzibur. Alternatively, a king is like a Tzibur. His second answer is like the Rashba (Teshuvah 1:148), who said that Just the contrary! Tzibur has great power to be judged according to deeds for good or for bad (unlike Mazal), like we say 'Al ha'Medinos Bo Ye'amer Ei Zo l'Sova v'Ei Zo l'Chayim...' Chizkiyah was given another 15 years because a king is like a Tzibur; all of Yisrael depend on him.

Why did Chizkiyah bang his sons on the ground?

Iyun Yakov: He did not want to kill them - he is king, and no one can protest against him (his sons cannot overpower him)! He did not want to murder - let the Owner of the vineyard eradicate the thorns from it! He was concerned, perhaps something good will come from them! In truth, Yoshiyah came from Menasheh! Rather, when his hands slackened, for he heard so from his sons and saw that they are evil, he cast them from the ground; what Hash-m wants to do, He will do.

Why does it say 'even if Ba'al ha'Chalomos tells one...'?

Maharsha: Rava asked (55b), it says "va'Chalamos ha'Shav Yedaberu," and it says "ba'Chalom Adaber Bo"! He answered, the latter is via an angel, and the former via a Shed. Our verse teaches that most dreams are via a Shed, and are folly. If one is told that he will die tomorrow, even though he should not believe it, he should fear Hash-m and be concerned for the minority, and request mercy.

Iyun Yakov: This teaches that even if a sword is on his neck, and Ba'al ha'Chalomos tells one that he will die, he should not refrain from requesting mercy. Chovos ha'Levavos says that an angel is greater than a Navi. Even if the dream is via an angel, Tefilah can nullify the decree.

Rav Elyashiv: Even if Ba'al ha'Chalomos said that a sword will kill him, and he sees a sword on his neck (Ba'al ha'Chalomos' words are being fulfilled), he should pray.

Why do we expound "va'Yasev Chizkiyah Panav El ha'Kir va'Yispalel"? We said that one should pray without interruption between him and the wall!

Maharsha: Because that applies to every Tefilah, it should not have been taught regarding Chizkiyah, who needed extra mercy due to the decree of death. Rather, it is for a special Drashah - mi'Kiros Libo, or due to the Kir [that Shlomo built].

What is "mi'Kiros Libo"?

Etz Yosef: With all his heart.

(Shlomo) covered the entire Heichal with gold (Melachim I, 6:22). It says "Kesef Mezukak Latu'ach Kiros ha'Batim" (Divrei ha'Yamim I, 29:4), but the Yerushalmi (Yoma 4:4) and Bamidbar Rabah (12:4) say that it was gold that was Machsif all [other] gold. Why does it mention here silver?

Megadim Chadashim: Dikdukei Soferim's text here is 'tablets of gold' (it does not mention silver).

What is the source that he was Somech Ge'ulah li'Tfilah? And why is this such a merit? Everyone does so (Tosfos 9b)!

Maharsha: Before it discussed his Ge'ulah - "va'Yhi ba'Laylah ha'Hu va'Yetzei Mal'ach..." (Melachim II, 19:35), and after (Samuch) it says that he fell ill and prayed. Above, Tosfos said that Rav Barona was Somech Ge'ulah to Tefilah like Vasikin - he recited Shma before sunrise, and began Tefilah right after sunrise. "Veha'Tov b'Einecha Asisi" hints to the sun's light - "va'Yar Elokim Es ha'Or Ki Tov."

Iyun Yakov: This was unlike other kings, who sleep until the third hour.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: His ability to be Somech Ge'ulah to Tefilah like Vasikin shows that he had great merits. It requires Hash-m's help.

Note: Then, they did not have Luchos of the times of sunrise each day and clocks as accurate as we have nowadays. (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: He attributes his Ge'ulah (salvation) to [his Tefilah to] Hash-m. This is like hiding Sefer ha'Refu'os, so people will rely on Hash-m!

Why did he hide Sefer ha'Refu'os?

Rashi: It was so people will request mercy (pray to Hash-m to be cured).

Maharsha: "Veha'Tov b'Einecha Asisi" hints to this - it was good in Hash-m's eyes, but not in people's eyes; they seek cures. Even though Hash-m permits doctors to heal, one should not rely on the cures; his heart should be humbled and he should request mercy.

Maharsha (Gitin 68b): If so, why did Ravina and Rav Ashi teach many cures in the Gemara? Surely, doctors may cure and know cures for all illnesses. However, it is improper to reveal them to everyone, due to improper people who will rely on the cure, and not on Hash-m. Just like it was permitted to write oral Torah due to "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Torasecha" (Tehilim 119:126), it was permitted to write the cure and reveal them to the Rabim, for it is impossible to remember them orally. Also, it shows that the Talmud does not lack any Chochmah; there is a cure for every illness.

Igros Moshe (OC 2:25): We infer that there is an obligation to pray at a time of affliction. If not, they would not hide Sefer ha'Refu'os lest people not request mercy!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): No one recovered from illness before Chizkiyah - how did he hide Sefer ha'Refu'os? Rather, it helped for pains, like Tosfos (Bava Basra 16b) says about Avraham's pearl.

Note: Seemingly, also Tosfos' other answer (it helped for wounds) could apply here. (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: There was a side not to hide it - Piku'ach Nefesh. There is a side to permit Chilul Shabbos for a cure via Segulah (in a case of Piku'ach Nefesh).

Who wrote Sefer ha'Refu'os?

Megadim Chadashim: Tashbatz (445) says that Mezikin in No'ach ark were damaging them; an angel took one of his sons to Gan Eden and taught him all Refu'os, and he wrote them. Otzar ha'Midrashim (p.400) attributes it to Noach. Yalkut Reuveni (Bereishis 53a) attributes it to Adam. The Ramban (introduction to Chumash) and Rashba (Sof Teshuvah 1:413) attribute it to Shlomo. The Rambam (Perush ha'Mishnayos Pesachim Sof Perek 4) says that it discusses how to cure based on Mazalos; it was not intended to be used in practice. Do not say that Shlomo wrote it to be used to cure. There is no lack of Emunah to use cures, just like one who is hungry may eat! Iyun Yakov (Gitin 70a) say that it was Lechashim (things to whisper) of Divrei Torah, therefore he buried it, for one may not heal via Divrei Torah.

What is the Chidush that Chachamim approved of grinding the copper snake? Why should it be kept?

Maharsha: Perhaps they were keeping it to commemorate the miracle - the snake does not kill, rather, sin kills, just like they saved the flask of manna and Aharon's staff.

Rav Elyashiv: Moshe made it via Hash-m's command to arouse people to Teshuvah. This is why earlier kings [who eradicated idolatry] did not eradicate it!

Why did Chizkiyah drag his father's bones around on mats?

Rashi: His father (Achaz) was evil. Therefore, he did not honor him in his burial, to bring him on a bier of silver or gold.

Rav Elyashiv: 'Bones' implies that this was long after death. Tosfos Yom Tov (Pesachim 4:9) says that initially they embalmed him, like was normal for kings, and afterwards Chizkiyah dragged the bones. I say that when Achaz died, Chizkiyah just became king, and his kingship was not solidified. He feared lest others will not consent. After, when his kingship was solidified, he was able to disgrace his father. The Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 6:11) says that one must honor his father, even if he is a Rasha. Many challenge the Rambam from here. I say that it supports him! It seems that there was a deliberation whether or not to do so. Normally it is improper, but here it was proper, for Kidush Hash-m. According to those who argue with the Rambam, why was there a question? Surely one may disgrace him, like other Resha'im!

Note: Even if one may disgrace an evil father, perhaps a king is different. After Yehu killed Izevel, he commanded to bury her, "for she is a Bas Melech" (Melachim II, 9:34). (PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Sha'ar ha'Gilgulim (introduction 38, citing the Ari Zal) says that Rav Dimi of Neharde'a was a Gilgul of Chizkiyah. Even with the 15 added years, Chizkiyah did not live all his years; he said "Ani Amarti bi'Dmi... Pakadti Yeser Shenosai" (Yeshayah 38:10), for Rav Dimi received them. Even though Chachamim approved of disgracing his father, there was some Pegam of disgrace to the Mes. To fix this, Rav Dimi was very careful about burial.

Why did he dam the waters of Gichon?

Rashi: It was lest Melech Ashur come [to attack] and find water [for his troops]. This is the Shilu'ach - a small spring near Yerushalayim. The Targum of- "v'Horadtem Oso El Gichon" (Melachim I, 1:33) is l'Shilucha. It is not the great river Gichon (Bereishis 2:13), for that is not in Eretz Yisrael.

Megadim Chadashim citing Radal (Pirkei d'R. Eliezer 9, Hagahah 10, from R. Chayim Vital): He did not want Kelipos and Chitzonim from the side of Melech Ashur to drink from and benefit from it.

"Va'Yistemu Es Kol ha'Mayanos" (Divrei ha'Yamim II, 32:4) - Why does it say that they disapproved specifically about Gichon?

Maharsha: The previous verse says "va'Yo'etz Im Sarav" - he took counsel with his officers. It says that Chachamim disapproved of Gichon, for he himself decided to do so - "v'Hu Yechizkiyahu Sasam Es Motza Meimei Gichon" (ibid. 30).

Note: Why was Gichon not included in "Kol ha'Mayanos"? Perhaps the verses are out of order; first Chizkiyah dammed Gichon, and then he and his officers decided to do so to Kol ha'Mayanos. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Nachal Kedumim (Beshalach 16), citing R. Efrayim: Sefer Refu'os told which springs are good [for healing], and he closed them. Chachamim approved of this!

Why did they disapprove of cutting off the doors of the Heichal? This was due to danger, to avoid war!

Rav Elyashiv: In a case of Chilul ha'Kodesh, one should trust in Hash-m [and not be Mechalel], even in a case of danger.

Megadim Chadashim: Rashi (Melachim II, 18:14) says that he cut off the doors themselves. Radak (ibid.) says that he merely peeled off the gold from them.

How could Chizkiyah be Me'aber the year? A king may not be on the Beis Din that decides this (Sanhedrin 18b)!

Pesach Einayim (Pesachim 56a): R. Eliezer Sofeinu said that this was before Chachamim decreed to forbid a king to be on the Beis Din. I answered based on Keneses ha'Gedolah (Hagahos ha'Rambam, Sanhedrin Perek 2), that we do not invite him to be on the Sanhedrin, but if he came by himself, it is fine, and he is not among the required number. We can say similarly about the Beis Din for Ibur Shanah. However, the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 2:1) says that a king cannot sit on the Sanhedrin! Shoshanim l'David says that since there was not a Chacham like him, they appointed him to the Beis Din for Hora'as Sha'ah. Also this is difficult.

Note: Above, Maharsha explained that Yeshayah was a bigger Chacham when he rebuked Chizkiyah. We cannot say that Chizkiyah was greatest after Yeshayah died - Chizkiyah died before Yeshayah (Yevamos 49b)! It is unlikely that earlier in his reign, Chizkiyah was the greatest Chacham, and later Yeshayah surpassed him - Yeshayah was a Navi over 30 years before Chizkiyah became king! Perhaps in the 15 years added to Chizkiyah's life, he became the biggest Chacham. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Shemos Rabah (15:20) says that Shlomo gathered seven Chachamim for Ibur Shanah. Rashash there says that he was there only to publicize the matter, but not to adjudicate, for a king may not be on the Beis Din for this.

Here it says that Chachamim disapproved. It says "va'Yiva'etz ha'Melech v'Sarav v'Chol ha'Kahal bi'Yrushalayim La'asos ha'Pesach ba'Chodesh ha'Sheni" (Divrei ha'Yamim II, 30:2)!

Me'iri: One may not Me'aber the year on Adar 30, for it is proper to be Nisan. B'Di'eved, the year is Me'uberes.

Megadim Chadashim citing Toras Moshe (Pinchas) and Radal on Pirkei d'R. Eliezer 9:30: Two verses after this, it says that it was proper "b'Einei ha'Melech uv'Einei ha'Kahal" - but not in the eyes of Sarav (Chachamim). The Malbim in Divrei ha'Yamim says that "Sarav" were not Chachamim - unlike Maharsha here. I say that Sarav disapproved of Ibur Shanah; they agreed to do Pesach, which was not done for a long time.

Why should one not request in his own merit?

Me'iri: He should not consider himself to be a Chasid. Rather, he should consider himself to be a sinner, and request Hash-m's mercy or in the merit of the Avos.

What is the source that Moshe did not ask in his own merit amidst humility? Perhaps he prayed for Yisrael in the merit of the Avos, in order to save his merit for himself and his seed!

Iyun Yakov: He was Moser Nefesh for Yisrael, and said "Mecheni Na." (Surely he tried to save them in the way most likely to succeed!)

How does "Lulei Moshe Bechiro Amad ba'Peretz" prove that it was in the merit of Moshe? Perhaps he stood in the breach via praying in the merit of the Avos, and their merit saved!

Maharsha: Since the verse does not mention the Avos, it implies that Hash-m attributed it to Moshe's merit.

Etz Yosef: Shemos Rabah 41:7 says that five damaging angels came due to Chet ha'Egel. Moshe mentioned Zechus of the three Avos; three of them departed, and Af and Chemah remained. Moshe asked Hash-m "Kumah Hash-m b'Apecha" (stop Af), and I will stop Chemah - "Moshe Bechiro... Lehashiv Chamaso." The verse mentions only what was due to Moshe.

Why do we say that Chizkiyah attributed to his own merit? "Va'Yasev Chizkiyah Panav El ha'Kir" - he said that he should be answered due to Shlomo, who covered the Heichal...!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He made a Kal v'Chomer from the Shunamis - her son lived only via Elisha's Tefilah. Also here, it depended on his Tefilah, and when he prayed, he mentioned only his own merit, "Asher His'halachti Lefanecha..."

Chizkiyah needed to attribute to his own merit, for Zechus Avos ceased in the days of Chizkiyah!

Iyun Yakov: He could have requested in the merit of David and other kings of Beis David, who were his ancestors.

How does "v'Ganosi Al ha'Ir... Lema'ani u'Lema'an David Avdi" (Melachim II, 19:34) show that Hash-m attributed to David's merit because Chizkiyah requested in his own merit? That verse discusses salvation from Sancheriv. After Hash-m killed Sancheriv's camp, Chizkiyah requested to be cured "Zechor Na Asher His'halachti Lefanecha" (ibid. 20:3)!

Maharsha: We must fix the text of the Gemara to cite "v'Hosafti Al Yamecha... v'Ganosi Al ha'Ir ha'Zos Lema'ani u'Lema'an David Avdi" (20:6), which was after his Tefilah.

Rav Elyashiv: Just like he requested to be healed in his own merit, presumably, the same applies to other requests that he made.

Note: One could distinguish them! Perhaps he thought that his own merit suffices to save himself, but to save the entire nation! (PF)

Why do we say that Hash-m answered Chizkiyah in others' merit, because he requested due to his own merit? Perhaps in any case his own merits did not suffice!

Rav Elyashiv: His own merits did suffice. A punishment for requesting in his own merit was that it was attributed to others.

"Shamati Es Tefilasecha" implies that Hash-m answered Chizkiyah due to his own merit, and "U'Lema'an David Avdi" refers to protecting the city!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: Perhaps "Shamati Es Tefilasecha" was his Tefilah to be answered in the merit of Shlomo, who covered the Heichal with gold and silver. Midrash Rabah says that the Tefilah helped [only] partially! Perhaps "Ra'isi Es Dim'asecha" implies that also his tears helped.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: His Tefilah joined to "Lema'ani u'Lema'an David Avdi" for healing him, adding 15 years to his life, saving him from Melech Ashur and protecting the city. Yeshayah already told him "v'Ganosi Al ha'Ir... Lema'ani u'Lema'an David Avdi." Why did Hash-m need to repeat this regarding his cure? Rather, this equates his cure to protecting the city - both are "Lema'ani u'Lema'an David Avdi."

What do we learn from "Hineh l'Shalom Mar Li Mar"?

Maharsha: There are two expression of bitterness. When I was told of the Shalom, I was bitter in my illness, and bitter that my cure was attributed to others.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): I was bitter that I was cured in others' merit, and that Hash-m protected the city in others' merit.

Rav Elyashiv: It was Mar only Lo (to him). He erred, and thought that since it was attributed to others, his own merits did not suffice. Really, they sufficed; it was attributed to others because he requested in his own merit.

Megadim Chadashim citing R. Chayim Vital: MaR hints to Menasheh and Ravshake.

Here it says that that Chizkiyah banged his sons on the ground, and Ravshake died. The Targum of Koheles 10:9 says that an angel burned him!

Megadim Chadashim: This is difficult.

Do Rav and Shmuel argue merely about how to explain the verse?

Ha'Kosev: No. The Shunamis and her husband did not want to make a big house for Elisha - it says "Aliyas Kir Ketanah"! They wanted that he will dwell close to them, and modestly. Rav and Shmuel argue about how close he would be. The one who says that they had an Aliyah and covered it, they did not want him to be too close, and did not want to diminish from their dwelling. The one who says that they had an Achsadra and divided it, they wanted to show great honor to him. They made for him the best dwelling, and close to themselves, with only a thin division in between.

Why do we not fulfill both verses, and say that it was an Aliyah, and they divided it into two?

Maharsha: Normally, one ascends to an Aliyah via a ladder. .If it is divided, one half will not be accessible! An Achsadra is on ground level and is open on all sides, so one can divide it, and there is another opening to enter it.

Why does it say 'he may benefit, like Elisha'? In many places Chazal distanced benefiting from others, and supported this from "v'Sonei Matanos Yichyeh" (Mishlei 15:27)!

Me'iri: One may benefit with intent to bestow benefit in return, like Elisha [who prayed that she have a son].

Maharsha: Normally, one should not benefit. Hachnasas Orchim is different. It is the greatest Chesed. Even an Ashir is 'poor' when he travels - he lacks the Kelim that he needs. It mentions a bed, table, chair and lamp, which travelers need. Surely Elisha benefited only when on the road - he refused to take from Na'aman!

Etz Yosef: Do not say, I want to benefit; I will take from anyone who wants to give to me. Rather, be like Elisha. He did not want to benefit from Na'aman.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rambam (Perush ha'Mishnayos Avos 4:2) elaborates about the severe Isur to benefit from the crown of Torah; Elisha consumed his own food and drink, just he benefited from the room. Shmuel did not want to benefit even from this. Many argue with the Rambam, for here it says that if one hosts and benefits a Chacham from his property, it is as if he offered the Tamid!

Note: If he ate his own food, why does it say that she pressed him "Le'echol Lechem" (Melachim II, 4:8)? It should say Le'echol b'Veisah! Perhaps she wanted him to eat her food, but he refused. (PF)

One who knows Hash-m's name may not benefit from others (Yerushalmi Yoma 3:7, Koheles Rabah 3:11). Did Elisha not know His name?!

Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin 3:9), Drishah (YD 253:2): It is forbidden only to benefit in the way of Tzedakah. Elisha received a gift honorably. Ashirim may receive gifts!

Pesach Einayim: Also Piskei Rekanati 66 says so. Zera Berach, who says that he did not. Know Hash-m's name, overlooked this. Megadim Chadashim - their source in the Yerushalmi and Midrash is no proof. Also Birkei Yosef (YD 246:10) rejected their distinction. The Chasam Sofer (OC 197-198) asks how the Gemara (Megilah 27a) says that Elisha did his miracles via Tefilah. Perhaps it was via Shemos! He answers that one who knows Hash-m's name may not benefit from others. In his Perush on the Torah (Haftoras Vayera), he asked why Elisha did not revive the boy via Shemos. He answered that he told Gechazi to do so, but he himself did not, for one who benefits from others may not use Shemos A Haskamah in Sefer Zichron l'Moshe says in the name of the Chasam Sofer that the Yerushalmi forbids this. Shevus Yakov (Sof Chelek 1, on Berachos 27b, and Iyun Yakov Horayos 10a) says that when they thought to make R. Yehoshua Nasi, they rejected this, for he was 'Ba'al Ma'aseh.' I.e. he did actions via Hash-m's name, like in Bechoros 8b, when debating Chachmei Athens, he suspended himself between Shamayim and the land. Koheles Rabah forbids one who uses His name to benefit from others, lest they refuse to give to him, and he will kill them. The Chida (Sha'ar Yosef Horayos 10a, Birkei Yosef YD 246:20) says that this is only for one uses Shem ha'Mefurash; Elisha used other names. What difference does it make? The concern for killing people still applies!

Why does it say 'he need not benefit, like Shmuel'?

Etz Yosef: Do not say, I will not benefit from the Tzibur, and I will not toil for them for free. Rather, be like Shmuel, who toiled and went around Eretz Yisrael judging the nation.

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Zekenim: One may refrain from benefit if he is like Shmuel, who does not need anything. One who needs to take and does not take, he spills [his own] blood, like the Yerushalmi says 'he is not concerned for his life.'

What is the Havah Amina that it is improper not to benefit from others?

Rashi: It is haughtiness, or it [shows or arouses] hatred.

How does "Ki Sham Beiso" teach that his house was with him wherever he traveled?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said u'Seshuvaso l'Veiso ha'Ramasah. From the change, we expound that he did not return to his house, for it was always with him.

Etz Yosef: It is extra, for we already knew that his house is there.

Was Shmuel's house with him wherever he traveled?!

Rashi: He took with himself the Kelim that he needed and his tent, lest he need to benefit from people.

Me'iri: It must be in a way that will not appear to be haughty, e.g. a judge, who must distance himself from benefiting from people, lest people think that it is like taking a bribe.

How does the verse teach that a woman understands guests better than a man does?

Etz Yosef: "Na" is now; "Yadati" - I already knew that he is Ish Kadosh. Now I learned about his great Kedushah. She told her husband, who did not know. This shows that women understand guests better than man do.

Rav Elyashiv: Also a man could see these matters. We find that she learned from them, and her husband did not.

Note: What is the source that normally, women understand better than men? Perhaps she understood, for was at a higher level than her husband. She suggested building a room for Elisha. It seems that she regularly went to Elisha, but he did not. We learn from her "b'Soch Ami Ani Yosheves." And if she inferred from his sheets, this is because she laundered them! (PF)

Why does a woman understand the nature of guests more than a man does?

Maharsha: She is in the house more than a man, like we say about giving Tzedakah (Ta'anis 23b).

What is the significance of never seeing a fly above his table, or never having an emission?

Maharsha: His table was Kadosh, in place of the Mizbe'ach. A fly is a Tamei Sheretz. It was not found in a Kadosh place, i.e. where they rinsed Korbanos (Avos 5:5). Not having an emission is distancing from Ervah, which is called Kedushah.

Rav Elyashiv: Also not seeing semen is like the miracle that the Kohen Gadol never had an emission all his days. Here was a bigger Chidush, for weakness of traveling can cause emissions.

Note: Avos (5:5) says that he never had an emission on Yom Kipur. Perhaps an additional Chidush is that Elisha did not see semen even when seeing great beauty; she was Avishag's sister (Pirkei d'R. Eliezer 33). Radal (ibid.) infers from "Kra la'Shunamis ha'Zos" that also Avishag was in the house. David chose her over 130 years earlier; perhaps she was still beautiful, just like R. Yochanan's beauty endured in his old age. (PF)

Derech Sichah p.97: Rav C. Kanievsky said that living beings sense Kedushah (therefore, flies stayed away). We say that birds recognize stingy people (Sotah 38a). Daf Al ha'Daf - that is not a solid proof to here. Perhaps birds sense one who gives to them liberally or stingily! Mishmar ha'Leviyim brings Bereishis Rabah (54) - "bi'Rtzos Hash-m Darchei Ish Gam Oyvav Yashlim Ito" (Mishlei 16:7) includes damagers in his house like flies. This shows that they sense a great person! Tosfos (Erchin 6a) says that in Bayis Rishon they did not need anything to dispel ravens; they did not fly over it, for the Shechinah dwelled in it.

How do we support the Diyuk (his servant is not Kadosh) from "va'Yigash Gechazi Lehodfah"? That was years later, after she had a son!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): His end proved about his beginning. Initially, Elisha ate with them alone, without Gechazi. She inferred that it is because he is not Kadosh. If they will build a special room, Elisha can do as he desires (bring Gechazi).

Etz Yosef: His end proved that he does not distance from Ervah. She knew now, for she saw semen on his sheet, or flies above his table.

Etz Yosef citing his Rebbi: "Hinei Na Yadati Ki Ish Elokim Kadosh Hu" - surely she knew also before that he is Kadosh! Rather, now I know that he has great Kedushah.

Rav Elyashiv: We can also ask, holding her at her Hod is lewd. It is not merely 'not Kadosh'! Indeed, now he only lacked Kedushah; he descended, and later did that lewd act.

Why do we expound "Lehodfah" to teach 'Hod Yafyah'?

Maharsha: According to simple meaning, why did he push her away? Also, "Harpe Lah" implies that he was holding her.

Note: She grabbed Elisha's feet - is it unreasonable to push her away? If he held her bosom, she should have immediately distanced - she was a great Tzadekes! Perhaps Gechazi held her from in front and in back, so she could not distance. Elisha told him to let go "because she is distressed" - he should have rebuked him for lewdness! The verse says "va'Yigash Gechazi Lehadfah" - perhaps Elisha knew his intent, like we expound, and told him to refrain before he touched her; the Gemara says 'Achzah' because he intended to do so. (PF)

Why do we expound "Tamid" to refer to Korban Tamid?

Maharsha: Tamid applies to something with a fixed time, even if it is once a day or once a week. Surely Elisha did not have a fixed time to pass by there on the road! Therefore we expound it like Korban Tamid, which is [called] Shamayim's food. One who hosts a Chacham, his table in our Sugya like a Mizbe'ach. Chazal expounded "Lifnei ha'Elokim" (Shemos 18:12) - as if he benefited from Korbanos.

What is wrong with praying from a high place?

Me'iri: It looks like he seeks to bring his Tefilah close to Shamayim.

Rav Elyashiv: The custom is that the Shali'ach Tzibur prays in a low place. This is why Chazal said 'Yored Lifnei ha'Tevah.'

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kesav Sofer (OC 19): There are two laws. It is forbidden to pray in a high place, and it is ideal to pray in a low place. A Shali'ach Tzibur may pray in a high place only if there is no other way to be heard.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: There is no elevation in front of Hash-m, for Hash-m cannot dwell in the world with a haughty person (Sotah 5a). "Tefilah l'Ani Ki Ya'atof v'Lifnei Hash-m Yishpoch Sicho" - an Ani stands in front of Hash-m, without a wall in between.

How is one Mekaven his feet when praying, and why?

Rashba: One must realize that his salvation, benefit or harm depend only on Hash-m; he has no strategy to obtain anything without Hash-m's help. His feet are together to show that he cannot move without His help. Also, we emulate the angels. One must considered himself like an angel, sent to do His will - "Ki Sifsei Chohen Yishemru Da'as... Ki Mal'ach Hash-m Tzevakos Hu" (Mal'achi 2:7). Regel also means cause - "va'Yevarech Hash-m Osecha l'Ragli." One's mindset must be straight for Hash-m's service, like angels.

Maharsha: He is like a slave bound in front of his master. Also the hands should be together for this reason.

Me'iri: They [are together], and appear like one. The Yerushalmi says, they are together at the heels and separated above (towards the toes), like a calf's foot. "V'Ragleihem" implies that they are like two, and "Regel" implies that they are like one.

Etz Yosef: He puts the feet together, to show fear and submissiveness.

Why do we expound "Lo Sochlu Al ha'Dam" to discuss eating before praying? Perhaps it forbids eating blood!

Maharsha: If so, it would not say "Al ha'Dam." In Sanhedrin (63a) we make many Drashos from this. In Shmuel I, 14:32 it says "va'Yochal ha'Am Al ha'Dam" - there, it means that they ate from a Shelamim before Zerikah (Zevachim 11a).

'One who eats before praying...' implies Shemoneh Esre. 'After acting haughtily, you accept Ol Malchus Shamayim' implies Keri'as Shma!

Megadim Chadashim: The text of Bahag, and it seems also Semag, was 'one who eats and afterwards says Keri'as Shma...' Amudei ha'Arazim (Al ha'Yere'im, 13:3) says that also Tefilah is Ol Malchus Shamayim. However, below (21a) it says that Tefilah does not have Malchus Shamayim! Bi'ur Halachah (89:3) says that 'after acting haughtily, you accept Ol Malchus Shamayim' forbids before Keri'as Shma. "Lo Sochlu Al ha'Dam" forbids before praying, even if he already said Keri'as Shma.

Before which Tefilos is it forbidden to eat?

Megadim Chadashim: The Rishonim say that it is only before Shacharis. Malei ha'Ro'im says that "Lo Sochelu Al ha'Dam" applies to only to Shacharis, so "v'Osi Hishlachta Acharei Gavecha" teaches about Minchah. Piskei Rid and Machberes ha'Aruch say that "Lo Sochelu Al ha'Dam" applies to Minchah. Amudei Esh (3:33) asked, if one began eating close to the time for Minchah, he need not stop (Shabbos 9b)! We can say that this is for one who began eating b'Heter, like the Rashba, who permits in such a case for Shacharis; the Rosh and R. Yonah forbid.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chelek Levi (OC 189): The Gemara said, after acting haughtily, does he accept Ol Malchus Shamayim?! One may eat between Shacharis and Musaf, for he accepted Ol Malchus Shamayim in Shacharis. However, in Musaf Rosh Hashanah we say verses of Makchuyos 'in order to make Me king over you' (Rosh Hashanah 16a); so one must do so before eating. Since one may not eat then, one may drink wine tea or coffee then without saying Kidush, just like before Shacharis. Yabi'a Omer (5 OC 22) elaborated to discuss this.

What is the Chidush that reciting Shema in its time is greater than engaging in Torah? We interrupt learning Torah even for Tefilah (mid'Rabanan), and all the more so for Keri'as Shma! Also, Keri'as Shma is Divrei Torah, and additionally he gets the Mitzvah of reciting it!

Tosfos: We learn that reciting Shema in its time is greater than engaging in Torah at another time.

Me'iri: It is greater than one who learns and contemplates the meaning of his learning. Intent is essential only in the first verse (or three verses) of Keri'as Shma.

Rav Elyashiv: The Ran says that the primary Mitzvah of Talmud Torah is sharpness and investigation, so I would think that it is greater than Keri'as Shma in its time.

What is the source that "Ge'echa" refers to acting haughtily?

Rashba: We do not truly read it differently. Do not cast Tefilah after Gavecha (your body) - after eating, you will not pray at all, or you will pray amidst haughtiness, without the required intent. Also judges judging a capital case may not eat, lest they err due to this and condemn someone else - all the more so one must be careful about his own life!

Maharsha: We do not truly read it differently. Gavecha refers to Ga'avah (pride)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Yaravam had much greater sins [than eating before praying]. Rather, it was due to his pride. This is why he did not let Yisrael ascend for the Regalim, lest they see Rechav'am sitting and Yaravam standing, for only kings of Beis David may sit in the Azarah. We needed to expound an expression of pride - if not, before praying we would forbid anything that enters the body, even drinking water or eating for Refu'ah.