Why did he say 'if it is due to learning'?

Iyun Yakov: Talmud Torah is great, and rain is withheld due to Bitul Torah. A Midrash says, "Im b'Chukosai Telechu" - you will toil in Torah, "v'Nasati Gishmeichem b'Itam" (Vayikra 26:3-4), and similarly regarding "Ya'arof ka'Matar Likchi" (Devarim 32:2).

What is 'Nezikin'?

Rashi: It is the three Bavos (Bava Kama, Bava Metzi'a and Bava Basra).

Rav Elyashiv: We find that Rav Yehudah taught teachings in the name of Rav and Shmuel, e.g. one finds Sha'atnez in his garment and blowing to go through a Beis ha'Peras, shortly before this! Surely Rav Yehudah engaged in the entire Talmud, but he learned primarily Nezikin, so it was forbidden to ask in other Masechtos. Later generations [learned everything, so] one could ask anywhere.

Etz Yosef: In Sanhedrin 106b and Ta'anis 24a, Rashi explained that it is [all of] Seder Nezikin.

Why did Rav Yehudah focus on Seder Nezikin?

Aruch (Zas): They engaged only in what is difficult. The rest is simple; they did not need to exert in them.

Megadim Chadashim: Ner Aruch asks, our Gemara implies that the other Sedorim were difficult for them, like Rashi explains! With difficulty, we can say that the Aruch holds like Ramah (Sanhedrin 106b), that they deeply investigated Nezikin due to cases that arose. In other Sedorim, they merely resolved the Mishnayos and teachings of Amora'im.

Maharsha: This is like he taught in Bava Kama (30a), one who wants to be a Chasid, he should learn the laws of damages. Be'er Sheva (Sanhedrin 106b) - a second reason was, 'one who wants to become a Chacham should engage in monetary laws... they are a spring that overpowers' (Bava Basra 175b).

Note: We discuss his generation, not only Rav Yehudah himself! He was Rosh Yeshivah in Pumbedisa, where Abaye and Rava (Rav Papa's Rebbi) were (Rashi Gitin 60a); the Rebbi decided which tractate they learn (except for before the Regalim - Bava Metzi'a 97a). (PF)

Rashi, the Aruch, Tosfos ha'Rosh and Me'iri say that 'a woman preserving vegetables...' is a Mishnah in Uktzin. Why did they need to say so? The Gemara said, 'when Rav Yehudah reached Uktzin...!' In Sanhedrin (106b), Rashi said that it is not there. We find it only in Taharos 2:1, and so says Rashi in Ta'anis 24b!

Tzlach: The Gemara means, when Rav Yehudah reached the laws of Uktzin. The Gemara said, a woman preserving vegetables...; some say, olives were pickled... Rashi here taught that [only] the latter is in Maseches Uktzin. The former is in Taharos 2:1, but it discusses Hilchos Uktzin, unlike Tosfos, who explains that the leaves are not considered food. In Sanhedrin (106b), Rashi said that the former is not in Maseches Uktzin; in Ta'anis, he said that it is in Taharos.

Pnei Shlomo: Rashi teaches that [also] the former is in Uktzin; this is unlike our text of Maseches Uktzin.

Megadim Chadashim: R. Shimshon (Reish Seder Taharos) says that Taharos should have been fixed after Uktzin, for surely it was taught after it. Some considered Taharos to be the continuation of Uktzin. R. Gershom (Bechoros 10a) cites the first Mishnah in Taharos, and says that it is in Uktzin.

Note: Rav R. Margoliyos says that in each Seder, the Masechtos are listed in decreasing number of Perakim. Sometimes we must say that consecutive Masechtos are really one Maseches. We find that the three Bavos are one (Bava Kama 102a), Makos is the continuation of Sanhedrin (Makos 2a)... We do find different orders, e.g. between the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Our order of Seder Taharos holds that Maseches Taharos is not part of Uktzin. (PF)

What is '13 Mesivta'?

Rashi: It is 13 ways of learning, e.g. the Mishnah of Rebbi, and of R. Chiya, and of Bar Kapara, and of Levi, and Tana d'Vei Shmuel. And so it says in Nedarim (41a) - Rebbi taught in 13 ways.

Tosfos: Some say, they are 13 academies. Thirteen is not precise; the Gemara often says so, e.g. 13 coins (Chulin 44b).

Why does Mesiras Nefesh for Kidush Hash-m bring miracles?

Iyun Yakov: They were Moser Nefesh against [man's] nature - "v'Chol Asher la'Ish Yiten Be'ad Nafsho" (Iyov 2:4), therefore miracles are done for them against nature.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi said that removing one's garment of Kil'ayim in the market is Mesiras Nefesh for Kedushas Hash-m. Mesiras Nefesh is going against one's nature. Rav Ada did not remove his own garment, but he did not consider whether she is a Jew or Nochris, and he will need to pay. He did not want to allow her to transgress even for a moment, whether it was Kil'ayim or lewdness. Also Rav Gidal overcame his nature to the point that he had no concern for improper thoughts about women.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Merafsin Igri (Eder, 5, citing R. Moshe Solovetchik): Earlier generations could not bear to see a Yisrael transgress. They immediately acted with Kin'as Hash-m, without considering the consequence.

Was Rav Papa's generation not Moser Nefesh for Kidush Hash-m?

Etz Yosef: Surely they were when it is obligatory. However, they would not do so amidst Midas Chasidus when not obligated, like Rav Ada was.

What is Karbalta?

Rashi: It is an esteemed garment, like "Patesheihon v'Charbelas'hon" (Daniel 3:21).

Etz Yosef citing Maharshal: It was immodest to go with an esteemed garment in the market without a coat over it.

Maharsha: The Aruch says, it is a red garment, like Karbalta (mane) of a rooster. Bnos Yisrael do not wear red, for it is lewd, and leads to sin.

Note: Above (7a), we said that the mane is white, just it has red spots.

Megadim Chadashim, Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rambam (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:29) holds that it is a garment with Kil'ayim. Meforshim say that he learned from here that above (19a), the Gemara obligates removing Kil'ayim even from someone else wearing it (See Biurei Agadah for Berachos 19:4). This explains why this is brought after that Gemara! Rashi explained that here resembles the above Gemara, in which one must shame himself (remove his garment) for Kidush Hash-m.

Why did he say 'Masun Masun'?

Rashi: 'Masun' is like Ma'asayim (200; he lost 200 and 200).

Maharsha: They obligated him like the law of one who shamed a Yisraelis. If one uncovered a woman's head in the market, he pays her 400 Zuz. He said, that is proper for a Yisraelis, who feels shame. Masun Masun, this Nochris, who normally goes with her head uncovered [should she get 400 Zuz]?!

Rav Elyashiv: He paid 400 for the shame and garment together.

Note: Maharsha implies that it was all for shame; perhaps he objected only to the payment for her shame. Rashi said that the garment was esteemed. Perhaps it was worth 400 Zuz; there was no payment for shame, for even without it, she was covered normally. Maharsha implies that he tore a head covering from her. If it covered her body, and she was left in underwear, a Nochris does not normally go out like this! (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Teshuvas Chasam Sofer EH 2:19: Masun is an expression of Hamtanah (waiting, and not being hasty). The difference between Masun and Ma'asun (200) is elongating pronunciation of the Aleph. One who is hasty does not distinguish them. The difference between Masun Masun and Ma'asun Ma'asun is twice 200, i.e. 400 [Zuz that he lost due to his haste].

What is the significance of 'they are like white geese to me'?

Iyun Yakov: Rav Gidal became sterile due to Rav Huna's Shi'ur (he would not leave when he needed to urinate). Perhaps this caused him to lose his desire for women.

Why did Rabanan ask R. Yochanan only about Ayin ha'Ra, but not about looking at women?

Hagahos ha'Bach, Rif (on the Ein Yakov 19b): His eyebrows were long, so he could not see (Bava Kama 117a).

Iyun Yakov: That was at the end of his life, like it says there. Surely he was not so beautiful then, if his eyes are not nice, for this is the primary description of man - if a Kalah's eyes are beautiful, one need not check her body... (Ta'anis 24a)

Iyun Yakov: Surely he did not look at them, and transgress "v'Otzem Einav me'R'os b'Ra" (Yeshayah 33:15)!

Rashash: Rav Gidal sat right near the Mikveh, so he could teach them how to immerse, and saw them naked.

Megadim Chadashim: What forced him to say so? It says 'Sha'arei di'Tvilah', just like regarding R. Yochanan! (If he saw them in the water, this explains why he compared to them to geese. If he was outside, we must say that he taught them how to immerse, like one who teaches geese how to swim.) The Ritva (Sof Kidushin) says 'if one knows that his Yetzer is submissive and he will not have any improper thoughts at all, he may look at and speak with women forbidden to him, and greet married women, like R. Yochanan, who sat at the gates of Tevilah and did not fear the Yetzer ha'Ra.' This requires investigation; perhaps the text of the Ritva should say 'Rav Gidal.'

Note: It is astounding to say that he saw them naked. Tosfos (Shabbos 65a) says that if women fear lest others see them, they will [rush and] not immerse well! Rashash can say, if this occurred, he would tell her to immerse again! Presumably, some women believed that he has no Yetzer ha'Ra, and others found a different place to immerse. Also Sefer Gematriyos of R. Yehudah ha'Chasid (30) says that R. Yochanan considered the women like white geese. (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Divrei Moshe (1, Sof Siman 2): Since Rav Gidal said 'they are like white geese to me', they knew that R. Yochanan could answer similarly.

Note: This is unlike Iyun Yakov suggested, that Rav Gidal lost his desire for women due to becoming sterile due to Rav Huna's Shi'ur. Also, even if Rav Gidal's answer became famous in Eretz Yisrael, what is the source that it was before R. Yochanan sat by the Mikveh? R. Yochanan lived many years (he was Rosh Yeshivah for 80 years), and Rav Gidal came to Eretz Yisrael to learn from him after learning from Rav and Rav Huna! (PF)

Will women bear beautiful children due to see R. Yochanan's beauty after immersing?

Rav Elyashiv (here and in Bava Metzi'a 84a): Yes. In Bava Metzi'a (84a), it says that their children will also learn Torah like he does. Seeing a Chacham's face brings help from Shamayim!

Note: Daf Al ha'Daf cites the Shlah, who says that he sat there in order to answer Amen to their Brachos on Tevilah. Divrei Moshe (1, Sof Siman 2) says that women inside could not answer, for it is a place where they bathe. He wanted that Amen will be answered to this important Brachah. Perhaps they assume that R. Yochanan could have sat further away, and still women would see him; he sat right near the Mikveh, so he would be able to answer Amen. Rebbi said, I am sharp because I saw the back of R. Meir; had I seen [his face], I would be even sharper (Eruvin 13b). (PF)

May a woman enjoy looking at the beauty of a man other than her husband?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Teshuras Shai (125) forbids, based on Yalkut Shimoni (Shmuel 9). R. Yehudah says, the women elaborated talking to Sha'ul in order to gaze longer at his beauty. R. Yosi says, you make them sinners! Just like a man may not enjoy looking at a woman not proper for him, a woman may not enjoy looking at a man who is not hers! A Beis ha'Keneses should be built so women cannot see the men. Divrei Yo'el (1 OC 10) disagrees. Chachamim never objected to this. In Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah, women were able to see the men! Also our Gemara holds that there is no problem. It questioned R. Yochanan only about concern for Ayin ha'Ra!

Megadim Chadashim: Also Sefer Chasidim (714) says that everything in Shir ha'Shirim that men must avoid, e.g. hearing Kol Ishah, likewise women may not hear Kol Ish. Avshalom was not careful about [women seeing] his beautiful hair, therefore he was hung from it. Also in Sefer Gematriyos (30), R. Yehudah ha'Chasid said that [men who adorn themselves for Zenus cause women to sin, for] women may not have thoughts of men. Sefer ha'Chinuch (387) says that "v'Lo Sasuru Acharei Levavchem v'Acharei Eineichem" (Bamidbar 15:39) applies also to women. Toras ha'Histaklus infers that he forbids women to look at men. Perhaps the Chinuch holds that women are forbidden [only] to matters that oppose Torah!

Note: Men may not see a married woman's hair, even if it is not beautiful!

Mishneh Halachos (5:222-223): Yabi'a Omer (1:4) permits women to look at men. I say that only Re'iyah (seeing briefly] is permitted, but not Histaklus (gazing). There is no source to permit from Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah.

Shevet ha'Levi (5:197:2): "V'Lo Sasuru... v'Acharei Eineichem" applies also to women. However, men may not gaze at women Stam, for their nature is to have thoughts. Women may gaze at men Stam, but not with intent for Zenus. R. Yosi and Sefer Chasidim discuss this; the Halachah follows them.

Why did they ask R. Yochanan why he is not concerned for Ayin ha'Ra, and why did he need to say that he is from Yosef? The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 14:3) says that Ayin ha'Ra is common in Bavel (R. Yochanan was in Eretz Yisrael)!

Megadim Chadashim: Ayin ha'Ra is more common in Bavel, but it is also in Eretz Yisrael. Ben Ish Chai (2 Pinchas 13) says that Bnei Bavel must be more careful about it than Bnei Eretz Yisrael. Etz Yosef (introduction to Ein Yakov) says that Shedim are found only in Bavel, which is dark. They are found also in Eretz Yisrael, just more in Bavel. Chesed l'Avraham (7:16) says that in Chutz la'Aretz they have greater rule. This is why in Bavel they were concerned for Zugos, but not in Eretz Yisrael (Pesachim 110b).

What is 'Olei Ayin'?

Rashi: They are removed from the eye; it does not rule over him.

Why do we expound "v'Yidgu la'Rov" to teach that they are above Ayin ha'Ra? Perhaps it means simply that they should increase like fish!

Etz Yosef: It says "v'Yidgu la'Rov b'Kerev ha'Aretz." Fish are not in the land! If it came to teach only multiplying, it should have said 'like sand' or 'like earth.'

Why was the Drashah on "v'Yidgu la'Rov" brought before the second Perush of Alei Ayin? And why do we need to read it 'Olei Ayin' - we can expound also like it is written "Alei Ayin"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov, 19b): If we expound "Alei Ayin", it refers to the merit of the eye that did not enjoy what is not its. There would be no source to expound that it is above the eye+. Therefore, we read it 'Olei Ayin'. Also, perhaps it means that he cannot look above his eye, but one who looks at him can! Therefore, we expound 'Olei Ayin' - above all eyes. We support this from "v'Yidgu la'Rov", which hints that they will increase like fish, to which Ayin ha'Ra does not apply.

Why does being covered evade Ayin ha'Ra?

Megadim Chadashim: Toras Chayim (Bava Metzi'a 84a) says that even though they are seen in the water, the water separates them from the eye. This is unlike Sefer ha'Bris (1:17:3), who says that Ayin ha'Ra through a glass window is more dangerous than without an interruption.

What is 'Nosei Panim'?

Rashba: Panim is the face of a man or animal. Anger or Ratzon (being pleased) are seen on the face, therefore it says about anger 'u"Faneha Lo Hayu Lah Od", "Pnei Hash-m b'Osei Ra", and about Ratzon "Ha'er Panecha Al Mikdashecha." It is also used for mercy - "Lo Sisa Pnei Dal", and for honor - "Zaken u'Nso Fanim." Also Nosei applies to mercy and honor, in these verses. It can mean approaching or distancing, and pardon - "Nosei Avon." Here, all these matters are included. Hash-m will not show Ratzon and pardon to a sinner, to distance anger (Midas ha'Din). Hash-m Himself does not have anger or Ratzon; they are said only about His actions, and one who receives them. When a sinner is punished, he perceives anger; when one is rewarded for his virtue, he perceives Ratzon and honor. There is no change in Hash-m - "ha'Tzur Tamim Pa'alo."

What was the question? Sifri brings several Drashos of these verses, e.g. "Yisa Hash-m Panav" in matters Bein Adam la'Makom; "Asher Lo Yisa Panim" is in matters Bein Adam l'Chavero!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Lo Yisa Panim" - He does not pardon in general, but "Yisa Hash-m Panav Elecha" - to those who are meticulous until a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah. This is for you, who are Nosei Panim to be meticulous in His Mitzvos; He is Nosei Panim for you, according to your deeds.

Iyun Yakov: The angels intended to show that the Torah is proper for them, and not for Yisrael. "B'Yom Asos Hash-m Elokim Eretz v'Shamayim" - Eretz was created with a combination of mercy; Shamayim was created with pure Din. Since You are not Nosei Panim, and everything is according to Din, it is proper to give the Torah to angels. Why are You Nosei Panim to Yisrael, and gave the Torah to them? Hash-m answered, it is not due to mercy. Rather, because they go beyond the letter of the law, and are meticulous until a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah, so I do for them.

What is the resolution? Since Hash-m is Nosei Panim for Yisrael, why does it say "Asher Lo Yisa Panim"?

Rashba: We resolve that Hash-m pays Midah Tovah corresponding to one who conducts this way. "Nosei Avon v'Over Al Pesha" (Michah 7:18) - one who is Ma'avir Al Midosav (does not get angry at those who mistreat him), Ma'avirim Al Kol Pesha'av (all his sins are pardoned - Rosh Hashanah 17a). Hash-m goes beyond the letter of the law for Yisrael, since they go beyond the letter of the law. The Torah obligates a Brachah for satiation, and they bless even for a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Hash-m is Nosei Panim for those who are meticulous is matters of Shamayim. "Asher Lo Yisa Panim" applies when Yisrael do not do His will - "u'Maltem Es Orlas Levavchem v'Arpechem Lo Sakshu Od" (Devarim 10:16), to transgress His will. Do not rely on Sheker that He will be Nosei Panim for you, for it says "Lo Yisa Panim v'Lo Yikach Shochad"! A bribe of Mitzvos will not cleanse Aveiros. Meticulous Tzadikim, even if they have some sin, Hash-m is not meticulous with them, since they are meticulous with k'Beitzah. Even though Hash-m is meticulous will those around Him like a hair's breadth, He favors the meticulous.

Why did the Gemara need to cite the Seifa "[Asher Lo Yisa Panim] v'Lo Yikach Shochad"?

Anaf Yosef: One might have answered that "Yisa Hash-m Panav Elecha" means that He deducts a Mitzvah [to exempt from punishment] for an Aveirah, but there is no free pardon. "V'Lo Yikach Shochad" refutes this; He does not take a bribe of Mitzvos to cleanse Aveiros.

Here it says that the Torah obligates only for satiation, and Yisrael are stringent even for a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah. Below (49b), Tana'im learn k'Zayis and k'Beitzah from verses!

Maharsha: Tosfos there answers that the verses are a mere Asmachta.

Megadim Chadashim: Bi'ur Halachah (Sof Siman 184) says that most Poskim hold that without satiation, the obligation is only mid'Rabanan. Why did Rishonim not learn so from Kalah Rabasi (4:11), which clearly says so?

Note: There, we tried to learn even if he was not satiated from "Ten la'Am v'Yochelu; ... va'Yochelu va'Yosiru ki'Dvar Hash-m" (Melachim II, 4:43-44). This was rejected.

What is the attribute 'Yisrael are stringent Ad k'Zayis v'Ad k'Beitzah'?

Anaf Yosef and Rav Elyashiv, citing the Vilna Gaon (Mishlei 22:9): The Torah obligates only for satiation. The Rif (Alfasi) writes that this is 18 Grogeros, (this equals three k'Beitzim, or 10 k'Zeisim). Yisrael seek to do the Mitzvah in the ideal way. One who has this amount, he seeks 10 (including himself), so each will eat a k'Zayis, and they will bless with a Zimun and mention His name (Elokeinu). If he cannot find 10, he seeks 3; each will eat k'Beitzah, and they will bless with a Zimun without His name.

Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (OC 49): When Hash-m blesses the food, Yisrael are satiated from a very small amount; that suffices for saying Birkas ha'Mazon. However, since the verse mentions Achilah (which is usually at least a k'Zayis), they feared lest the Berachah be l'Vatalah, so they enacted that one must eat a full k'Zayis to bless, even if it was difficult to eat so much.

Note: He cites the Gemara to say only 'until a k'Zayis.' Seemingly, we could explain that 'or a k'Beitzah' is according to R. Yehudah, who holds that the Shi'ur is k'Beitzah (Brachos 45a). We expound "Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" to be k'Beitzah (Yoma 80a). However, below (49b) it says that R. Yehudah expounds 'Achilah of satiation' to be k'Beitzah. Perhaps the Shi'ur was fixed based on when there was not such a Brachah. (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kol Simchah (Reish Parashas Nasa): Even a small gift from Hash-m is important to Yisrael, due to the importance of the Giver. Sefas Emes (Toldos 5636) says that Tzadikim consider primarily that Hash-m gave, and not the quantity.